Is it Spiritual Abuse....

[Hesed]

First post!

I think this question would probably sound nutty any place but here.

Do you think it's abusive to believe that women are less intelligent than men, less reliable than men and more prone to sinfulness than men?

How would you deal with someone who kept insisting on this point and supported it with quotes from the bible? I mean as in they think this is absolutely central to Christianity and that it's a point that has to be accepted "in obedience".

I have the impression that this person is actually insecure about his own intelligence, etc. (not that there is actually any need for the insecurity but insecurities aren't always rational!) This person keeps going on and on about women's "obedience" too; labelling anyone, male or female, who doesn't agree with him as "disobedient".

I think I have reasons to be wary of this person. But having grown up in a church which did believe that women should not speak or teach in church (although they did not label women as unintelligent, etc) and one which went on and on about "obedience", I feel like I'm still struggling for my boundaries. Intuitively, this feels to me like a guy who is actually very controlling and gets angry about not being able to control the thoughts of others.

I'd like some help sorting the wheat from the chaff here! Thanks.

[Doug64]

Hello Hesed - and welcome:


I think anyone who is hung up on women being "obedient" is hung up on some deep issues and I would be wary of him for sure.

I'd be curious to know what verses he is using to show women are more prone to be:

less intelligent than men
less reliable than men
prone to sinfulness more than men?

Jesus certainly had a lot to do with women that indicates He held them in high esteem.

There are a number of women mentioned in the OT who were used by God.

It says ALL have sinned - not women more than men.

Doug

[Hesed]

The direct support for women being inferior is 1 Peter 3:7 (KJV, because he only recognizes the KJV) Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. The ancillary support is all the passages about women being subject to their husbands and the injunctions in the Pauline Epistles for women to keep silence in the church.

But my reason for posting here is that, having grown up with people like this, I don't think that I can change their minds by arguing bible verses with them. I do think that their minds are unchangeable and that it would just be an exercise in frustration to try to do that. Anyway, I have no credibility as a woman. I can just be written off as a stupid, emotional female.

What I'm trying to figure out is how to deal with people like this. It really does get me wound up and upset because it took me so many years to start to believe that God loved me and that I was worthwhile. I guess I've still not "got there" fully (does any of us ever really get there?) and things that people who grew up mainstream can just laugh off get me quite upset. At least I'm past the stage of thinking "What if they are right?" Praise the Lord for that.

[Reg]

First post!
snip
Do you think it's abusive to believe that women are less intelligent than men, less reliable than men and more prone to sinfulness than men?

snip

I'd like some help sorting the wheat from the chaff here! Thanks.
Hi Hesed. Welcome to our group.

Here is a good balanced article by someone I have had a dialogue with for several years. I believe it helps clarify our roles as men and women in the church. There is no superority or inferiority. Just differences. I like the saying the French have for it. "Viva la difference!" We should celebrate the differences. They give us the spice of life. Here's the article.

Women Ministers In The Church (Part One)

by Harold Sawyer

The Problem

Many Christians today find their consciences bothered by dealing with female ministers and women Christian teachers. Many women are genuinely hurt by feeling regulated second citizen status in the Kingdom of God today and by reading many of the apostle Paul's writings restricting the religious activities of women. Committed Christians leave fellowships and cause division within them due to finding women in leadership positions while many women feel that God, or at least the apostle Paul, hates or hated women.

Women Teachers Forbidden by Paul In New Testament Scripture

First, let's read what the apostle Paul writes concerning this.

1 Timothy 2:11 - 15 "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Never the less she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church."

A woman, not knowing the historical context of the Jewish society of Paul's day, will miss the bold, new religious horizons he lays out before the women he is serving. Paul is not "keeping them in their place." He is boldly opening up totally new horizons for his sisters in the faith which were totally new to them!

The apostle Paul found himself serving the Church of God in a society where Jewish women were strictly forbidden from being involved with the study of the Holy Scriptures. Those who felt led to do so were considered possessed by a devil.

Jewish rabbis through the centuries had done their best to adapt the civil law God gave Israel in The Law and The Prophets to create a religion acceptable as service to God apart from living in the civil Nation Israel. God restricted women from temple activities, in my opinion, to protect the women in His Nation from the sexual abuse so common in temples in the pre-Christian era. The rabbis interpreted these restrictions into their religion and restricted women from many religious functions even within the home as well as the community. These conditions have been extent in Jewish communities in Europe until recently and are now extent in orthodox Judaism today. You might want to see the movie "Yentl" for an example of how this affected women who felt moved to study God's Scripture.

