This is so sad; but these protestors (hooray, women!!!) are so brave. I don't know that I could have the courage to do what they are doing, and I hope with all of my heart that this will all be resolved and people will be put back in charge of their government, de facto their lives- especially the women. They deserve to experience some power, now.

But, it's very possible that I'm misreading the cartoon, but Islam isn't what requires women to wear burqas. The burqa is a choice. I think that it is the culture of Iran or at the very least the Middle East- the laws of the land- that pressure women into it or require it. Islam doesn't force women into the role that the law has.

You're so right Jill. Iran needs the Gospel desperately. They are 99% Muslim and while the state technically considers the .4% Christian population a "protected minority", in reality there is no protection. Pastors and church-goers are harrassed and therefore many have gone underground.

Years ago, I used to attend a weekly prayer meeting that focused on needs of the persecuted church. I don't remember anything in my Christian walk that stirred up as much opposition as attending that prayer meeting. It was amazing how every week, something would come up to try to distract me and keep me from getting there.

I imagine it's similar to what a lot of sidewalk counselors face when going out to rescue children at abortion mills - the front lines of battle, no doubt.

"Heavenly Father, may the Church of Jesus Christ wake up and take its proper place in the Earth. May our intercession shake the gates of Hell and drive back the powers of darkness that have terrorized and victimized the women of Iran. May we boldly confront our leaders to bring effective diplomatic and political pressure to support the cause of the oppressed there. Give our leaders backbone, oh God, and a burden to help those under this tyranny. Lord we pray for an open door for the Gospel to be preached in Iran. Help us to know what we can do to help alleviate their suffering. Strengthen our resolve Lord as we fight for justice for the women of Iran and for the unborn in America and throughout the world.

In your Mighty Name we pray Lord Jesus, amen.

Vannah,

I suggest following atlasshrugs.com and JihadWatch.com for a few weeks and you will come to the painful realization, as I did, that the last sentence of your comment is wishful thinking.
Those sites really rip off the mask of Islam. Much like Jill just ripping off the hypocritical mask of NOW in her post.

Hold on a second, I'm still in the throes of riotous laughter as the absurdity of Jill's post today.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, HAHAHA, ha ha, hardy har har.

Ok, now that that is out of the way:

Part of the reason I shed my faith is the abhorent things the Bible says about the roles and positions of women.

This pretty much told me all I needed to know as far as whether or not I would continue to be a believer:

I Tim 2:

11.Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12.But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13.For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14.And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15.Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

The idea that the Bible is a liberated women's book is just ridiculous.

I'm glad the women of Iran have had enough. I'm glad they're taking a stand against those who would oppress them. They need freedom more than anyone else in Iran right now. The can do it. We can do it.

And my feelings regarding the Koran are even stronger, as from what I have read, that book's teachings are even more oppressive.

What some people in Islam do doesn't represent all of Islam. It can't. Just as people say, "Take a look at what the reality of being pro-life is," when glancing at the George Tiller murder, the reality of Islam is complex. I really do think that it is the Middle East, and not Islam, that is responsible for the problems. Though, of course, the Middle East isn't evil- it just has a lot of issues that are bogging it down (I'm mean, really down).

I'll try to get around to your website though, Carder, to see you side of things about this.

xalisae,

Sorry to hear you've abandoned your faith. The Christian walk is one of liberty, not bondage. I'm going to do a little research on the passage you quoted but you have to be careful not to take one passage and make gross generalizations.

Jesus came to set the captives free, not put them into religious bondage. There is a lady by the name of Joyce Meyer who is a very popular Christian teacher / speaker doing a tremendous work for God.

God doesn't hate women, consider how beautiful women are. They're the crown of His Creation, His masterpiece.

And regardless of your position with respect to faith, I am proud to fight with you, shoulder to shoulder, on behalf of the unborn.

and for women's rights.

Ed,

If you happen to have "The Big Book of Bible Difficulties" by Norm Geisler, he gives an excellent exegesis of the passages on page 497.

There is a very interesting show today on the eternal world catholic show the World Over Live Show at 5p.m. with Raymond Arroyo. Some non-Catholics will recognize his name from the Laura Ingraham radio show. He interviews the producer Steve McAveety (not sure of the spelling)of the movie, The Stoning of Sarriah M , again not sure of the spelling. Very enlightening and inspiring. Also you can probably get info from Raymond Arroyo's website, just do a search The World Over Live.
Too bad the feminists groups are not educating themselves of the true nature of authentic feminism. This movie depicts the battles happening for women in countries that are really suffering as far as women's rights. Unfortunately their agenda does not allow them to join this cause because it does not address their(radical feminism) precious right to abort their young. Only then, would they be on board.
I wonder where Jay Leno's wife stands on this movie.... just pondering.

God doesn't hate women, consider how beautiful women are. They're the crown of His Creation, His masterpiece.

What a lovely statement Ed! Thank-you.

I agree that Christianity is the one religion that has worked unceasingly to uphold the dignity of women!

I read somewhere that the most beautiful creation to a man is a woman! (And vice versa!)

Bobby, can you give us a quick summary if you have the time! Good to see you are back! :)

"Had Iranian women been protesting for the right to abort..." How true! If that had been the case our leftist media pundits would have been going ballistic. As it is, the opportunity to contrast the freedom and respect women have in western culture versus that of much of the Muslim world was by and large ignored. But, then again, even with those rights women enjoy do enjoy, there are those who abuse them by using the threat of emotional disengagement in any number of ways, abortion included. There would be far fewer abortions if the men in the life of those women would be more supportive.

While on the subject of Iran, our young president's impotent words and gestures are seen for what they are by the mullahs--meaningless. Meanwhile, our leftist MSM pundits are cooing about how nuanced and measured those words are. It is a surreal scene, especially when we are forced to note the the president of France, of all places, actually exhibited more testosterone than his counterpart, a.k.a. the "leader of the free world."

The Stoning of Soraya M.

http://www.thestoning.com/

I'll just type in the text from Gesler's book. The following is from Norm Gesler's book mentioned above in response to the passages from 1 Tim:

"When properly understood, these and many other passages of the bible exalt the role of women and give them a tremendous ministry in the body of Christ. Several things should be kept in mind on the topic of the role of women in the church.
First, the bible declares that women, like men, are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27). That is, they are equal with men by nature. There is no essential difference- both male and female are equally human by creation.
Secind, both men and women are equal by redemption. They both have the same Lord and both share equally in exactly the same salvation. For in Christ "there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28).
Third, there are no sex symbols on the ministry gifts listed in the bible. It does not say "gift of teaching- male; gift of help- female." In other words, women have the same gifts for ministry to the body as women do.
Fourth, throughout the bible, God gifted, blessed, and greatly used women in ministry. This includes Miriam, the first minister of music (Ex 15:20), Deborah (Jud 4:4), Huldah the prohetess (2 Chron. 34:22), Anna the prophetess (Luke 2:36), Prasilla the bible teacher (Acts 18:26), and Phoebe the deconess (Rom 16:1).
Fifth, Jesus had many women who assisted him in the ministry (Luke 23:49, John 11). Indeed, it is very significant that in a patriarchal culture that Jesus chose women for his first two resurrection apperences (Matt 28:1-10, John 20:10-18). St. Peter did not make it until the third round (1 Cor 15:5)!
Sixth, whatever Paul may have meant by the "women be silent" passage, he certainly did not mean that they should have no ministry in the church. This is clear for several reasons. For one thing, in the same book of 1 Corinthians, Paul instructed women on how they should pray and prophesy in the church, namely, in a decent and orderly way (1 Cor 11:5). Further, there were also times when all the men were to be "silent" as well, namely, when someone else was giving utterance from God (14:28). Finally, Paul did not hesitate to use women to assist him in the ministry, as is indicated by the crucial role he gave Phoebe in delivering to its destination the great epistle to the Romans (Rom. 16:1).
Seventh, when understood in context, the "silence" passages are not negating the ministry of women, but are limiting the authority of women. Paul asserts that women are not permitted "to have authority over a man." (1 Tim 2:12) Likewise, he follows his extortion to "keep silent" by reminding them to be "submissive" (1 Cor 14:34). Of course, men too were under authority and needed to submit to the headship of Christ over them (1 Cor 11:3). Indeed, the ultimate proof that there is nothing degrading about being submissive is that Christ, who was God in human flesh, is always submissive to the Father, both on earth (Phil 2:5-8) and even in heaven (1 Cort 15:28) That male headship and leadership is not simply a cultural matter is evident by the fact taht it is based on the very order of creation (1 Cor 11:9, 1 Tim 2:13). Thus, elders are to be men, "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2). This however in no way demeans or diminishes the role of women, either in the family or in the church. The fact that men can not have babies is not demeaning to their humanity or their role in the family. It is simply that God has not granted them this function, but a different one.
Eight, God has given women an exalted role both by order of creation and redemption. First of all, Eve was not created from Adam's feet to be walked on by him, nor his head to rule over him, but from his side to be equal and companion to him. (Gen 2:19-25) Furthermore, ever man ever born was carried by a woman's womb and then, the vast majority were nurtured by her through infancy, childhood, and youth until they grew up. In addition, when God chose the vessel by which he himself would become manifest in human flesh, it was not by direct creation of a bod (as Adam), or in assuming a visible form (as the angel of the Lord) nor was it by cloning a male human being. Rather, it was by being miraculously concieved and carried to full term in a woman's womb, the blessed virgin Mary. What is more, God has, thorough the birth and nurturing process, endowed women with the most marvelous role in forming all human beings, including every man, at the most tender and impressionable times of their lives, both parental and postnatal. Finally, in the Church, God ha made woman "one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28) and bestowed upon them the gifts of the spirit (1 Cor 12:14, Rom 12) whereby they can edify the body of Christ including prophecy (Acts 2:17-18, 21:9) and teaching (Acts 18:26, Titus 2:4)."

