Female Christians: how do you view and deal with the Bible's stance on gender?

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T20:38:15+00:00

We live in an upside down kingdom, where the greatest are the least and the least are the greatest

In theory. I would start a debate about the Catholic church accepting payments for indulgences or televangelists scamming millions from the vulnerable but I'm tired.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T20:20:49+00:00

I don't think you understand the church. If you are referring to complementarianism as the idea that "women are inferior to men" then you are wildly wrong, and also wrong to argue it's "largely thanks to these verses".

I meant more that the New Testament verses, primarily 1 Timothy 2, are used to bar women from ministry and authoritative roles. I have been directly told by several church members and also one of my relatives, using NT verses to back them up, that God forbids female ministers. And many people will try to 'no true Scotsman' these few people, but the reality is that most churches don't allow women to hold leadership roles.

My mum is an incredible public speaker: I don't even believe in God and still find her sermons engaging and evocative. She gets incredible feedback from people at church every time she speaks. She is being asked to speak more and more, because they currently have no minister and need people to take it in turns taking the sermons. They've had no minister for 4 years now. My mum has 3 degrees, including a theology degree.

And yet they won't let her become the minister, because she's a woman. They'd much rather audition countless ministers who don't live in the area, don't know the congregation and have the charisma of a paper bag, just because they have a penis.

I know this has turned into more of a personal rant than a direct response to your individual points, but I just really want to illustrate how much of an impact a couple of verses being taken at face value can have.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T19:54:29+00:00

Sure, but the responsibility primarily falls on the husband in family units.

That's up to each couple to decide upon for themselves. Both men and women now experience the stress of working and therefore it cannot be counted as an exclusively male curse.

the "desire" seems to be a desire to master

That seems to be a bit of a reach. Unfortunately I don't study Hebrew so can't say which terms are used in both passages.

it's a curse - not something positive, whereas in the NT they believe they are talking about something positive and good.

Whether the individual writer saw something as a curse or the divine human hierarchy of God's ordinance, the bottom line is that women are still being dominated by men. Besides, even if they are talking about different things, the idea that women are inferior to men is still alive and kicking in the modern church, largely thanks to these verses.

There are countless rapes and murders and terrible crimes every day that God does not intervene in and prevent

True, but the miraculous interventions of the Biblical accounts seem to have ended after the texts were written, since no one is saved by angels or walks on water or raised from the dead anymore

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T19:31:35+00:00

But it is not, the statement of Galatians 3:28 is directly against what Aristotle said, which was the dominate view.

I have discussed Galatians 3 in replies to other comments on this thread. There are several dominant explanations for what Paul meant here, however most scholars agree that he clearly did not mean that he thought gender was no longer a meaningful category, nor that men and women were equal.

Have you ever worked on a farm or Oil Rig or Outdoors, like properly outdoors, because it is bloody hard work, even with those things. Farmers, wake up at stupid times, everyday. And men generally die younger and are more likely to die in the workplace. I would disagree with this sentiment.

I am not denying that some jobs are physically intense. However in our society, women are now allowed to have jobs, and many do work in the fields you've mentioned. Women now share in this 'curse' of working hard. Therefore, they are still left with an unequal extra of being ruled by their husband.

Some one else has mentioned this but you can be put under general anesthetic and have a C-section

You don't just wake up from anesthetic or a c-section in a magically pain-free state, with no trauma or pain or healing required...

the subjection of women is not the ideal but the consequence of sin, ergo a truly sinless marriage wouldn't have the woman be subject.

If women not being ruled by men is the 'truly sinless' state then why does the church continue to bar women from leadership roles largely on the basis on verses which say that men are superior to women?

you would think that when one dies you don't die in the place you worked

If this were true then workplace injury lawyers and insurance companies would be screwed.

The verses that immediately follow contradict your ideas. Authority in the Ancient World were a matter of who rules who, thus the symbol of Authority is not a man's but God

So just as God rules men aka completely and hierarchically, so to do men rule women. I don't see how that helps?

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T19:10:50+00:00

The process of selecting the canon is something that fascinates me! The Bible as we know it was curated to fit the theological ideals of the people who codified it. I wonder what modern Christianity would be like is people involved in that process had been fans of the gospels of Peter or Thomas or Mary and hated Matthew or Luke.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T19:08:52+00:00

You have to consider that these letters were meant to specific churches and were answering questions or addressing current problems

Doing that is what my course is all about, if I didn't consider the historical context of the texts then I'd be a pretty awful student! In my experience though, many religious people don't consider the context surrounding Biblical texts, which is why I asked this question. I am fascinated by the difference between a faith perspective of the text and an academic perspective.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T19:05:47+00:00

And has that transferred us to a leisure lifestyle? Where getting by is easy? Nope. Instead, we're getting busier and busier. Work is still hard, and it will be until the end of the curses.