If you read through Paul's writings, you see that he felt very deeply that women and men were equal before God. He even, in a society that forbade it, encouraged women he was serving to study and ask questions. If we understand the historical context, we can see why he asked that women talk to their husbands at home about scriptures and have them seek the answers in public. We can understand why he would hold back women from teaching in his day and taking positions of responsibility over men as they grew in grace and knowledge.

I ask the reader to consider a possible situation which might confront theChurch of God today. If the church were in a region with very open and violent racism, how would it organize it's services in love for all involved? It would be "right" to integrate the whole Body of Christ during worship services. But I ask, would it be loving to expose them to possible bombings, death threats from unbelievers who would be provoked by seeing members of their ethnic group fellow-shipping with "the enemy"? Would it be more loving to pray for God to change attitudes in society, and actively try to bring more racist people to Christ to change? And as God changes the general attitudes of society, which He can, then combine the fellowship.

Even after considering the historical context of Paul's instruction to the Church, is a woman today justified in seeing the apostle Paul genuinely believing that women were not meant by God to take part in certain public worship activities? I would like for that woman to consider the following.

The apostles in Jerusalem, when confronted with a totally new situation in The Church: gentiles being converted and brought into The Church by God, studied the scripture concerning this. They considered what the Holy Spirit was doing. And they concluded among other things (Acts 15:20) the newly converted gentiles were to "abstain from things polluted by idols". This was easy in the Jewish community at Jerusalem. But Paul, when in the real world where he was an active missionary for the gentiles, saw that this was not an easy thing for his new converts. In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul addresses this issue and comes to a quite different conclusion than the apostles in Jerusalem did.

I want to suggest that the apostle Paul did see how plainly wrong his Jewish community was in restricting women from learning the Holy Scriptures. But that he did still believe that the traditions were partially correct in restricting women from leadership roles in worship, due to being affected by the deep social beliefs and practices of his time.

[Reg]

Women Ministers In The Church (Part Two)

Does Scripture Restrict Today's Women From Teaching And Leadership?

Many Bible students would emphatically say that God commands The Church in scripture not to allow women to preach or take leadership positions. Most will back up their views with the following:

1) It is a direct command in inspired Holy Scripture in 1 Timothy 2:12-15 as well as 1 Corinthians 14:34. 2) In 1 Timothy 2 The Holy Spirit through Paul quotes the Holy Scripture in Genesis, indicating that his charge was pre-ordained by God and not based on current social practice. That women are declared by scripture to be more prone to deception than men, and therefore should not be given leadership roles in the Church and 3) In 1 Timothy 3 and other scriptures, qualifications for leadership are restricted to men.

First, for those who would consider all New Testament Scripture as immutable commands for Christians of all ages, I would like to encourage them to prayerfully study through the whole New Testament. Are we to heed Christ's commands to the pharisees to the letter? Are Christians to eat meat that has been offered to an idol and then sent to the market place or not? The key question is whether God gave us the New Testament Scripture so we would have a catalog of "do's and don't's and how to's, or did He give it to us to learn how to prayerfully make decisions as we are confronted with new circumstances? Is Church Leadership to "do as Paul says" or follow his godly example? It is for sure much easier to do as told than to prayerfully follow an example.

Second, Paul quotes Old Testament Scripture when writing Timothy about how he wants the church administered. Does this indicate that The Holy Spirit was interpreting the events in Genesis to dictate the role of women in The Church? I would encourage the Bible student to make a comprehensive study of the writings of Paul and see that it is his practice to back up personal decisions concerning the church with Old Testament Scripture. I would ask you, after you have done so, if you agree with me that it is Paul's example that is important here. That he always seemed to meditate on Scripture in order to find God's opinions about given situations. As he did in 1 Corinthians 9:9, do we look to Scripture to find how God might think about something or to find physical commands?

Another thought concerning Paul's mention of Eve having been deceived. Has the history of the Church as well as most cults proved men as immune from deception? When leadership in God's Kingdom and the Church is concerned, is not the leadership of the Holy Spirit more of an issue than the physical person? Would Paul, looking back into history and seeing today's experiences of great leadership by talented women still say "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence"? Or would he agree with God as during the period of the Judges in making the women Deborah a judge over men (Judges 4) ?

And can the conservative Christian pick and choose which parts of Paul's directions we are to follow today? Maybe we are just to keep part of his directions but disregard the rest?

Third, are most churches who restrict women from leadership roles due to instruction in 1 Timothy 3, as diligent in restricting unmarried men from such roles? Do these scriptures give God's Church today commands for administration or examples in Godly decision making while they administer?
Does God mean for us to pay attention to the physical gender noted in Scripture or the spiritual character noted? Does "husband of one wife" indicate restricting divorcees or polygamists, or is it addressing a character trait?