yes I saw the trailer Carla. It looks like a very interesting movie.

I totally agree with Jill's argument that Jesus was essentially a feminist. The problem is that Paul didn't get the memo.

I think that Bobby's analysis is correct, but it is essentially a rationalization of one class of people (women) being subordinated to another class of people (men). Somehow this subordination is not made more palatable by the fact that men are also to submit, given that men's submission is to an invisible god whose wishes only male respresentatives in the clergy are (in general) allowed to interpret.

The bottom line is that all of the Abrahamic religions are patriarchal, and there is not much of a way around that. That is not to say that I wink at all at the atrocities perpetrated on women in the name of Islam. And in fact, western feminists like Ms. Leno were sounding the alarm about the Taliban long before any conservatives took notice.

As someone who has traveled extensively in the Middle East, I think that Obama is playing this perfectly. Making a big stink would just play into Ahmadenijad's hands given that Iranians of all political stripes are generally opposed to U.S. meddling in their country's affairs.

"Seventh, when understood in context, the "silence" passages are not negating the ministry of women, but are limiting the authority of women. Paul asserts that women are not permitted "to have authority over a man." (1 Tim 2:12) Likewise, he follows his extortion to "keep silent" by reminding them to be "submissive" (1 Cor 14:34). Of course, men too were under authority and needed to submit to the headship of Christ over them (1 Cor 11:3). Indeed, the ultimate proof that there is nothing degrading about being submissive is that Christ, who was God in human flesh, is always submissive to the Father, both on earth (Phil 2:5-8) and even in heaven (1 Cort 15:28) That male headship and leadership is not simply a cultural matter is evident by the fact taht it is based on the very order of creation (1 Cor 11:9, 1 Tim 2:13). Thus, elders are to be men, "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2). This however in no way demeans or diminishes the role of women, either in the family or in the church..."

I find that entire thing no less than infuriating. I am submissive to no man, never will be, and if ANYONE wants to try to get me to submit, I can assure them they'll have at the very least a fistfight on their hands.

Particularly this piece: "but are limiting the authority of women. Paul asserts that women are not permitted "to have authority over a man."'

It's the kind of thinking like that which makes me want to get a different degree and become head of some random company department, staff it entirely with men, and treat them all like crap. I am SO GLAD we have women in the military now and are working towards throwing off this utterly backwards thinking. ^_^

Posted by: xalisae at June 28, 2009 12:46 PM
------

xalisae - 3 questions for you:

1) If at one time you received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, (thus a true believer) but later rejected Him because of what it says in his Word, then did you really receive Him as Lord?

2) Do you understand what is described in context?

3) Would you be willing to reject all that Christianity has brought to Western Civilization?

See, the problem I have is you treat the Scripture you quote very seriously, to the point of believing it may be followed by those within the Church. However, by rejecting Christ's authority, you are your own god. So was your faith real or is what was written real?

Re: context, 1 Tim 2 is where Paul is speaking specifically about practices he follows. These are Paul's practices, not God's commands. As Jill pointed out, within Paul's day, men would have felt uncomfortable with the equality of women, so Paul was accommodating/teaching them. Such practices aren't necessary in a Church where authority is properly respected, and love and respect is properly shown. I'll grant you that others within the professed Church can take the passage out of context, but that's why it's important to understand the principles and context of the whole Holy Bible.

My last point is while it's easy for you to reject the Bible, you do so because of the liberties afforded you by those who follow the commandments of the Bible, seek the principles found within it, and serve a gracious and merciful God. Without Christianity, Western Civilization, and particularly, the United States would not be nearly as free.

I find that entire thing no less than infuriating. I am submissive to no man, never will be, and if ANYONE wants to try to get me to submit, I can assure them they'll have at the very least a fistfight on their hands.
Posted by: xalisae at June 28, 2009 3:00 PM
-----

Ever have a male boss? :-)

I have to wonder - the context in which you understand what submission means is more akin to rape than the way I understand it.

If a male police officer told you to stop - would you submit? Why respect his authority if you did stop, but reject the authority of the church? Simply because their can be female police officers, but not female pastors according to Paul?

I especially appreciate and second the comments made by Bobby Bambino on June 28, 2:23 p.m. and those made by Chris Arsenault on June 28, 3:02 p.m.

"Ever have a male boss? :-)"

Wow...I had never thought of it before...but really, I haven't. That's kinda cool.

"If a male police officer told you to stop - would you submit? Why respect his authority if you did stop, but reject the authority of the church? Simply because their can be female police officers, but not female pastors according to Paul?"

He's a representative of the law. Law has no gender, and as a citizen of the United States, I am bound to follow it, male or female.

Chris,

There is a difference between submitting to someone who happens to be a man and submitting to someone because he is a man.

I used to have a male boss and yes, I followed his direction. But now he has moved on and I am in his place -- whereas under the "women can never have authority over men" scenario, I would be a permanent second class citizen.

I see you have a more liberal interpretation of the Bible, but as you admit in your second to last paragraph of your comment at 3:02, many other groups do not. The Bible has been used to justify such as things as women's permanent submission to their husbands and women's exclusion from the clergy.

Law has no gender, and as a citizen of the United States, I am bound to follow it, male or female.
------

Ah - so why would it be any different for those who are both professing Christ and being obedient to Him?

"I have to wonder - the context in which you understand what submission means is more akin to rape than the way I understand it."

Well, in the context of the verse it sounds like someone telling me to sit down, shut up, do whatever a man might tell me, and believe whatever he might say is right.

I will not shut up. I will not do whatever I am told just because a man has told me to do it. I will use MY brain to think logically about my position on every issue and why, and I refuse to just accept anything I am presented with from anyone, let alone men in general just because it's a man that has told it to me.

I can fight laws. I can't fight God. That's the great thing about the disembodied voice. I can't go to his house and picket. I don't have civil disobedience (breaking the law, which I would do if I felt it was unjustly discriminating against me) to shift public opinion and get him to change his ways. But another great thing about it is, all I have to say is, "I don't believe you." and it has no control over me in any way whatsoever. It has only the control over me I let it. If I break the law, I get thrown in prison. Big difference.

"My last point is while it's easy for you to reject the Bible, you do so because of the liberties afforded you by those who follow the commandments of the Bible, seek the principles found within it, and serve a gracious and merciful God."

