Christianity and the submissive female

In an attempt to keep KingLizard's thread on the topic he/she would like it to be, I thought I'd open up this thread.

I contend that the NT clearly states that a woman's place is submissive to the man.

1 corintheans 11 is a good example...

11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

This submissive position of women is also outlined in Ephesians, Colossians, Timothy, and Peter.

For example, Timothy 2...

2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

I understand issues of interpretation, but I'm sure this fits most of the common christian sources.

I really can't see how these verses are congruent with a modern society, clearly attempting to maintain the patriarchal status quo like most religions.

This is a recent quote which came with the OT discussion from NowAmFound...

love is complete submission and service

Maybe to you it is. Being a slave to another person is not my idea of love.


[edit on 19-12-2006 by melatonin]

Well thats the problem when you follow a book that was last edited (as far as i know) 200 years ago. Maybe its time for them to update it again to suit modern needs.

Even God is referred to as a Man. Our society is a "He" driven society. He who shall this, He who cometh here, He who seeks freedom, He this, He that... Male, FE-male.

Yes, it is re-cognized.

We fix it

I don't think the Bible is saying that women should be slaves. However, man was created first, and woman was created only to be the companion of man. I support equality in a relationship just as much as anyone else but I feel that men still carry a role of authority, though in a feminized society that's not a very popular idea.

Originally posted by melatonin


1 corintheans 11 is a good example...

11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Let's explore that verse right there for a minute. "remember me." Fine. I remember that Paul is a leader of the church, a saintlier man than I'll ever be. I also remember that, enspirited as he is, he is not Jesus, and his words, while informative, are not "the red-letter word of Jesus." Therefore, while I attend to his words, I compare them with what Jesus himself taught us.

I believe that all mere men necessarily filter the spirit's utterance through their own understanding. This is why Paul says that salvation is by faith, and James says that works are the seal of that faith: one Holy Spirit, two human interpreters.

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

And how is Christ your head? Does he compel you to obey him? No, he calls you to righteousness. When men are acting that way (women, too) then they are "in Christ." Perhaps in some cultures, in some situations (perhaps like first century Corinth), men might need to be the secular leaders. But not for any spiritual reasons. Because in Christ there is neither male nor female . . .

11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Thanks, Paul, for telling me to judge in myself. The judgment I find is that, in 1st century pagan greek culture, a woman leading would have caused a social upheaval. Those poor greeks weren't even sure women had souls! I know that, as you said Paul, you don't want Christianity to become a social cause; you'd rather people suffered social injustice for a season, than to let faith become a political or gender football. Thanks again, Paul.

This submissive position of women is also outlined in Ephesians, Colossians, Timothy, and Peter.

For example, Timothy 2...

2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

No problems there. I have taught at the university level, and I can tell you, I would that every student of any gender would "learn in silence with all subjection," and save their questions for the socratic dialogue portions of the class . . .

2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I know you don't, Paul. Your mysogynistic culture would have had a fit. Lucky for us, 2000 years of faith have deeply imprinted the equality of women upon our western civilization. So, yeah, Paul. I know you don't suffer a woman. A lot of us, in the 21st century, do what works to spread the gospel in our culture.

love is complete submission and service

Maybe to you it is. Being a slave to another person is not my idea of love.


[edit on 19-12-2006 by melatonin]

Your, choice friend. For my part, I think of Jesus at the last Supper telling the Disciples that whomever would follow him must become a slave.

Now, some of the people we end up in servitude to are unworthy of that service. Jesus served the Disciples who would betray, desert, and forsake him.

On my own little piddling scale, I've learned about that as a father. I remember as a kid, seeing my granddad sit at the head of the table at thanksgiving, and thinking how cool it must be to be the "head of the family."

I ate a cold supper tonight, because one baby was being nursed by mommy while someone else had a potty accident. everyone else ate dinner while I cleaned the mess. I'm up late tonight; I told the wife to go and get some sleep before the 3:00 a.m. feeding, and that I would wash the dishes and bottles, and load the dishwasher before going to bed.

She and the baby will sleep in longest. I will get up first, to fix breakfast and get people to school and work, and then pick them up after their afternoon activities. I'll be the last in bed and the first to arise the next day, too.