Honoring the Work of The Holy Spirit

I have personally had the experience of working with an ordained woman minister. I have witnessed and experienced what I firmly believe is the power of God's Holy Spirit at work in her ministry. And as the early apostles looked upon the first gentiles, filled with the Holy Spirit with wonder, and could not deny what they saw, I have looked upon the ministry of this woman and cannot deny the work of The Holy Spirit I see.

And I have had to revisit my beliefs concerning this issue as we have done above. I praise God that He indeed does not differentiate between Jew or Gentile, male or female. But that He is very patient with our prejudices and our lack of understanding. And that God's work is done, not by the might or power of the physical agent, but by His Holy Spirit.

hsawyer@snet.net

[Voyager]

I don't make excuses for the Bible. It is obviously very outdated and even barbaric when it comes to women's rights. I mean c'mon, are women really going to stay away from people while on their periods? Are they really going to keep their mouths shut in church? Are they really going to refrain from instructing their husbands? I sure hope not.

I'm not into apologetics. If God wants to apologize for this stuff, He is well able.

:cool:

[Voyager]

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence."
That is absolute hogwash. I used to make up excuses for this kind of stuff, but not anymore. I don't believe any of it. It's just some guy's opinion from 2,000 years ago. I think my opinion is more humane, and much more Godly: Women deserve the same rights that men do.

:cool:

[Jerry]

He's chaff ;)
Love Jerry

[Reg]

Here's some more info that may help you Hesed.

Women in Paul's Time

First, remember that Deborah was a judge and a prophetess (Judg 4:4) and Huldah was a prophetess (1 Kings 22:14")

Joel predicted that in the Christian dispensation "the sons and 'daughters' should prophesy" (Joel 2:28), and Peter declared that this was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:4).

In addition, the daughters of Philip prophesied.
Ac 21:9 And there were four virgin daughters to this one, who prophesied. (MKJV)

Paul gives directions concerning women prophesying in 1 Cor 11:5.
1 Cor 11:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with [her] head unveiled dishonors her head; for that is even the same as if she were shaved. (MKJV)

Probably these apparent discrepancies may be reconciled as follows:
(1) Paul's prohibition of speaking to the women is "in the churches"; that is, in the church assemblies when "the whole church is come together into one place" (1 Cor 14:23). It is an official meeting of the church. "Church" in the New Testament always means the "ecclesia". It does not apply to such informal meetings as the social or prayer-meetings, but to formal gatherings of the whole body.
(2) It may be that even this prohibition was due to the circumstances that existed in Ephesus, where Timothy was, and in Corinth, and would not apply everywhere. If so, it applies wherever similar circumstances exist, but not elsewhere. Both were Greek churches. Among the Greeks public women were disreputable. For a woman to speak in public would cause the remark that she was shameless. Virtuous women were secluded. Hence it would be "a shame for women to speak in the church" assembly. It is noteworthy that there is no hint of such a prohibition to any churches except Grecian. Wherever it would be shameful, women ought not to speak. {Keep silence in the churches} (|en tais ekklêsiais sigatôsan|).

The same verb used about the disorders caused by speakers in tongues (verse 28) and prophets (vs 30).

For some reason some of the women were creating disturbance in the public worship by their dress (1 Cor 11:2-16) and now by their speech. There is no doubt at all as to Paul's meaning here. In church the women are not allowed to speak (|lalein|) nor even to ask questions. They are to do that {at home} (|en oikôi|). He calls it a shame (|aischron|) as in 1 Cor 11:6. Also the same word is used in Eph 5:12 & Tit 1:11. Certainly women are still in subjection (|hupotassesthôsan|) to their husbands (or ought to be).

But somehow modern Christians have concluded that Paul's commands on this subject, even 1 Tim 2:12, were meant for specific conditions that do not apply wholly now.

1 Tim 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach, or to exercise authority [over] a man, but to be in silence. (MKJV)

"But I suffer not a woman to teach", They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Titus 2:3". They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father; see Prov 1:8 31:1-4". Timothy, no doubt, received much advantage, from the private teachings and instructions of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois; but then women are not to teach in the church; for that is an act of power and authority, and supposes the persons that teach to be of a superior degree, and in a superior office, and to have superior abilities to those who are taught by them:

"nor to usurp authority over the man"; as not in civil and political things, or in things relating to civil government; and in things domestic, or the affairs of the family; so not in things ecclesiastical, or what relate to the church and government of it; for one part of rule is to feed the church with knowledge and understanding; and for a woman to take upon her to do this, is to usurp an authority over the man: this therefore she ought not to do,

"but to be in silence" to sit and hear quietly and silently, and learn, and not teach, as in
1Tim 2:11.