I do so because I am able to because of laws and a government contructed by courageous men and women SOME of whom have believed themselves in some principles of the Bible, followed the writings and teachings of others who believed in liberty and freedom and not God, and arrived at the conclusion we have today. I love this country, I love this form of government with freedom and (for the most part) just laws representing (almost) every citizen. In all my experiences with relgion, it's only felt like an oppression in every way, shape, and form, and I shrugged it off partly to be able to embrace fully the liberty afforded me by my wonderful country.

Hey there, PC'er, how did the lawn care go yesterday?

I especially appreciate and second the comments made by Bobby Bambino on June 28, 2:23 p.m. and those made by Chris Arsenault on June 28, 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: Raymond V at June 28, 2009 3:18 PM

me too!
Thanks Bobby.

Xalisae -- Sigh. Lawncare is one of those never ending chores. I haven't gotten through quite evreything I wanted to this weekend -- partially due the allure of Ms. Stanek's blog and her fabulous commenters!

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 28, 2009 3:23 PM
-----

Actually, I don't have a liberal interpretation, because when it comes to spiritual matters, it's pretty clear that men are not supposed to have a woman placed over him. This is for the reason I describe in my comment at 3:24. God appeared as Jesus - as a man. This is not something I chose - He did. As Christ is the fulfillment of the law, (he is the Law personified) then I am in submission to Christ. In effect, I become submissive to Him. Not to say he will harm me, or I'm a wuss, or all the modern connotations we associate with submissiveness (which is more like S&M thinking). No - it's because 50-50 isn't viable when it comes to authority. Every business has some means of majority stake, so if two people held a business, one person would hold 51% and the other 49%. If there's ever contention, the 51% has the final say. That's not saying the person is right - it's only the mechanism that prevents what's called deadlock - where a vote loops continuously.

The Body of Christ is also known as the Bride of Christ because of this submissiveness. Although it's hardly a 51% 49% arrangement - He is so much greater! Christ treats us with that level of respect. That picture - of Christ as the groom and the Church as bride is a model of a marriage. It is the spiritual ideal.

Besides following that model, submission has to do with authority, and I actually can discuss in considerable detail why what the Bible says makes a lot of sense when it comes to raising children of both sexes and having the man as the final parental authority in the family.

If I break the law, I get thrown in prison. Big difference.

Posted by: xalisae at June 28, 2009 3:29 PM
------

Don't confuse justice delayed with justice denied. :-)

I am praying for my sisters and brothers in Christ that are dying for the faith and continue to be persecuted for Christ. Also praying for those that do NOT know Him. The world needs Jesus.

I am so grateful that I know this Jesus that loves women!!

PS
Our pastor today showed his granddaughter in 4D ultrasound on the big screen! It was so amazing. He talked about life beginning at conception and the DNA of every child will NEVER be replicated again. Every fingerprint unique to each baby, by God's design.

I guess this is the problem then, Chris. In my family, if it is something he feels more strongly about or if I lack knowledge on the subject or have previously made an obviously poor choice, he will correct me and take the authority on that particular decision. The same applies in reverse, although he seems to care much less about a much broader scope of things than I do, so it's a simple, "Hey, hun, can you do/not do x thing?" (most of the time. depending on what it is, sometimes it's more severe, or sometimes he'll propose an alternate route that makes more sense to us both, or I might)

Your frame of thinking is admittedly somewhat foreign to me.

It's the kind of thinking like that which makes me want to get a different degree and become head of some random company department, staff it entirely with men, and treat them all like crap. I am SO GLAD we have women in the military now and are working towards throwing off this utterly backwards thinking. ^_^
Posted by: xalisae at June 28, 2009 3:00 PM

and just how would this be helpful? The mature approach would be to do EXACTLY the first part and then teach the men by example how human beings should be treated by recognizing their dignity as persons and acting accordingly. Women can do much to change the workplace, to humanize it and infuse it with dignity.

As Jill pointed out, within Paul's day, men would have felt uncomfortable with the equality of women, so Paul was accommodating/teaching them. Such practices aren't necessary in a Church where authority is properly respected, and love and respect is properly shown.

Another passage where feminists get their knickers in knots is the Ephesians 5:22 "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands....."

On the face of it, it appears that God is telling men that they can boss and subjugate their wives around. Not so. For the second part of the passage exhorts men to "love your wives, as Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for her....".

Even when questioned on adultery and divorce, Christ mentioned how the hearts of men were so hardened that in Moses day he allowed for divorce. But that God had not intended it so.

Chris -- Oops my error. I thought you were saying that Pauline teachings about women not being allowed to rule over men were something we could ignore in this day and age. Guess not!

Angel, I am familiar with the command in Ephesians that men are to their love their wives. But that doesn't change the first part that commands women to submit to their husbands. So it is still patriarchal. I don't see how a command to the husbands to be loving makes it okay for them to be in charge.

Think of it this way. Suppose we lived in a country with a hereditary caste of noblemen who were in charge. They got to make all the decisions for the country. The people could be heard but wouldn't have a vote, nor an opportunity to join the caste of noblemen. Let's say the noblemen were under a command to be extremely loving towards the people and work in their best interest. Would that be okay? Do you think the men reading this blog would be okay with that?

well it does PC, because how did Christ love the church? Christ completely submitted himself to the point of death. So a man in a Christian marriage should be prepared to die to himself for the love of his wife and children. In fact, Christ's directive to men is much harder than it is to women.

"and just how would this be helpful? The mature approach would be to do EXACTLY the first part and then teach the men by example how human beings should be treated by recognizing their dignity as persons and acting accordingly. Women can do much to change the workplace, to humanize it and infuse it with dignity."

I never said I was mature, and I won't deny that I can be very spiteful. If I feel the rules are nonsensical or arbitrary, I freely admit I can be highly rebellious. ;)

When Jesus came out of the tomb, he was first seen by women. It was the men who saw later. It wasn't His disciples even.

Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands only. (And I suggest that a man totally devoted and surrendered to Christ, no wife on earth would have a problem with submitting to).

Husbands are commanded to give their lives up for their wives AND to submit to them as well (mutually).

Which is an easier command to obey? In light of this command who has more culpability to God?

Prochoicer: Someday, and I hope soon, you realize that there is a God in Heaven, that the Bible is His Word, and He is to be obeyed. In essence what I am saying PCer is that your opinion, compared to what God commands, doesn't amount to a hill of beans. He is the Creator and we are the creation and there is, as demonstrated by everything in the Universe, a divine order set in place.

Jesus Christ was and is the ultimate women's liberator. This is why He would never, ever condone abortion, because He loves women, totally and unconditionally.

On the other hand, the women's movement and the abortion movement have enslaved more women than any other movement in the history of mankind and set their teeth on edge against a Holy God.

He simply asks that we trust Him during our short and fleeting stay on this planet in preparation for eternity. Remember that Satan was able to deceive a third of the angels into warring against God and as a result earn an eternity in hell for their rebellion.

Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator,

Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer,

Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy,

Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it's earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it's earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive,

Abortion's desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.

Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it's solution; annihilation, it's goal; death, it's dream; breaking God's heart, it's vision, Satan's ultimate power.

Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of Satan are everywhere to be found in its performance;

Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,

Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God, Yes, abortion is Satan's feeble attempt at killing God Himself, for abortion is a metaphor for Satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him......for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.

I never said I was mature, and I won't deny that I can be very spiteful. If I feel the rules are nonsensical or arbitrary, I freely admit I can be highly rebellious. ;)
Posted by: xalisae at June 28, 2009 4:56 PM

agreed.
However, the best way to change behaviors is to model them! ;)

Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands only. (And I suggest that a man totally devoted and surrendered to Christ, no wife on earth would have a problem with submitting to).

I agree.

Husbands are commanded to give their lives up for their wives AND to submit to them as well (mutually).

Which is an easier command to obey? In light of this command who has more culpability to God?

Many men (but not all) have forsaken their duties before God. But they've also been portrayed as bumbling nitwits in TV, movies and commericals. Something that truly bothers me.

Ah yes, the man's obligation is somehow harder -- noblesse oblige! In a way it is a lot easier to be a peasant because you just have to worry about yourself and your family, whereas the poor nobleman has to protect everyone and go into combat and make the hard decisions on behalf of his vassals and his serfs. Yet, I have a feeling most of us would choose to be noblemen rather than peasants.