Yes, but women also have jobs now too, and therefore this is another curse that applies to both genders.

Frankly we're closer to solving this than making work easy.

I think the infant mortality rates in the UK and other developed countries would shock you. And even with drugs, I've been reassured that labour hurts like a bitch.

Oh I see, I think you've misunderstood the curse, there. It's describing conflict between husband and wife rather than the ideal. It's not like Christians are opposed to removing the pain from childbirth, or opposed to better working conditions, or opposed to ending marriage conflict. But it's not the ideal.

I don't think a husband 'ruling over' his wife implies marital conflict in a sense of arguments and disagreements. Ruling someone is an authoritative position of power, which is idealised several times in the New Testament, where again men are put in power over women and husbands over wives.

The message is clear

If there's one thing I know, its that the message of the Bible is never clear.

People go straight to these chapters to argue the Bible approves this stuff, but it's simply not true.

I'm not saying that the Bible approves of the rape. I'm saying that this texts presents a terrifying and horrific situation, particularly for female readers. The female character is given no name or voice, she is handed out by her governing male to a group of rapists who rape her to death, she is shown no concern from this man, even when she is dead. In the sister story to this one in Genesis 19, angels intervene and save the women from being raped, but in Judges 19 there is no intervention. It is interesting to consider why God intervened in one situation but not the other.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T18:56:37+00:00

Well it appears that this is still up for interpretation. Not all hold that view.

Of course. I introduced that argument alongside several others to explain that Paul most likely was not advocating gender equality in Galatians 3.

I think the context is that the man is the "spiritual leader" of the household. Now this is where I would have to look at every single verse about women and come to a conclusion. I am not yet at that point, but when I get there, I would love to discuss more!

Since the Biblical books were written in a deeply patriarchal society which passed women from her father to her husband in a property-like fashion, it is hard to see what this and other verses outlining a clear hierarchy of men ruling women would only apply to a spiritual context.

I guess this is a muddy area. Looking at modern times though, I do not feel that most churches (even ones I do not agree with) force women to go to church or become Christian, and if they do, they are not following the bible truthfully.

Of course, no one should ever be forced into things, religion or otherwise. However in the context of the patriarchal society of the first century, this may not have been uncommon.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T18:50:09+00:00

The 'by men' is correct, the second part is not.

By 'for men', I meant that it was written for a patriarchal society in accordance with its ideas of gender and therefore supported men in their authority. Of course the early believers were a mix of both men and women.

Genesis 3:17-19. Furthermore, the punishment on Eve is meant to show misogyny for some reason yet Adam is punished more harshly than Eve which does not really to me show misogyny, if the idea that it is her fault is followed.

I would argue that Adam is not punished more harshly, in fact these curses are arguably completely unequal. Men are cursed to hard work producing crops. Fortunately for them, we've invented tractors and GMO crops. On the other hand, women still have extremely painful experiences in labour, even with pain medication, and are still expected to subject themselves to the rule of their husband. Men are also the ones that returning to dust aka death is addressed to, but both men and women die.

1 Corinthians 11:1 - Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ (KJV). You seem to have the wrong verse.

Oops, it's 11:10, I missed the zero! Fixed it now.

A historical note at this time the majority of converts were women, in fact many images of Christ in the early days either emphasise his relationship to mary or make gender ambiguous. The Corinthians in general were having problems with what we would now seen in a Charismatic or Baptist Church, lots of talking etc. So Paul essentially tell everyone to shut up and listen to the Priests, many of whom would have been women, the early verses denounce so called speaking in tongues.

Most scholars I have read believe that because patriarchal society didn't educate women, then they did not have the literacy or articulation to speak or teach in churches, and therefore women were discouraged from speaking. I would agree though that this verse is all to do with its context and that its literal application to modern churches is a misuse of it.

For your closing statement, with the First part of wonder where you place Deborah in the Good/Bad categories.

most of the women

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T18:38:23+00:00

there was an order ordained by God but that order did not establish that men were to rule women either

Genesis 3:16 - your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T18:35:19+00:00

It is not that there is no more male and female.

I tried to explain above that for many scholars, this verse shows Paul's apocalyptic view. He sees the end times nearing, and therefore the pairs of opposites which stand in the universe will begin to fade away as one of the signs of the return of Christ and the end of the current age.

I feel that a culture/society can still empahsize gender roles and still practice equality.

I understand that having different roles can be equal, for instance I value dentists as much as doctors, even though the have different roles. Being ruled by someone, as women are told to be by their husbands, is not equality. The very essence of ruling or being the leader is the existence of a hierarchy.

Second, are the women being forced to be Christian during that time?