Being a Husband and father means eating the black jelly beans, the burnt toast, dealing with the bill collectors, the CPA, and the plumber. It means standing in line at six flags so the kids don't have to wait in line for 2 hours. That's daddy work. It means killing the spiders, and investigating the noises in the garage in the middle of the night.

So yes, I'm the "servant leader" of my household. And a Christian, too. My wife seems o.k. with it. It's worked for a hundred generations; and, done in love, will work for one generation more.

As Frau Dr. has posted on BTS before, she said "Obey" in her wedding vows, because she felt she'd finally met a man who could be the head of the family without being a "boss."

Like another institution, Christianity makes good men better. It also happens to make bad men into hypocrites. But then, in the words of C.S. Lewis,

"You must judge a religion by its butterflies, not by its caterpillars."


all the best.

.
[edit for quote marks ]

[edit on 20-12-2006 by dr_strangecraft]

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

This submissive position of women is also outlined in Ephesians, Colossians, Timothy, and Peter.

For example, Timothy 2...

2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

No problems there. I have taught at the university level, and I can tell you, I would that every student of any gender would "learn in silence with all subjection," and save their questions for the socratic dialogue portions of the class . . .

I agree, as someone who does the same, attention to the aim of a lecture is a good thing for both genders. However, it is only one gender that seems to be the aim of this 'subjection'. Misogyny is at the very root of the judeo-christian theology, in the very first pages, and we see this outlined again in the NT.

Thankfully, most denominations have moved beyond this, but the words remain.

2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I know you don't, Paul. Your mysogynistic culture would have had a fit. Lucky for us, 2000 years of faith have deeply imprinted the equality of women upon our western civilization. So, yeah, Paul. I know you don't suffer a woman. A lot of us, in the 21st century, do what works to spread the gospel in our culture.

I think that faith has had little to do with the equality of women. Christianity had 1800 years to make a move on gender equality, it is only in the last 200 we see a real move to true equality with a beginning in Mary Wollstonecraft.

Not long after some Christians started spreading the need for gender equality in a theology that had clearly stated the inferior position of women. So as is usually the case, social advancement was made in spite of religion.

We should look at the age of enlightenment for the true source of the push for equality of gender (and race).

love is complete submission and service

Maybe to you it is. Being a slave to another person is not my idea of love.


[edit on 19-12-2006 by melatonin]

Your, choice friend. For my part, I think of Jesus at the last Supper telling the Disciples that whomever would follow him must become a slave.

Now, some of the people we end up in servitude to are unworthy of that service. Jesus served the Disciples who would betray, desert, and forsake him.

I know it is my choice and made it I have. As someone in a long-term relationship of 19yrs with a child, I think I made a good one.

My idea of love is not based on complete submission and servitude. It is based on respect, care, and attachment to another.

So yes, I'm the "servant leader" of my household. And a Christian, too. My wife seems o.k. with it. It's worked for a hundred generations; and, done in love, will work for one generation more.

As Frau Dr. has posted on BTS before, she said "Obey" in her wedding vows, because she felt she'd finally met a man who could be the head of the family without being a "boss."

Like another institution, Christianity makes good men better. It also happens to make bad men into hypocrites. But then, in the words of C.S. Lewis,

"You must judge a religion by its butterflies, not by its caterpillars."


all the best.

.
[edit for quote marks ]

[edit on 20-12-2006 by dr_strangecraft]

Well it is a case of whatever works for you.

And in the hands of a good man like yourself, the clear statements of submission and inferiority for females would not be an issue. In other men's hands, not so good, as we know from long experience.

I hope you and your family have a great Xmas

[edit on 21-12-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by southern_cross3
I support equality in a relationship ... I feel that men still carry a role of authority...

Where's the equality if one has the authoritarian role?

Pick one. Are they equal or is one the authority? I don't understand how it can be both ways...

Originally posted by melatonin

We should look at the age of enlightenment for the true source of the push for equality of gender (and race).

They sure didn't act like it. The Enlightenment was the age of institutionalized slavery, and the capture of millions of Africans, and their "transportation" to the new world.

Those practices were only outlawed when abolitionists, impelled by their faith, rose up and did something about it. John Brown was hardly an enlightenment philosopher. He was a preacher.