Of course, as you point out, this is only my opinion, and who am I to argue with God? But I have always believed that God is man's creation and that "God" has been used to keep women in line for thousands of years. (When holes appear in theology's elaborate justifications for women's subordination, religious apologists can always fall back on saying, "Well, God said so.") Jesus was a breath of fresh air who didn't use God as an excuse to subjugate women, but the same cannot be said of his predecessors or his successors.

His Man, I do believe that your faith is sincere, so I am not trying to say that you personally are making God up. But I do think that ultimately God was made in image of Man, and serves partially as Man's mouthpiece.

All that said, I do appreciate your good wishes and many of the positive values your religion espouses.

Posted by: xalisae at June 28, 2009 3:55 PM & 4:56 PM
--------

So when you ballroom dance, do you change lead while dancing?
(Hey, it might work... it might look... creative. ;-)

-----
Posted by: Prochoicer at June 28, 2009 4:21 PM

Chris -- Oops my error. I thought you were saying that Pauline teachings about women not being allowed to rule over men were something we could ignore in this day and age. Guess not!
-------

Insofar as spiritual authority is concerned. Otherwise, you're assuming way too much. I can tell from the rest of your comment you're not paying much attention to what I was saying.

Boy, this is a juicy thread isn't it?

Jill you really know how to get us fired up! Way to hit that nerve:)

Women are so cool!

Great thread. If I get cancelled tonight I'll add a bit more to it. For now, suffice it to say that I agree with the interpretation set forth by Bobby, Chris and others.

I have NO problems submitting to my husband. That in no way makes me a peasant or a second class citizen. My husband would die for me in a heartbeat. He strives each and every day to protect, serve, care for, and love me and the children... In fact, when a husband truly dies on a daily basis to his own selfish needs and desires in order to best serve his wife and children, how could any woman NOT want to reciprocate by responding to his love and protection? (Not to mention, it's incredibly sexy. Could help explain the seven kids... LOL)

Vannah,
It just so happens that Robert Spencer, the blogger on Jihadwatch, has a post on American Thinker today about the movie "The Stoning of Soraya M."

He's a scholar on the subject, has written a number of books, and knows his Koran. And the Hadiths.

I'll let you be the judge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/stoning_of_soraya_m_actress_sp.html

"However, the best way to change behaviors is to model them! ;)"

Oh, how I do try to remember that on a daily basis. It's hard! :(

"So when you ballroom dance, do you change lead while dancing?
(Hey, it might work... it might look... creative. ;-)"

I generally tend to opt not to ballroom dance in the first place. :P

I agree with you, PC'er, on this point.

You know, women bring so much color and passion and beauty to life. I realize I'm generalizing a bit but I know a lot of times, I'm content to get a job done and move on to the next one. It just seems like most women have that flair to really make something special, glorious.

The cultures that treat women like second class citizens or worse are evil. And the men have no clue what they're missing - how they're choking so much life, vitality and beauty out of their societies by their austere, stifling, criminal treatment of the pinnacle of God's Creation.

I had to type in a "w". I think it's a sign:)

Sorry if someone already made this comment but in case no one did...

Are you forgetting, xalisae, that Mary was given more reverence in the Bible than any human except for Jesus? She is also invoked by the Church as our Mother and protector. The apparitions of Mary all over the world further her work of calling us to her Son in Heaven. If God felt negatively toward women why would she be given such a prominent position?

Chris,

No, I did read your comments.

I just don't see the need for a chain of authority in a marriage. It is not the military, for goodness sake. If you and your partner really disagree on a fundamental point (like, say, whether children should be physically punished), then I question whether the marriage is viable in the first place. If the disagreement relates to something more minor, then these things can generally be worked out by consensus, or by putting the decision in the hands of the spouse who is more knowledgeable or more invested in a particular issue.

I also question why my husband should die for me and not I for him. I like to think that we are pretty reciprocal in what we do for each other.

That is not to say that I think Angel is a peasant or anything like that. But my point was that just being the one to give more (like the nobleman) doesn't mean that his position isn't more desirable. I bet none of the men on this thread would be overly eager to switch to the submissive/protected role if given the opportunity.

Posted by: xalisae at June 28, 2009 6:10 PM
----

Actually, the ballroom dancing thing - that was me. I answered two comments with one. Sorry for the confusion.

Goodnight all!

Just another thought before I go beddie-bye-boop myself.

I am EXTREMELY critical of Islam, but I note that Muslims make the exact same arguments on behalf of their religion as non-feminist Christians do for theirs. Mohammed also taught that men and women are equal before God and that everyone -- male and female -- must submit to God. (The very word "Islam" means "submission.") When Muslims go on pilgrimage to Mecca everyone, male and female, dresses in white to symbolize their sameness and equality in the eyes of God.

Mohammed's wife Khadijah was an accomplished businesswoman and the first convert to Islam after Mohammed received his revelation. She was a major donor, contributing HER wealth to the propagation of Islame. Muslimes proclaim Mohammed as a liberator of women who was quite progressive in his treatment of women given the standards of his time:

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Muhammad-the-liberator-of-women.html

Today's harsher Muslim societies (like Saudi) justify their practices in terms of protecting and reverencing women.

To me, the differences between non-feminist Islam and non-feminist Christianity are ones of degree rather than kind. I recognize that there are feminists trying to reform both religions, though methinks they have a tough row to hoe given some of the unequivocal statements in the Bible and in the Koran.

Hello

I was going to come back to this site again to share some happy news I have, but I was devastated to come to this.

Clearly, many if not most of you are completely and absolutely ignorant about Islam outside of what Fox News says about it. Why don't you try asking actual Muslims how they feel? Actual Muslim women? I understand that some of these Islamic societies have ridiculous and VERY un-Islamic rules (for example, it is true that Islam requires women to cover, but there is no punishment actually prescribed for them if they don't, whereas in some countries there are actual penalties), but that does not represent Islam and it does not represent Muslims.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and most of its converts are women, such as myself. I know many Muslim women from Pakistan, Egypt, India, Afghanistan, even Saudi Arabia, and none of them feel oppressed.

If you choose to continue believing these horrific things about Islam, then that is your choice, but I implore you to look at something real: read the Qur'an, Hadith, and ask actual real Muslim people what they think of the status of women. Women and men are EQUALS in Islam. To say we need the Gospel is absurdly ignorant, as we already follow many parts of the Christian Bible--a tolerance that many self-proclaimed "Christians" might want to consider ("love thy neighbour...?).

My name provides a link to my blog about Islam if you are interested.

The level of misinformation and poor comprehension on this website is appalling. Jill, you should be ashamed of yourself, not that I actually expect you to be.

Please, everyone, live in peace. Love your neighbours as the honoured Prophet Jesus (AS) told you to do.

My happy news: I am pregnant. My husband and I area bsolutely thrilled and we hope for a girl every bit as much as we hope for a boy.

Do not expect me to visit this site again. I should hope posts like this would bring many people to realize that they should not read this site either.

Assalaam alaikum (peace be with you)

I have NO problems submitting to my husband. That in no way makes me a peasant or a second class citizen. My husband would die for me in a heartbeat. He strives each and every day to protect, serve, care for, and love me and the children... In fact, when a husband truly dies on a daily basis to his own selfish needs and desires in order to best serve his wife and children, how could any woman NOT want to reciprocate by responding to his love and protection? (Not to mention, it's incredibly sexy. Could help explain the seven kids... LOL)
Posted by: Elisabeth at June 28, 2009 6:02 PM

well said.

Ed, lol!

That is not to say that I think Angel is a peasant or anything like that. But my point was that just being the one to give more (like the nobleman) doesn't mean that his position isn't more desirable. I bet none of the men on this thread would be overly eager to switch to the submissive/protected role if given the opportunity.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 28, 2009 6:29 PM

gee thanks. I never made the remark about being a peasant and I won't say what I think of you :(

BTW, God is not MALE. God has no sex. But we are made in the image of Him, male and female. This is not referring to our physical appearance nor our bodies, but our spiritual character.
Like Elisabeth I have no problem with male authority in a marriage. I think combined with loving faith, it can make for a very sexy situation. ;)

"...for example, it is true that Islam requires women to cover..."

