Unmuzzle Christian Women

Post Reply New Topic

pandabear [I suspect not with full sincerity] has been arguing against Christian women speaking,. He brings us no objections to other women speaking, or men whether or not Christian, but has chosen to cite the Apostle Paul's epistolary advice on the subject as his sole justification for this discriminatory [look it up] position.

I shall not here - not yet - get into the intriguing question of whether Paul's injunctions are binding on Christians, when some Christian organizations maintain that many of Christ's dicta cannot be applied to his church.

But I want to help my black and white friend.

Here is a very useful link. Too long for me to summarize hdere, but if you have an opionion on talky women and especialt talky Chtistian women you will want to read ir:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/women-prophesying.html

Questions which we need to answer, searching the scriptures, consulting the creeds, and seeking in prayer the insight given us through the Spirit, include:

1. Were Paul's remarks to a particular Greek church normative for the ecumene AT THE TIME?

2. Are his positions binding on the church at THIS time?

3. What kinds of speech are reproved or approved [for Paul surely did not expect any women to be incommunicado for life]?

4. In what settings should or should not women speak?

5. Can restrictions on women's speech - beyond Paul's general preference for orderly church services and advice to people generally on tact and inconspicuous behavior - be reconciled with his statements on our liberty?

Yes, he tells us "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing to the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God"

But he also says "you have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." While he does not add in "man nor woman" or "rich nor poor" or "black nor white", I think we have to take these as implied.

I suspect so.


Churches pick and choose the Bible passages that they wish to follow. The goal of any church being to maximize tithes and offerings, many churches will choose not to be bound by Paul's positions.


Women were permitted to ask their husbands, at home alone, for clarification regarding any religious topic.


Women should not speak in church. Christian women whose husbands have given them leave to enter politics should refrain from discussing religion, or from ostentatiously favoring one religious outlook over all others, in the business of politics. Once in a law-making role, they need to be mindful of the fact that they are making laws for everyone, and should not be seeking to take advantage of their political role to advance the views of any particular religion. Similarly, they should not be seeking to cash in on their religious affiliation to advance their political careers.


What are his statements on liberty?

I suspect so.

[quote]

Your reasoning? We are talking a fairly widespread phenomenon here. Some local commnities were asking Paul's opinion - not however all. From what I know of human nature, I would be surprised if some groups did not ignore Paul or say "you are not the boss of me"?

The inclusion of the Pauline epistles in the canon - once that was established - gave them some authority, but it is not clear that they were ever normative.

Cynical, but probably accurate at least as to the picking and choosing by church organizations. I think myself you are cutting too wide a swath with the economic motivation - I do not think that is a prime consideration for all church organizations. For sure it was not in the last church I belonged to.

But you did not answer the question. I was not talking about individual religious societies, but about THE CHURCH - the body of Christ - the sum of all Christians which is NOT coextensive with the membership of all churches. It includes many who are unchurched - like me - and excludes many who are prominent in church organizations. Are Paul's pronouncements binding on the body of Christ?

What are his statements on liberty?[/quote]

I HOPE you are not forbidding Christian women to talk about or to their children, to inform their husbanfds that dinner is ready, to compare needleworkpatterns, etc. If they must not talk about anything except to askk their husbands about theology, that will be pretty restrictive.

But I suspect you simply spoke carelessly.

But - where do you find Paul saying "Christian women whose husbands have given them leave to enter politics should refrain from discussing religion, or from ostentatiously favoring one religious outlook over all others, in the business of politics. Once in a law-making role, they need to be mindful of the fact that they are making laws for everyone, and should not be seeking to take advantage of their political role to advance the views of any particular religion. Similarly, they should not be seeking to cash in on their religious affiliation to advance their political careers."

In my Bible Paul says nothing about women in politics - not even advising them on whether or how to vote. This appears to be not Paul's opinion, but yours, dangling by a thin thread from a Pauline utterance.

Are you basing this on some denomination's theology? If so refereence, PLEASE - it is a new take on things to me. Or are you simply making it up as you go along?

And if it is your view, what-like Christian are you? Why does your branch of Christianity refuse Christian women the right to speak out for perceived right and against assumed wrong that we grant other women?

I think you have to put things into context. If my memory serves me right (A-level biblical studies several millenia ago) the practise at the time was that men sat at the front and women at the back. The women often couldn't hear the speaker so would shout to their husbands at the front, asking them what was being said. As a result, it sounded more like being at a football match with lots of people shouting to be heard over each other and nobody actually hearing anything.