Women do most of the teaching in our Sunday schools today. *It is not easy to draw the line*. The daughters of Philip were prophetesses. It seems clear that we need to be patient with each other as we try to understand Paul's real meaning here.


1Cor 14:35. "And if they will learn anything" If they are desirous of learning anything in relation to doctrine, duty, or discipline, and of improving their knowledge of divine things, which is very commendable in them; if any difficulty arises in their minds whilst hearing the word, which they want to have removed, or any question to ask for information sake, "let them ask their husbands at home"; privately, when retired from the public assembly; for though men might ask one another concerning this, and the other point, in the church, as was usual in the synagogue worship, to which this church at Corinth in many things conformed; yet women were not allowed this freedom, and even in things which belonged to women to do; as for instance, making the cake of the first of their dough, which was to be an heave offering to the Lord, the men were to teach the women at home how, and when to separate it from the rest
{d}. So the apostle directs women, when they wanted to be informed about any point, to apply to their husbands at their own houses, if they were such as were capable of instructing them; if not, they might apply to other men that were Christian men, and men of knowledge, especially to the prophets, pastors, and teachers of the church, at their habitations:

"for it is a shame for women to speak in the church"; it is a shame to themselves, as being contrary to the natural modesty and bashfulness of the sex thought to be the norm in Paul's day. Thus a shame to the church, to the non-members of it, and especially to the elders, and more experienced part of it, to be taught and directed by a woman; it is a disgrace to herself and sex, as betraying uncommon pride and vanity, and an unnatural boldness and confidence; and a disgrace to the church to be under such a ministry and conduct.

Comment: Only women of ill repute [prostitutes] conducted themselves like this in Paul's time. They spoke boldly & were haughty. Only prostitutes acted like this & for Christian women to do so would bring reproach to them, their husbands & to the church..

"Woman"

1. Was "taken out of man" Gen 2:23" and therefore the man has the preeminence.
2. "The head of the woman is the man;" but yet honour is to be shown to the wife, "as unto the weaker vessel" 1 Cor 11:3,8,9; 1 Pet 3:7
3. Several women are mentioned in Scripture as having been endowed with prophetic gifts, as
a. Miriam Ex 15:20
b. Deborah Judges 4:4,5
c. Huldah 2 Kings 22:14
d. Noadiah Neh 6:14
e. Anna Luke 2:36,37
f. the daughters of Philip the evangelist Acts 21:8,9
4. Women are forbidden to teach publicly 1 Cor 14:34,35; 1 Tim 2:11,12
5. Among the Hebrews it devolved upon women:
a. to prepare the meals for the household Gen 18:6; 2 Sam 13:8
b. to attend to the work of spinning Ex 35:26; Pr 31:19
c. making clothes 1 Sam 2:19; Pr 31:21
d. to bring water from the well Gen 24:15; 1 Sam 9:11
e. to care for the flocks Gen 29:6; Ex 2:16
6. The word "woman," as used in Mat 15:28; John 2:4 20:13,15 implies tenderness and courtesy and not disrespect. Only where revelation is known has woman her due place of honour assigned to her.

[Zoe Rebecca]

Hi,

I use to frequent this site quite a bit when I started looking closely at the issues regarding women in the church.

Christians for Biblical Equality (http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/index.shtml)

I encourage you to keep asking questions & to think for yourself. So often in some church settings people are not encouraged to think for themselves.

Three books that I used in my initial research on the subject are:

Women Leaders and the Church, by Linda L. Belleville.

Why Not Women? by Cunningham, Hamilton & Rogers.

10 Lies the Church tells Women, by J. Lee Grady.

I eventually left the church because of spiritual abuses as well as no longer being able to support (in any way shape or form) something I knew I could not agree with in my heart. I could no longer sit for one more sermon about the submissive role of women in the church, the family & the world.

I saw your post here & registered just to maybe help with some resources. I haven't had a change to read the other replies yet. I'll get around to it in a bit.

You asked: "Do you think it's abusive to believe that women are less intelligent than men, less reliable than men and more prone to sinfulness than men?"

Those who tell you that women are less intelligent, less reliable & more prone to sin then men are indeed being abusive. The problem is, they don't think they are abusive. They think they are absolutely right in every way. You're right, he &/or they might never consider anything you have to say because you are a woman. Still, don't let that get in your way of doing your own research & study on the issue. :)

[Hesed]

Thanks to everyone for their replies and to Reg for the reading material. I'm doing some work today and don't have time to read it, but I'll definitely be giving it a good look-through later.