And for reasons like this I have just as much of a negative impression for Islam in regards to following it myself as I do for Christianity.

My opinion of Islam has changed a lot since my husband got back from his latest tour in Iraq. He spent much time with the interpreters while he was there, and he has a genuine care and understanding for them. He corrected my misconceptions and falsely-based opinions about their religion, and I now agree that the media over-coverage of the most sensational aspects of Islamic radical beliefs in no means represents the whole of Islam, and I try so very hard to remember this diligently. However, like I said, I have problems with Islam just as I have problems with Christianity and just about any and every other religion as a whole and for the same reasons. However, I respect and love those people who practice it just as I would hope they respect and love me, even if sometimes I don't show it because I become exasperated at times, and it is for those times I am truly sorry.

But, anyway, congratulations, Leah. Having babies has been the greatest single accomplishment of my life to date, and I know it will never be topped. It really is amazing, and through the experience I've come to know how valuable human life is, including those in the womb, and have gained a fervor of my convictions regarding the topic of protecting the unborn that simply cannot be matched in any other aspect of my life. I hope your experience is also a great one. :)

AMEN!!! Jill you were preaching and I totally received and believed it. You are soooo right!!!! OBama is not the Savior they need....JESUS IS!!!!!

Leah:

The simple fact is that Islam is a lie.

It rejects Christ as the Son of God and as the Messiah, therefore cutting off any means of salvation trough faith in Christ. Many have been led to their destruction by Islam which is a works based religion. To think that one can be good enough to deserve God's approval is supremely arrogant.

Please don't tell me you follow the Christian Bible when you reject the cornerstone of the faith - Jesus Christ. Besides, following any religion will not get you anywhere before a Holy God.

The Bible says that all such people who believe that Jesus is not the Son of God are of the anti-Christ Spirit. God loves us and wants relationship with us but that can only come through faith in His Son who is the physical representation of the Father. If you reject Christ you reject the Father.

The truth of what Islam is was clearly demonstrated on the streets of Iran with the cold blooded murder of Neda and that I am sure with the complete approval of the Mullahs and clerics that run the country.

Also, it is Islam that wants to destroy the Jews, the very apple of God's eye and the clear evidence that this is a belief system not from God.

While you are a very nice person, you believe a lie that will not save your soul. I hope you repent before it is too late for it will be God Himself who say to you and anyone else that rejects Christ, "your works are as filthy rags". This is absolute truth Leah and I hope you face it.

Angel:

You say God has no gender? Jesus Christ (God) sits at the right hand of the Father in full bodily form and the last time I read He was still a male, no? I think the point is that God does not see any differences between male and female in terms of importance. They as equal in His eyes.

Pro-Choicer:

To say that God was made in man's image might be an appealing propositon especaillly in view of all of the false religions out there.

The problem I have with that statement is the 2,000 years of prophecy that were made about Christ that all came true.

No one but an omniscient God could make such prophecies.

Further, no one but God could heal the sick, make the blind to see, raise the dead, cause the stormy sea to calm, etc. Perhaps if you experienced a miracle from God you would believe.

The Bible does say this though, "blessed are those that believe and have not seen".

The point is PCer, there are simply too many miracles that happen every single day which makes me simply unable to not believe.

I think Angel meant that God is a spirit that doesn't have an idenitifiable "gender". God became a human male (Jesus) to die for us and appeared in the form of tongues of fire (Holy Spirit) on Pentecost. In the essence of the Trinity, there are "male" essences to HIM, but he has no specific gender like Angel or you gave a gender, Hisman.

oops, typo, I meant "HAVE" not gave.

I guess this is the problem then, Chris. In my family, if it is something he feels more strongly about or if I lack knowledge on the subject or have previously made an obviously poor choice, he will correct me and take the authority on that particular decision. The same applies in reverse, although he seems to care much less about a much broader scope of things than I do, so it's a simple, "Hey, hun, can you do/not do x thing?" (most of the time. depending on what it is, sometimes it's more severe, or sometimes he'll propose an alternate route that makes more sense to us both, or I might)

Xalisae, I'm sorry that the Bible's verses have com across to you in the way you have perceived them. I can understand where you are coming from, and I understand that your ideas about what we believe and what the Bible says are at least in part shaped by your experiences with your parents as a child. (Believe me, I dealt with some similar parents ).

However, the way you describe a good situation with your significant other is actually the way that the Bible wants it to be. I know that there are people who use such verses as an excuse to dominate their wives and treat them like dirt, but this is a misuse of the scriptures. If a man loves his wife as much as Christ loved the church (which God commands him to do), he is not going to act as a dictator to her- he is going to love and respect her, and treat her as an equal person, not a servant. Did Christ ever act as anything but a humble and loving friend and advocate towards the church? Did Christ ever treat the church in the way that you seem to feel those verses imply?

Another verse by the same author also says, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”
It's speaking of both the husband and the wife here- commanding them to both submit to each other- In other words, to respect, consider what the other wants and needs, and treat them as you would want to be treated.

A lot of what Paul was teaching had to do with the customs of that time and the church. Women played a huge part in the Bible, and were in positions of being prophets, teachers, and all sorts of other such positions. Those verses you mentioned must be read within their context to be understood properly. :)

All of that was not to say that the husband is not in Authority, but to say that he should never abuse his position of Authority to treat his wife poorly. Jesus has authority over the church, and has never done a thing to treat his church poorly. Men are commanded to follow Christ's example of love for the church, towards their wives.
Any woman who has a man with Christ's love for the church as his goal towards her is a lucky woman!

Liz:

Jesus was resurrected and then appeared to 500 people and the apostles. He then ascended into Heaven bodily as a male.

He now sits at the right hand of the Father.

To assume anything beyond that is conjecture.

"All of that was not to say that the husband is not in Authority, but to say that he should never abuse his position of Authority to treat his wife poorly."

That's really kinda my problem. Cops have authority over me, because they enforce the law, and I abide by the law, because I'm a citizen. But my husband really doesn't have authority over me. What color I want my hair, the clothes I choose to wear, what I watch, listen to, read, think, say, do, those are all mine. A lot of those things conflict with what believes, thinks, does, chooses to listen to, watch, etc. He would rather I wore short skirts and makeup. I don't. He's not going to MAKE me do it, and if I choose not to, he's not going to punish me. He really has no method to do so, anyway, and I'll tell him where he can go on any given day I feel like it (not that I do often or at all, really), and he has to deal with it. If he doesn't like something, he's more than welcome to snap back to me, but I'm not going to feel obligated to do what he says just because he's a man.

So, you can rationalize it all day, try to excuse it as you like, but I disagree, and I really doubt I would ever be willing to bend my will to a man just because they are a man.

It sometimes amazes me how oblivious some people are to the great honor and worth God attributes to women. The Blessed Mother was given more dignity than any other mortal in history. She was given the supreme privilege of carrying within herself for nine months the divine being of God himself. While Israel awaited the Messiah, Mary had him all to herself for nine months. Is that not an enormous privilege bestowed on a woman?

It was Mary's agreement with (submission to) God's plan that elevated her to the great dignity she has. Have you considered what it means that Jesus came to us through a woman? The skin and muscles that were ripped open during the scourging were given to him by a woman. The hair that was matted with blood by the crown of thorns was given to him by a woman. The nerves that sent torturous pain throughout his body when he was pounded with nails were given to him by a woman. The lungs that gasped for air as he was suffocating were given him by a woman. So was the voice that cried out psalms during his agony and the heart that was pierced with a lance. Much of what Jesus gave us in his passion came to us precisely because of Mary's submission to God's plan.

I think it's also important to mention that Jesus got more than flesh and blood from his mother. He also learned obedience through her. When the adolescent Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, it was the Blessed Mother who addressed Jesus in the temple, not Joseph. And who does sacred scripture tell us that Jesus was obedient to upon his return home? Both of them.