Likewise, the suffrage and temperance movements began in churches.


The Constitution of the United States also contains provisions for slavery and misogyny. We haven't edited those words out, but we don't "enforce" them, either. We realize that the principles of freedom were filtered through the limitations of the men who put those principles into words.

The Bible is ten times as old as the constitution. Is it surprising that it would enshrine the cultural baggage of another time? Paul admits this, and admits that his instructions are not always infallible:

I Corinthians 7:12

To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

empahsis added by dr_strangecraft

Look, if you want to read the Bible with a jaundiced eye, you should harldy be surprised when it doesn't measure up to your own personal standards.

Like Paul says in Titus 15: "to the pure, all things are pure . . . but to the unbelieving nothing is pure."

Should we reject the Bible because of its culturally influenced assumptions about women?

That's like rejecting Islam, because it forbid beer and pork sausage!



all the best.
.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by melatonin

We should look at the age of enlightenment for the true source of the push for equality of gender (and race).

They sure didn't act like it. The Enlightenment was the age of institutionalized slavery, and the capture of millions of Africans, and their "transportation" to the new world.

Those practices were only outlawed when abolitionists, impelled by their faith, rose up and did something about it. John Brown was hardly an enlightenment philosopher. He was a preacher.

Slavery existed well before the enlightenment age.

The age of reason and enlightenment was a large motivation for the push for rights for all humans irrespective of race or gender, it was a period of challenging current ideas on the natural rights and position of all people.

Even in the UK, which beat the US to fully abolishing slavery, the main instigators were quakers. But the challenging of authority of church and state was instinctive during the period of the enlightenment. But abolitioning of slavery was only one step in a move to equality, even Voltaire, who showed hostility to slavery, still viewed blacks as inferior. So even after abolition of slavery, institutional racism was widespread.

If faith itself was the main instigator for the abolition, considering most people were of faith in those days, it would have been nipped in the bud pretty quick. The abolition of slavery was forced by economic, societal, revolutionary, political, and religious reasons. The change in ideology provided by the enlightenment provided the perfect climate for the process (and the enlightenment also involved people of faith, how could it not), to miss the link between the enlightenment and abolition is to be myopic.

Likewise, the suffrage and temperance movements began in churches.

Not at all.

It was enlightenment thinkers who started the attack on the institutionalised faith-based and socio-political misogyny. I can accept that the major public push for abolition of slavery was largely undertaken by people of faith during the period of enlightenment, but in no way was modern feminsim initiated by any faith-based group.

The Development of Women's Movements, 1789-1914

The Enlightenment

Modern feminism was an offshoot of the Enlightenment, the vast movement of ideas among European intellectuals in the eighteenth century which was characterised by attacks on conventional beliefs (especially religious beliefs) and by unlimited faith in the perfectability of mankind through the application of reason to human affairs.

Though it would be quite misleading to exaggerate the extent to which Enlightenment thinkers were preoccupied with the question of women's subordination, ideas on gender featured prominently in the Enlightenment debate on how to reshape government and society. Enlightened thinkers did much to explode age-old misogynist myths about women inherited from the past by challenging the idea that women’s subordination was an inevitable part of the divine plan. Leading intellectuals such as Denis Diderot (1713-1784) in France and Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746) in Scotland were critical of the ways in which women were oppressed by the law and by the institution of marriage generally.

The outstanding advocate of women's rights among the philosophes was the Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794), who saw education as the key to women's advancement and believed that the notion of the 'rights of man' should be extended to women - including political rights. The Prussian civil servant, Theodor Gottlieb von Hippel (1741-1796) argued along the same lines, as did Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797), whose A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) is generally regarded as the founding text of modern feminism. Though in favour of political representation for at least some women (those 'of a superior cast'), the vote was not Wollstonecraft's primary concern. Rather, she considered better education and reform of the law to be the way to improve women's lot at the end of the eighteenth century.

www.leedstrinity.ac.uk...

ABE:

sorry, I deleted this bit and missed it...

Look, if you want to read the Bible with a jaundiced eye, you should harldy be surprised when it doesn't measure up to your own personal standards.

Like Paul says in Titus 15: "to the pure, all things are pure . . . but to the unbelieving nothing is pure."

Should we reject the Bible because of its culturally influenced assumptions about women?