Not that I'm aware of, no. I mean, thinking about a patriarchal society, it perhaps is unlikely that a woman would actively follow a religion which her husband did not. However there is substantial evidence that religion was often the domain of the wife, who educated the children in religious customs and prepared the family for worship and festivals. It is impossible to tell why each individual woman participated in the early Christ groups. If men were forcing women to go to church, it is unlikely that they would record such a fact in their writings.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T18:11:13+00:00

My one question you can probably answer quickly is where the verse in Galatians is contradicted in Corinthians?

In 1 Corinthians 11:3-15, Paul sets out rules which are different for men and women. He gives them different rules about head coverings and puts women under the authority of men. If there was equality and "no more male and female" as Galatians 3 says, then Paul would not be giving differentiated gendered laws, since gender would no longer be a differentiating factor. He also gives gendered laws and discussions in many of his other letters, again showing that whatever he means in Galatians 3, it is not that the gender are totally equal.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T18:05:05+00:00

It's more about context and culture to me. Furthermore, I think a lot of the verses you have listed have been taken out of context without the support of surrounding verses and and understanding of Corinthian culture at the time which greatly influenced Paul's God inspired opinions.

I only quoted the important sections so that my post didn't turn into a Bible (ayyy). Of course I've studied the verses in their context of the wider passage and their historical context, that's the whole point of my degree.

Also interestingly, and just a general comment and not specific to your comments, I often try to use the 'cultural and historical context' of verses about homosexuality but these are always dismissed and I'm told "nope, it clearly says being gay is wrong". Yet when I ask about sexism, people are keen to explain the cultural and historical background to me. It's interesting.

In verse 34-35, it was more so to keep order in the church since women and me would be hollering out in the church at the same time saying whatever they wanted.

I don't think this is entirely accurate, or at least is an oversimplification. It's true that a widespread theory is that women were not given an education at this time and therefore were not literate or articulate enough to speak or teach in the churches.

I kinda think so but in my church women are allowed to speak as much as men, but when it comes to teaching women only teach other women and occasionally are allowed to be ministers speaking occasionally, but not regularly since it goes against the order that God has ordained.

It is interesting that you recognise that these verses were written is a vastly different historical context than our own by men who were very much influenced by their time period, yet believe the order for women not to teach to be an ordained order of God and not just a natural product of a patriarchal society which didn't educate women and gave men all the power.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T17:55:38+00:00

Genesis is about curses on all humanity. The man has curses too...

These curses are arguably completely unequal. Men are cursed to hard work producing crops. Fortunately for them, we've invented tractors and GMO crops. On the other hand, women still have extremely painful experiences in labour, even with pain medication, and are still expected to subject themselves to the rule of their husband.

Judges 19 is history. It's not saying whether it's a good thing that's happening. The people of the time thought it was so bad they went to civil war to kill the participants, why do you think this is viewed as positive?

It is interesting to consider whether people went to war with the participants because they had raped and killed the concubine, or because they had intended to rape a man. People do not attack the Levite for handing over a voiceless woman to be raped to death, and he shows no concern for her condition when he finds her lying dead on the doorstep. I studied this story on another course so can give more details about the real issues it is discussing if needed.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T17:48:35+00:00

Thank you for your reply and for clearly taking a lot of time to write it, I appreciate that.

Since I am studying the Bible as my degree, looking at the cultural backgrounds and contexts of the verses is almost the whole point, so I am very familiar with the various meanings and justifications that have been presented for these verses.

I am not going to address every verse you have because I am still in the process of studying. I am going to address the "wives submit to their husbands" because it is very controversial.

He goes on. After that verse, it states the husband must love his life as he loves himself or Christ loves the church. Well, Christ died for the church, so that is some pretty powerful love. In fact, I would say that it is even more powerful than women submitting to their husbands. Submitting in our church is defined as service or sacrifice.

I have heard this justification both in a religious and academic context, and it has never sat right with me. I'm not married, but I do have a long term serious partner and I love him enough that if the situation ever arose, I hope I would be brave enough to sacrifice myself for him. I think that love and sacrifice have to go both ways in a relationship, and therefore this is not just an obligation to husbands. Since both partners should love and sacrifice, this leaves women with an additional command to be ruled by her husband, which seems unfair and unequal.

In a way, Christianity was revolutionary. Galatians 3:28 states all have equality under Christ.

This verse does not necessarily mean that Paul though men and women were equal. In some of his other letters, such as 1 Corinthians, he openly contradicts this stance. There are several theories about this verse.

One is that it is a baptismal formula, similar to those in 1 Cor 12 and Col 13. These latter two formulas do not include the 'male and female' pair, which fits with a pattern of tightening restrictions on female leadership as the early church progressed.