Paul was just trying to get them all to shut up so they could listen to the speaker. He was basically saying 'look, if you're at the back and miss something, keep your trap shut until afterwards'.

This problem was parodied at the beginning of Life of Brian, where they're all listening to the sermon on the mount and talking over each other thus missing what was actually being said.

Corinth was pretty much the Sin City of the Roman Empire--as Las Vegas is within the USA. Lots of temptations in both places. Paul was more stern in rebuking the Corinthians than anyone else in his letters. And, when his letters were copied and circulated around other Christian communities, I'm sure that they found the licentiousness of the Corinthian church to be quite shocking.

To the extent that THE CHURCH regards the Bible (and Paul's writings) as the Inspired Word of God (or whatever), to be taken seriously, then, yes Paul's pronouncements are binding upon THE CHURCH. Individual churches, nonetheless, are free to pick and choose what they will and will not obey. However, it is incumbent upon individual churches to state explicitly which parts of the Bible they will and will not obey, and to be honest and fully transparent about what they are doing. It used to be customary for women to wear hats to church. Obeying these verses was not a problem when they were consistent with the fashions of the day. Today, few women wear hats, particularly to church (except, I think, among the Mennonites and a few Black churches that continue to adhere to Paul's instructions).

It is no longer fashionable for women to wear hats, possibly in part as a result of feminism. Churches want to go on collecting tithes and offerings. If a pastor told his female congregants to wear a hat, then it is likely that his church would lose considerable financial contributions.

Women should, of course, recite the Lord's Prayer and the Apostle's Creed, together with the men, at the appropriate time during the service. Women should also participate in singing hymns.




The above passage would generally suggest that Christian women should not get involved in politics.

If you look a bit further in the same epistle



The above passage further suggests that Christian women should not have a role in politics.



Okay, fine. I'm making it up as I go along. I suspect that most denominations would like to burn me at the stake--I can't credit any particular denomination's theology for my interpretations.


Christian women may speak for perceived right and against assumed wrong, only as long as they acknowledge specific Bible verses that they are violating in doing so. Ignoring these Bible verses amounts to hypocrisy.

Furthermore, why does Paul prefer that younger widows get married?



It creates a bad impression among non-Christians when ostensibly Christian women, such as Mrs. Palin and Mrs. Bachmann, go about prattling nonsense on their campaign trails. Paul wisely foresaw the outcome: that the enemies of the Christians would have ample opportunity to speak evil of them. In Paul's time, Christian women were wisely kept in silence and under obedience, and none of them became the equivalent of a modern-day Mrs. Palin nor Mrs. Bachmann.

You can find some information on head coverings here

http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/ ... gmyths.php

Some commentary on 1 Timothy 2:12

Clarke's Commentary:



From Gill's Commentary:

I came, I read, I remain unimpressed.

Carry on!

I am going to keep THIS one short, because I am not convinced you are talking from any kind of sincerity. At the very least, you are not speaking as a Christian.

A. Christians are Christianity is - offensive to the nonChristian. Always has been, always will be. The Jews get castigated for being clannish and uppity and claiming to be the chosen people. We Christians - "we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." "Woe unto you," we are told, "when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets." Big Brother does not care for those who speak the truth.

B. The foolishness that Christians in politics speak [and yes, all politicians talk foolishness, that is what politics IS] is - whether spoken by men ore women - no more [and no less] foolish than the foolishness we here from politicians you approve of.

C. A woman running for office - Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Palin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_t ... tes_Senate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_t ... sentatives - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fe ... ted_States [I will not take it down to mayors] - is not by the standards of most US citizens seen as an offense against morality. One may not agree with the policies of this or that woman, but this does not make Christians seem disreputable compared to other groups in society.

D. "In Paul's day women were wisely kept in silence" Yeah, I KNOW you said "Christian women". But in point of fact Paul - whose authority I will not yet debate with you - is telling Christian women - an Christian men - to conform as far as possible to local moral standards. It is refreshing, I guess, that you are so reactionary on the issue of women's suffrage.

E. I hear the suffragettes were criticized for being obnoxious to the establishment.

Nope. Christian politicians are more foolish.


I never claimed it was.


More hypocritical, and therefore more disreputable.


No. He usually tried to dissuade Christians from conforming to local moral standards. He wanted Christians to be better than that.


Indeed they were. The suffragettes weren't content with Paul's teaching to remain silent and under obedience. Paul would never have approved of them.

Is that true in general or just within the USA? As far as I understand, money donated to the church is exactly that: a donation.