That's like rejecting Islam, because it forbid beer and pork sausage!

I opened this thread to stop the line of discussion that KingLizard thought OT. The thread was suggesting that even non-christians should follow the teachings of the NT.

I suggested that some of the teachings were not appropriate for modern society. As you seem to agree, they were written in a particular cultural zeitgeist.

It need not be a jaundiced eye, just an individual who reads the words that are written and takes them for what they say, subsequently accepting that such words are pretty abhorent. As you can see in this thread, some still accept that equality involves man having authority over woman.

I don't reject christianity because of its misogynistic teachings, but because I have rationally rejected the myths it contains.





[edit on 21-12-2006 by melatonin]

According to Christian "philosophy", women are equal in life but not in function. The biblical rules directed at women were pertaining to functions; ie: headcovering, teaching, etc. Men also had rules regarding "manly" functions. These rules/guidelines were for the functioning of an orderly society. As children (male or female) we need lots of rules to keep us all on the straight and narrow but 2000 years into the gospel age, we are no longer children.
As an adult, I still automatically follow many of the "rules" taught to me as a child (look both ways before crossing the street, etc.) but I highly resent anyone scolding me like a recalcitrant child if THEY think I'm not following these helpful tips. As a Christian woman who is more of a man than most men I've ever met, I resent being told I need to submit to someone who has less manly virtues than they expect from me.
Concerning the "ordinances" regarding women passed on BY Paul, let me quote a few other things Paul wrote. 1) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of two one new man, so making peace; that he might reconcile both unto God...(eph. 2:15) 2) Wherefore if you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are you subject to ordinances, (touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship and humility and neglecting of the body...If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above... (col. 2:20-3:1).
Paul was speaking to baby Christians and gave them rules for the very young. Perhaps we could get dr_strangecraft to write an epistle for mature Christians? WATS to you, my brother.

I agree that the words of Paul aren't necessarily commandments. Many of the rules that he laid out aren't anywhere else in the Scriptures. Some will contend that all of the Bible is "inspired truth" directly from God to the writer, I don't know that all of it is, but either way I wouldn't automatically throw anything out just because it's not in red letters.

As was said, men and women are equal in their humanity. One is not "better" than another; rather, they are complements, each possessing virtues that make companionship between a man and a woman to be a great benefit. Even so, the Bible and History does seem to indicate that men should generally take positions of authority. Remember that Eve was created for Adam, and not the other way around.

You know, when Eve was deceived and sinned, Adam didn't say, " Hey God, this one's defective. Can I have a different one?" He followed his wife into death (which is where sin leads), trusting his Maker to make things right (in the resurrection). Adam was not deceived. He knew full well what he was doing and the penalty for it.
Manly virtues of honor, righteousness, valor, fortitude, etc. are exceedingly rare among either gender. Solomon said, "One wise man among a thousand have I found but one wise woman among these have I not found." (A man with 300 wives and 700 concubines probably wasn't exaggerating that last statement.)
Speaking only for myself and not women in general: I wouldn't have a problem submitting to a man's "authority" if he were fostering and shepherding rather than exerting some power-mad, little Caesar wannabe boss-of-the-world complex. Men that I've met who insist on women being submissive are always people than no one would willingly submit to under any circumstances. The only card they have to play is gender. Men who are truly leaders with innate authority don't have to insist, cajole, convince, deceive or threaten anyone to follow them or to obey them. Their character makes others want to also be better people. There are many ways to lead but, imho, this is the best way.

My personal take on it is a rather simple one. Men and women are not the same. We are equal in exactly opposite ways from the order of our needs to the way we think about things. I do believe the man should be the authority figure in the household but that leaves him no room to be a slave driver. if anything it gives him the responsibility of making the decisions that are in the best order for his family and should be taking input from his mate, it is her responsibility in turn to trust that man to make the right decision and help him follow through with it, peopel i am sorry but the ship can not have two captians. Look at as houshold government really the leader is to be serving the people, not the leader being served by the people.