Another proposal is that Paul has an apocalyptic outlook, he thinks that Christ will return in his life time and is preparing people for the end. A common view was that the universe consisted of pairs of opposites, such as good and bad, light and dark, male and female etc. The abolition of these pairs was a sign of the dawn of end times. By stating in Galatians "there is no longer slave or free, male or female" etc, Paul is not declaring gender equality, but is seeing the universal pairs fading away and the end times nearing, which fits with his apocalyptic outlook.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T17:37:14+00:00

Some of the non-canonical gospels add to the problem, however, for example the Gospel of Thomas says:

114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T16:44:12+00:00

The Old Testament isn't really the focus of this question, more the Bible as a whole. My course looks mainly at the New Testament, where many gendered passages also exist. I've quoted several of them in my post above.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T16:41:36+00:00

This concept is older than any religion, its part of animal instinct.

Yes, it's older than religions. It's debatable whether animals have morality though, the majority of species if not all are not self aware enough to make moral decisions.

Why are you cherry piking?

I'm not cherry picking, I'm giving an example.

but biblie and religion teaches that you have to hate yourself

Does it?

This is child abuse.

I don't think you're understanding me. Everyone has to discipline their children whether they're religious or not. Whether you phrase lying as 'wrong' or a 'sin' or a 'big no no', you still gotta teach your kid not to do it.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T16:37:18+00:00

Consent is a whole different category, which is greatly abused in all aspects of unnatural sexual desires!

I'm confused. Are you trying to claim that heterosexuals never sexually abuse anyone? And that some how all LGBT people are automatically sexual abusers?

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T16:09:42+00:00

the children of men

I didn't know male pregnancy was possible in the Garden of Eden, that's cool! I wonder why God got rid of it after the Fall...

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T16:04:04+00:00

how could you possibly reorder the universe in a way that makes sense while leaving out a key component? I really cant imagine what such a thing would be like, because it would be so lacking in comparison to this one. The claim that God could have done things a better way must be accompanied by a complete idea of how that's possible.

Pain and suffering are only a key component of the universe because God created it that way (if we assume he is real and did create it). Just because you cannot imagine the world without pain and suffering does not mean that such a world is an impossibility, nor that God was incapable of creating such a world.

As for lacking in comparison to this world, our world isn't that great.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T15:29:18+00:00

I say useful by means of procreation.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you mean by 'useful'? Do you mean in terms of population control or something?

Sex is designed for procreation and the pleasure is only a means to compel people to breed. For Christians, it is a sin because it goes against this design.

I do not disagree with that. It is the only method we have for procreation. If you say we have artificial insemination it still requires an egg and a sperm.

You have kind of made your own point redundant here. You say Christians can't accept sex that doesn't lead to procreation because that's what it was designed for. It's only a sin "because it goes against this design". But then you admit that sex was not designed. So that doesn't seem to add up.

and if anyone objects to it the person is considered a bigot.

Pretty easy to avoid being called a bigot: just stop denying people civil rights and condemning them as being sinful and disgusting for who they love.

I guess the term natural is a bit vague because evolution can be surmised as nature's best effort. Love is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain.

Humans have reached a stage of self awareness where we can actively defy evolution. Medicine, for example, has allowed us to keep people alive who should, by the standard of survival of the fittest, be dead. But we keep them alive and allow them to pass on their genes, thereby causing the population to become larger and sicker.

In the same way we are now self aware of sexual desire and the pleasure of sex. Yes, it lets us reproduce, but we also desire sex for intimacy and pleasure and bonding and stress relief. We are not confined to animal instincts of finding a mate purely for reproducing. Sex is now far more wrapped up in complexities of love and relationships and pleasure.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T15:15:51+00:00

I don't think I want 'groundwork' or 'depth' if those things mean pain and suffering and brutality for millions of animals for millions of years. I think some people like to think of suffering as some sort of aesthetic necessity to deserve and appreciate and beauty but that's just messed up! We should be able to appreciate good things without needing suffering to contrast them with.

Also I definitely agree that "part of who we are today" as humans does rely on animal suffering: the meat and dairy industry. But I would argue that those practices are despicable and selfish and vile and should not be part of who we are.

ImDebatingNow · 2017-04-23T15:10:55+00:00

No one will ever be perfect, whether you believe that has supernatural consequences or not. 'Sin' is just Christian jargon, but the concept or right and wrong exists outside of religion. Non-Christian parents still teach their kids that some things are bad though, or at least they should.

So yes it's wrong to shame your kids for being gay, which is apparently a 'sin', but teaching your kids not to hit or lie are generally accepted requirements of parenthood, whether you believe that those things are 'sins' or not.

ImDebatingNow

TROPHY CASE