I don't know about you, but it blows my mind to reflect on the fact that the 2nd Person of the Most Holy Trinity chose to subject himself to a human mother and father. If Jesus glorified his Father by submitting to parental authority in the home, was he not giving us a lesson about submitting to authority within the Church he established? Just some food for thought :)

And no, I don't believe that Jesus' submission to a human mother means that the ministerial priesthood should include women. Had it been intended to, I think the Blessed Mother would have been the first priest(ess). But she was not. She shows us that the dignity and ministerial roles of women in the Church are not less important than, just different from, the roles of men.

Great Post Jill. Excellent.

The latest offerings from the religion of peace:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Leah:

Are you still reading this? I was hoping that you would come back to this blog! I know absolutely nothing of Islam, but have always determined that Muslims, Jews, and Christians have something in common in that, together, we make up the three most hated groups of people on earth.

I can't say that I agree with your beliefs, just as you don't agree with mine, but I was hoping that you could explain a little about Islam to me. I would really love to know more about it; it's so crushed at present under media images swearing that it is solid terrorism, and I don't want my knowledge of a group of people who I consider my brothers and sisters to be so limited and so at the mercy of a biased media.

Could you explain it to me better- what it is, religious customs, et cetera?

Thank you (if you are still reading this).

That's really kinda my problem. Cops have authority over me, because they enforce the law, and I abide by the law, because I'm a citizen. But my husband really doesn't have authority over me. What color I want my hair, the clothes I choose to wear, what I watch, listen to, read, think, say, do, those are all mine. A lot of those things conflict with what believes, thinks, does, chooses to listen to, watch, etc. He would rather I wore short skirts and makeup. I don't. He's not going to MAKE me do it, and if I choose not to, he's not going to punish me. He really has no method to do so, anyway, and I'll tell him where he can go on any given day I feel like it (not that I do often or at all, really), and he has to deal with it. If he doesn't like something, he's more than welcome to snap back to me, but I'm not going to feel obligated to do what he says just because he's a man.
So, you can rationalize it all day, try to excuse it as you like, but I disagree, and I really doubt I would ever be willing to bend my will to a man just because they are a man.

My husband doesn't choose how I wear my hair, wear my makeup, etc etc either. That has nothing to do with submission and love, or authority. I think you're confusing things.

I do things that I know my husband likes because I know it pleases him. He does things that he knows I will like because he knows it pleases me. That is Biblical submission. Treating others as you would want to be treated.

But without a designated "leader" in a home, the home crumbles. That is where "authority" comes in. There is a HUGE difference between a "leader" and a "dictator".

There is a HUGE difference between a "leader" and a "dictator".

Exactly, Bethany. A true leader is able to put the needs of others ahead of his own desires.

Bethany:

I think that a wife actually can be used by the Holy Spirit to talk to a husband.

If I had listened to my wife with the understanding that this is how God was trying to reach me, I wouldn't have made so many mistakes.

I've changed and I wish more husbands could come to that realization.

"I do things that I know my husband likes because I know it pleases him. He does things that he knows I will like because he knows it pleases me. That is Biblical submission. Treating others as you would want to be treated."

Then the Bible should've stated that husbands and wives should be submissive to each other. Without those words, I cannot and will not endorse it. And we do those things for each other, too. Most relationships entail that treatment in order to function. I wasn't aware that was what the bible meant.

"But without a designated "leader" in a home, the home crumbles. That is where "authority" comes in. There is a HUGE difference between a "leader" and a "dictator"."

And my husband and I are joint authorities. Thus far, it's worked out pretty great, and I don't see any problems arising from this arrangement. 6 years and running this November.

I agree with you that both husbands and wives can help each other grow in the Lord.
My husband and I have had similar experiences to yours.

Then the Bible should've stated that husbands and wives should be submissive to each other. Without those words, I cannot and will not endorse it.

I'm surprised that you said this when I showed you a verse that did indeed say this. It says, "Submit yourselves one to another in the fear of God", then goes on to give an example of mutual submission- the relationship of the husband and wife. Eph 5:21-6:9

Does the thought of submitting yourself, not to a husband, but to God bother you?

And my husband and I are joint authorities. Thus far, it's worked out pretty great, and I don't see any problems arising from this arrangement. 6 years and running this November.

Xalisae, you don't seem to realize that i'm not the one condemning your lifestyle and beliefs- you are the one attacking mine, and others here who believe as I do? If you've been with your husband for 6 years, happily, then you deserve congrats for that.

I said in my thread there is so much more to the topic of Jesus and women, and by that I meant beyond how He treated them. Biblical teaching has been both misunderstood and misinterpreted re: women. God's original will was for men and women to be co-heirs and co-rulers of the earth. Jesus came to free women.

Before I became a pro-life activist my foremost passion was this specific topic.

I will only start with Genesis.

Adam and Eve were created to rule the earth as partners, neither needing to submit to the other because there was no sin in the world. There was no hint of subordination in the beginning. God commissioned both Adam and Eve to rule the world in Genesis 1:28: "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'"

"Image of God" can only be seen as male and female together.

Probably the first and foremost passage used to subordinate women is Genesis 2:18 ("The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.'") In fact, of the 19 times that Hebrew word for "helper" is used in the OT, 15 times it is of God being a "helper" to His people. In fact, "helper" could indicate female superiority if we wanted to push it.

(Haven't you ever wondered why the Bible says, "That is why a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh," rather than the woman leaving her parents? This verse, repeated by Jesus, could infer male weakness if we wanted to push it.)

Genesis 3:15-16 were part of the CURSE, not original will of God. ("And I will put enmity between you and the woman... Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.")

Jesus came to free us from all that. Why in the world anyone would fight to stay under the curse is beyond me.

Ok, I was only going to talk about Genesis but will mention that the I Tim 2 passage and I Cor 14 passage have been wildly misinterpreted to subordinate women in church. If Paul really meant to say women are to be silent in the church and not have any authority, then he broke his own rule in I Cor 11:5 when telling women HOW to pray and prophesy publicly in church. Acts 18:26 has Priscilla teaching Apollos. Speaking of, and as an interesting aside, of the 6 times Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned together, Priscilla's name comes first, indicating a the very least equality in the relationship if not supremacy.

The New Testament's overriding philosophy of women in the church is Galatians 3:28, "There are neither Jews nor Greeks, slaves nor free people, males nor females. You are all the same in Christ Jesus."

Ok, one more thing. If "husband of one wife" truly means only men can be elders because women cannot have wives, then neither Jesus nor Paul could be elders in a Christian church today, because neither of them had wives. Ah, the double standards.

Excellent post, Jill!

Xalisae wrote, "Then the Bible should've stated that husbands and wives should be submissive to each other."

It did, Ephesians 5:21: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." This is the overriding theme of that passage.

Then to me at best it seems contradictory, if in one place it speaks of the subordination of women to men, and another it says mutual submission.

And I've always had a problem with that "curse" bit. It fed my skepticism from an early age, considering I've always loved snakes. I also had a problem with "honor your father and mother" early on, as well. What if your parents are abusive jackasses? It may say that I have to honor them even if that is the case, but I will not honor nor will I respect someone who does not deserve it just because they happened to have spawned me. Things like that had me analyzing the book critically from an early age, and the more I read, the less I identified with and more flaws I found within.

Those were good passages and analysis though, Jill, and I think within that context the defined relationships within the church sound much more healthy when looked at from that perspective.

If "husband of one wife" truly means only men can be elders ...

Doesn't Paul make that statement (1 Tim 3:2) in the context of the requirement that an elder have an irreproachable character? That phrase is sometimes translated has not having been married more than once or the husband of only one wife, i.e. demonstrating marital stability.

In subsequent verses, Paul says that one who cannot manage his own house cannot care for the Church. I think one can just as easily make the argument that Paul (so far as we know) and Christ would meet the requirement of not having been married more than once as that phrase is used in both Titus and Timothy.

Jill:

Actually the whole church is Jesus' bride and it is not clear that Paul was or wasn't married.

Besides, wasn't Paul more of an evangelist than an elder?

I think the reason that women are not to be elders in a church is due to the authority that another woman would have over a man. This upsets the whole "the man is the head of the household" theology of the family.