Eve never sinned. She ate the fruit of knowledge; what a wonderfull thing to give to man. The highest gift of all, the priceless act of sharing the mind. Man is obsessed with his power and has all but erased woman from his Existence, turning her into sexual pleasure, demeaning names, and a house slave. Where would man be without woman? Where would religion Be without woman? Where would children Be without the kind, caring, loving mind of the mother that is so quickly vanishing because of her oppression which leads to the depression and regression of her sincere Existence. Man... you are not Man without woman, you do Not hold a higher esteem in a household anymore than you do in the foodchain above the woman. The woman is for the man and the man is for the woman.

Homosexuality is all so accepted; love is what transcends and transforms consciousness... pure love, regardless of gender, and Not only the love from Human to Human, yet love from and for the environment that is created and perceived through the emotions that We are

[edit on 23-12-2006 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

In the O.T., when Eve sinned she received this chastisement in the garden: Your desire shall be to your husband. (Was it not already?). In the N.T. we are told that "In Christ" there is neither male nor female. In the book of Romans we are told that there is a difference between "being in spirit" or "being in the flesh". It seems to me that you can kind of tell if you are in spirit or in your flesh by whether your mind is set on "desiring your husband" or "seeking first the kingdom" (where there will be no marrying and giving in marriage).
It's true that a ship can not have 2 captains and there must be one that is recognized as having the final say in a dispute. I don't have a problem with that. Where I get my feathers ruffled is when I hear how women are supposed to do this and do that to make everything right but no balance to the mandate requiring anything of men. If men are the head of the family/household (and I believe they are), shouldn't THEY take the lead to set an example by following THEIR headship? A man that submits to HIS headship is a man that won't be a tyrant. Before men start (continue) using scripture to beat women into submission, they need to read and follow the directions set for them. They need to pick the log out of their own eyes before trying to pick the splinter out of womens eyes. Since men are supposed to be the "leaders" of women, let them take the lead in submitting to their headship and show us "weaker" women how submission is done.
(Stepping off of soapbox now)

So, we have various arguments as to why this situation is acceptable.

However, statistics do show that divorces are more common in christian marriages. So I guess this situation between christian partners is not as solid and loving as that between atheist partners.

Hope you all had a good Xmas.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

However, statistics do show that divorces are more common in christian marriages. So I guess this situation between christian partners is not as solid and loving as that between atheist partners.

And I would guess that correlation is not causation.

I wouldn't be surprised if more athiest couples never married in the first place, and so were in more "temporary long-term relationships."

I would also expect that atheists might be wealthier or better educated, or some other, unstudied subset of the population. Since the vast majority of married couples in the US would self-describe as christian,

You'd need to fit the atheist data to the larger population curve, or face pretty serious distortions. What percentage of couples self-describe as "athiest?" Five percent?

Fitting those figures to the normal curve might prove instructive . . .
.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
And I would guess that correlation is not causation.

I wouldn't be surprised if more athiest couples never married in the first place, and so were in more "temporary long-term relationships."

I would also expect that atheists might be wealthier or better educated, or some other, unstudied subset of the population. Since the vast majority of married couples in the US would self-describe as christian,

You'd need to fit the atheist data to the larger population curve, or face pretty serious distortions. What percentage of couples self-describe as "athiest?" Five percent?

Fitting those figures to the normal curve might prove instructive . . .
.

It's around seven percent in the US fron what I gather. But the data also includes agnostics. But size of group doesn't matter as the data would account for this. However, atheists are on the whole are more educated.

Well the data is not correlational but there are other reasons that could underlie the data thus we would require true isolation of the IV (religious affiliation) to be certain - maybe control socio-economic status etc.

It could well be due to the fact there are three people in the relationship (or even five if we count the trinity). Being more serious, I think it is more likely due to forcing younguns into marriage at an early age. But obviously the meek are not so blessed.

But the finding remains. Of interest is the fact that Jewish marriages are the most likely to fail and are almost 10% more likely than atheist/agnostic marriages (I doubt there are major differences in social status). In the UK, 70% of divorces are intitiated by the wife, it would be interesting to see if this is the case in the US.

If we take another set of data that looks at comparisons between general measures of social dysfunction and religiosity across the developed world - europe, japan, and the US, we again find paradoxical figures. The US is exceptional with regards to per capita wealth, but shows the highest levels of religiosity and resulting higher levels of social dysfunction (homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion).

No divorce figures to hand though.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by melatonin]