How can a man expect his wife to be submissive to him if he is submitted to the authority of a women elder? Doesn't make sense.

The passages where Paul was telling women to be silent was actually just to one congregation because there was a lot of gossip going on there that was very destructive. It was not meant as a command to be followed by the entire church.

Angel,

Regarding my comment that I don't think you are a peasant, I take responsibility for a misunderstanding. I made an analogy at 5:39 p.m. regarding noblemen and peasants. Elisabeth then came along and said something to the effect that she is not like a peasant. For some reason I thought it was you who said that, so I addressed my response to you rather than Elisabeth by mistake. I was trying to say, "No you are not literally like a peasant. I was making an analogy to take down the argument that it is always worse to be the one with more responsibility."

But I can see how you would be confused since you weren't the one responding to my peasant analogy. I apologize.

I am sorry you think poorly of me. I actually don't think poorly of you, though your point of view puzzles me!

I understand the role of Mary in the Christian faith and especially the Catholic faith. But there is no getting around the fact that she is secondary. She is not God. She is not a Messiah. Jesus Christ is God. The Trinity includes the Father and the Son, not the the Father and the Mother and the Son. The fact that Jesus was male is one reason used to justify exclusion of women from the priesthood.

The roles of men and women in the Church are said to be equally important (though I am not fully convinced since women cannot administer the sacraments or provide interpretations of the Scripture.) But even assuming that to be the case, men and women are not equally authoritative, as HisMan points out. THAT is the problem. A body of male clergy (from which women were traditionally excluded) issue pronouncements on how women should live their lives!

I don't agree that a home crumbles without authority. A family is not a military operation.

It is no skin off my teeth if a wife thinks it is sexy to put her husband in charge. What bothers me though is that ideas that there is only one way to structure a family, especially when these ideas are transmitted through the authority of religion, have a much wider effect than just the individual household.

I think Angel meant that God is a spirit that doesn't have an idenitifiable "gender". God became a human male (Jesus) to die for us and appeared in the form of tongues of fire (Holy Spirit) on Pentecost. In the essence of the Trinity, there are "male" essences to HIM, but he has no specific gender like Angel or you gave a gender, Hisman.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at June 28, 2009 8:47 PM

quite right Liz
It is true that Jesus Christ has a male body and a spirit as well and that He is already in Heaven with God in this form.
But God the Father, the first person of the Trinity has no gender. God is genderless.

Leah, Congratulations! I hope you have a good pregnancy and an easy birth! What an exciting time for you and your husband.

Unfortunately, I do not agree with your views on the Muslim faith. While the version you practice may be more benign, radical Islam is not interested in peace with any other religion. It's goal is to conquer and subjugate the entire world.
I suggest you read what is happening to the Coptic Christians in Egypt, especially with regard to the kidnapping and forced Islamification and marriage of Christian young girls. These families are left on their own to recover their daughters, often without success.

I suggest you learn about the honor killings throughout Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. Watch the videos of the caning and stoning of women in the streets. Then there are the amputations for stealing - as recently as this week a two men lost and arm and a leg each for stealing.
It is a religion based on fear and not love.
I could abide peacefully with Muslims, but when I see half their population enslaved and when people are treated in the most brutal manner possible, I cannot agree that this is a religion that leads a soul to Heaven.
I wish you all the best, but you will have a hard time convincing me that the Muslim faith wishes well on the Christian world.

xalisae, do you get the Mother God people where you are? In the past two years I've seen them come in waves, carrying Bibles and looking innocuous, like any other person on the street, until they're like, "Have you ever heard of the Mother God?"

I have their MO down pat by this point; I know which Bible verses they lead with and which they go to next (they are VERY aggressive salespeople so it's hard to make them stop, once they start). It seems to me that the whole spiel relies heavily on taking verses or words out of context but that's not my point.

My point is that a key factor of the things they talk about is how there is a female god to go with the male god, and how the world has ignored or disregarded her, and the historical disrespect for women has sprung from mankind's refusal to acknowledge the female god. It always makes me sad.

I once gave my e-mail address to one of them, in a desperate attempt to get away ("I'm late for work!" "Which is more important, one day of work or your eternal life?"). A few months later she friended me on Facebook and I didn't remember who she was but I recognized her name, so I friended her back. She immediately spammed my wall with advertisements for her next Mother God meeting, leaving her phone number and everything, and I was like, "Oh. Right. You."

Posted by: Bethany at June 28, 2009 10:18 PM
-----

Great point Bethany - and this is precisely why Christ was expressing in John 13:

12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. 13 "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.

What Christ shows so clearly is that authority is not about domination, but about serving and accountability. This relates back to the original sin in the garden which focused on "being like God", which clearly Adam and Eve did not know what that meant, both intellectually and experientially.

PC: thanks for the apology and the explanation. I don't think badly of you. It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind. ;)

I understand the role of Mary in the Christian faith and especially the Catholic faith. But there is no getting around the fact that she is secondary. She is not God. She is not a Messiah. Jesus Christ is God. The Trinity includes the Father and the Son, not the the Father and the Mother and the Son. The fact that Jesus was male is one reason used to justify exclusion of women from the priesthood.

I think from my perspective as a Catholic, I feel Mary has a special role in our faith. She is not equal to God the Father (after all God is GOD! and no man or woman is equal to God). But she is an intercessor, someone special whom we honor and take our dearest petitions to in times of great need. Now to non-Catholics this may seem rather strange and unnecessary. But the way I look at this is to consider how many times young children will go to their mother to get something they desire! A mother will often soften the heart of the father and make him more likely to grant the request.

I also have to say that women not being priests in the Catholic faith is based on tradition and the fact that Jesus chose only men for this ministry. It is not that Jesus was a misogynist and was bound by a patriarchal society, but that he had another plan for women in his church. The service of women in the Catholic church is decidedly different from the service of men. And the Catholic church considers among some of it's greatest saints, women like St. Theresa of Avila, St. Scholastica, St. Clare, St. Monica and St. Gianna Molla.

I do things that I know my husband likes because I know it pleases him. He does things that he knows I will like because he knows it pleases me. That is Biblical submission. Treating others as you would want to be treated.

a very good point that many spouses would so well to remember. I see nothing wrong with this as long as the action is not immoral.
Done properly this makes you third, God first and your spouse second.

Ok, one more thing. If "husband of one wife" truly means only men can be elders because women cannot have wives...

Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 28, 2009 11:00 PM
------

The emphasized point within context of the verse is that an elder is to be a man of character, not one having multiple wives or having been through divorce.

I'll stand by my original statements that as I understand Scripture, the purpose behind male eldership in the church is to provide a spiritual model of the family as it pertains to Christ, and the Bride of Christ.

For non-Christians: - whatever differences Jill and I might have in understanding these passages, the essential doctrines we believe are the same, and ultimately we both rely upon Christ as Lord and Savior. Exploiting divisional differences and instilling doubt is a tactic of the devil. The spiritually mature do not let differences overwhelm the unity that is found in Christ.

Posted by: HisMan at June 29, 2009 1:29 AM
---

I agree - passages always should be read in proper context and very closely examined for the intended audience, while the principles should be discerned from the larger body of work, and the promptings and instruction of the Holy Spirit.

Fed Up, 6/28, 11:57p, wrote: "Doesn't Paul make that statement (1 Tim 3:2) in the context of the requirement that an elder have an irreproachable character?"

Yes, exactly. People in the church have applied a vast double standard to "husband of one wife." Male elders are allowed who have never been married, whose wives have died, and even who have been divorced, none of whom are literally a "husband of one wife." The verse is applied literally only to women.

HisMan: Paul was most likely unmarried. I think it is parsing to speculate he was more of an evangelist than a shepherd. That said, he spent considerable time shepherding his church plants, hence we have most of the New Testament. The bottom line is he would technically not not qualify to be an elder in your church. Neither would Jesus.

HisMan, Chris: Yes, the ENTIRE church is Jesus' bride. Therein is the sole analogy to the mystery of marriage. There isn't a hierarchy of Jesus, men, women. It is Jesus, Church. You're mixing apples and oranges.

BTW, the Bible never says "Man is the head of the household." The case could more be made that women are the head of the household. Read Proverbs 31.

Xalisae, I appreciate your open-mindedness. I pray you will continue thinking about this. Jesus and Paul's teachings actually FREE women.

How people apply Paul's teachings so subjectively is quite extraordinary. If Paul really meant for women to be silent, for women not to have authority over men, then so it should be.

But how many great instructive songs we sing, for instance, were written by women? Fanny Crosby is my favorite. Have you ever sung "Blessed Assurance," "Jesus Is Tenderly Calling You Home," "Praise Him, Praise Him," or "To God Be the Glory"? Then you have been taught by a woman.

The hypocrisy goes on and on.

Angel, thank you for your response! I appreciate it!

I should clarify, by the way, that while I am extremely critical of both Christianity and Islam, I also recognize that there are positive ideas promoted by both faiths. I have had close relationships with adherents to both religions whom I respect. My own husband was raised a Catholic and has a generally positive attitude towards the Church. (Strangely, he still considers himself a Catholic even though he does not actually agree with much of what the Church says. And I suppose the Church still considers him a Catholic too, though not a very good one.)

I appreciate Jesus's view of power relations -- the idea that being in power doesn't make you better or more important, and the idea that (as Chris pointed out) authority should be about serving and accountability. Those are actually ideas that I have taken to heart in my own life, which has at times involved wielding authority over others.

But I don't see how those ideas about authority justify placing men in authority over women or prohibiting women from ruling over men. Tegardless of how much the person in authority looks at his role as one of service to others, the fact remains that he is in authority. He makes decisions for other people. So when you take one class of people (women) and say that they must always be under the authority of members of another class of people (men), then you have a situation where the decision-makers are always men.

Also, human nature being what it is, people abuse their authority on a pretty regular basis. This sad truth is another reason we should (a) place limits on authority; and (b) make positions of authority equally accessible to everyone.

Jill, I have always thought Proverbs 31 had a lot of feminist elements! And perhaps I am wrong to say that feminist Christians and feminist Muslims have a tough row to hoe reconciling their faith with their feminism. I will let the feminist Christians and feminist Muslims do that work without me naysaying.

HisMan, Chris: Yes, the ENTIRE church is Jesus' bride. There is the analogy to the mystery of marriage. There isn't a hierarchy of Jesus, men, women. It is Jesus, Church. You're mixing apples and oranges.
--------

Jill - have you ever done a study of Jewish wedding customs?

Yes, Chris is right. Whatever disagreements we have on the topic of women in the church and home are not deal-breakers between us and do not take away from the central point of the Bible, John 3:16-17, upon which we all wholeheartedly agree.

On the topic of women in the church, I long ago kind of gave up. I no longer dwell on it. When the topic arises I usually simply point out the double standards and hypocrisy and let it go. The Church is growing in holiness, and the woman issue is one it is slowly getting better on.

I admit I started this conversation with my Sunday funny and thoughts. The plight of the women in Iran just breaks my heart. If only that country had Jesus.

And for all my harping I want to say it is solely Christian countries and Christian influence over the centuries that have elevated the status of women, nothing else. Thank God for that enlightenment.

Prochoicer, 8:39a: Yes, Proverbs 31 portrays an egalitarian relationship between husband and wife. She had 3 independent businesses and apparently her own checkbook, etc.

I'm quite sure the problem today for the Church as it sorts through the placement of women comes in with the words "feminist" and "feminism," which have very negative connotations.

Chris, no, enlighten me?

I'll stand by my original statements that as I understand Scripture, the purpose behind male eldership in the church is to provide a spiritual model of the family as it pertains to Christ, and the Bride of Christ. by Chris.

I quite agree with this.
And of course in the Catholic church priests are also addressed as Father (because they have many spiritual children) and women who head various orders of sisters are called Mother (Superior)! This continues the idea of "family" and a head of the family even in those areas of the church that practice celibacy.This furthers the idea that the family is the unit of society. Even religious orders are modelled on this. Priests also speak of their "brother priests" when referring to other priests.

I want to say it is solely Christian countries and Christian influence over the centuries that have elevated the status of women, nothing else. Thank God for that enlightenment.
Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 29, 2009 8:51 AM

Amen.

This is a little off topic. I can't even begin to express my bitter disappointment in PL champion Rep. Chris Smith. He voted with the Democrats in favor of that so called "climate bill", actually a job destruction and tax increase bill, one of only 8 Republican turncoats to do so, helping to secure the passage of this farce. Him of all people crossing the aisle to help give Pelosi and Obama this victory.

Then you have been taught by a woman.

Women play a valuable role as lay catechists in the RCC. That doesn't mean though, that a woman can stand in the place of Christ as a priest administering sacraments. Protestants do not accept at least 5 of the 7 sacraments of the RCC, so I can understand female ministers in some denominations because the protestant ministry doesn't carry out the same functions that the Catholic priesthood does. Doesn't seem like hypocrisy to me so much as it reflects a difference in roles between Catholic priests and protestant ministers.

Mary,

You're right, a bad bill, I'm concerned it will grind our economy to a screeching halt.

Any hope it'll get shot down in the Senate?

Chris, no, enlighten me?

Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 29, 2009 9:02 AM
-----

It's rather fascinating. There are multiple references and allusions in the Gospels (and actually throughout the entire Bible) to this idea of the wedding-time, and the roles of the genders within it.

For instance, the engagement between a man and a woman is sealed with a shared cup of wine. In the betrothal, they are married as in a promise, but not do not consummate their vows. The man leaves and is to go back to his father's house to prepare space for his family. There, he must construct (like a carpenter) the place he will bring his bride. The man's father is the only one that can approve that space, and the groom can't retrieve his bride until the final approval is made.

The groom comes in the middle of the night to retrieve his bride out of her father's home, and take her back to the place he prepared for her. When they arrive - that's when the celebration begins.

Both the bride and groom have their roles in preparing to marry, and during the time when they are engaged, but non-consummated. In this regard there is a mutual submission, but the Father of the groom is the one who has the final say.

Christ has gone to prepare a place for us - in my Father's house are many rooms" (John 14), but we do not know the day or hour of His return (Mt 24) only the Father knows.

In Mt 25 there is a picture of His return to collect his Bride, but not all in the party are prepared.

The mystery of Christ & His Bride Paul talks about in Ephesians should be understood both with this context and the Feast of Sukkot in mind. Isaiah 54 has some bearing on this.

It's incredibly beautiful when understood in complete context, and celebrated through the traditions.

It does have bearing on the discussion here, but it's not something I can condense into a brief comment.

Leah,
Congratulations and God bless.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 29, 2009 8:42 AM
------

I should have qualified my statement in saying ancient Jewish wedding customs.

Hi Ed, 9:57am

I see it as the deliberate destruction of our economy and way of life. Obama knows exactly what he's doing and why.

I heard it may not be easily passed in the Senate, if at all. We can only hope.

Just like we all know abortion is wrong...

Deep down, we all know, the women are in charge:P

Xalisae, please read this:

http://luke173ministries.org/templates/System/details.asp?id=39548&PID=537996

Especially the part that describes the scenario of Jonathon and his father, Saul. :-)

Well, I think the biggest part of what happened as a consequence of my life experiences was that I learned not to simply accept everything I was presented with at face value. Because of this, I decided I'd create my own life philosophy whether or not it meshed completely with any sort of established religion, institution, or body of philosophy. I like it this way, and I think I will continue to live my life in this manner until it is finished, always striving to be the best person I can be, and trying to always keep in mind that this will never happen, because I am not perfect. I do appreciate the concern for my spiritual well-being from everyone, but if I ever come back to faith, it's going to have to be from some sort of spiritual experience I have myself. I've had some pretty weird things happen to me in my lifetime, what I would say verged on the supernatural if not that, but nothing yet I would consider a spiritual experience. But who knows what tomorrow holds?

Vannah,

You are sadly mistaken and nieve about the religion of peace.

Xalisae, I understand - I will pray then that God will bring you the answers that you are seeking...I would love to one day hear that you found Faith in Him.

Thanks for always fighting the good fight against abortion with us. We may disagree on this or that but I'm glad to have you here.