I don't see the bible as the dictated word of God. I see it as human beings inspired by God, describing the God who affected them and what they thought s/he was like. I think that the bible as a whole shows a changing picture of God and human approaches to them. Even liberal Jews today (I don't know about in Jesus' time) see their God as the God who called them to bring God's laws to the rest of the world and I think this is one central point in the bible: that all peoples are to be one. (I think that there are other big points in the bible as well.)

Therefore, I personally think that to say that this group or that group have inferior intellectual or moral qualities is the exact opposite of The Kingdom.

I've not introduced myself, so I guess I should say that I'm an active church member. I really don't know if I'm "liberal" or "conservative" and people have found me "too conservative" sometimes and "too liberal" other times. In my life I have rejected Christianity and church, I've been a VERY liberal Christian and I've come back into a sort of mainstream belief. Most of my personal beliefs are probably mainstream-conservative except on the Current Big Issue where I'm "liberal". I think, though, my "processes" are "liberal"; those who do not hold my beliefs do not upset me and I think God is big enough to deal with us all.

[bad girl]

This is in large part why I left my church. I wasn't allowed to participate in music until my husband gave "permission" for me to "participate". I was singled out because of my husbands behavior, which was blatant sin. He wouldn't even return the phone calls from them. He didn't even care if I participated, but they wouldn't take my word for it. It was then, that one of several friends pulled me aside and said "You have a Calling on your life, do you realize this???"
I knew God had called me to this type of ministry, but I was pulled from ministry at my own church after 4 good years due to my husband's behavior. I was basically told to bake cookies and keep nursery, that they couldn't use my gifts.

I studied women and the Bible and found the book of Matthew where Jesus redefines and greatly elevates women.
Every interaction he had treated them as an individual, such as the women who annointed him with oil. Never did he say, go ask your Father, or whoever (all women were under some type of male authority then for protection, so even if she had no husband, he could have sent her to her next authority if he had wished)
And paul, he actually elevated women. Just the fact that he never allowed a woman to "prophesy" with her head uncovered said that he valued women's input and their ability to prophesy also. This means he also allowed them to talk.

He also was doing a totally new thing when he said for husbands and wives to submit to one another, this also was elevating women greatly.

The book "Every woman in the bible" studies every women mentioned in the bible and with a nonbiased view, explains it. I realized after reading that that women have been blessed at times for making descisions apart from their husband (Abigail is a great example), they have been leaders, and many of Paul's words that seem biased against women are actually elevating women if you understand the context of the time he was writing.
I consider Pauls words to be just out of sensibility for the time, not at all to be applicable to the letter, as Jesus is the best example of how women are valued by the Lord!!! :) :)
Pat

[Hesed]

I studied women and the Bible and found the book of Matthew where Jesus redefines and greatly elevates women.
Every interaction he had treated them as an individual, such as the women who annointed him with oil. Never did he say, go ask your Father, or whoever (all women were under some type of male authority then for protection, so even if she had no husband, he could have sent her to her next authority if he had wished)

I agree with this. The problem is - I think I know every trick in the book that these guys use by now! - that it seems somehow easy to dismiss the life and witness of Jesus and much easier to focus in on the words of Paul or the Pauline disciples in the Epistles. I said the above to this guy and the response was that no-where did Jesus say that women were equal.

We're such a word-based culture that Christians often seem to think that words are more important than action. Also Paul seems to get lifted to a status above Jesus because Paul wrote letters and "all" we have of Jesus are the witness of the Gospels. Sigh.

And paul, he actually elevated women. Just the fact that he never allowed a woman to "prophesy" with her head uncovered said that he valued women's input and their ability to prophesy also. This means he also allowed them to talk.

I said that. That didn't fly either.

I consider Pauls words to be just out of sensibility for the time, not at all to be applicable to the letter, as Jesus is the best example of how women are valued by the Lord!!! :) :)
Pat

Me too.

What I'm STILL really trying to figure out, though, is how do you interact with people like this without losing your temper? It's genuinely not so much the point of view as much as it is the anger when you don't agree with them, the manipulative conversations, the weird thinking (Like getting called a "liar" for saying Jesus treated women with respect.) Everything is binary. If you're not for me, you're against me. If you don't agree with me, you're the enemy, you're disobedient, you're a liar.

I'm really regretful for your experiences and I hope you have found your calling and that you are going forward with it.

Many blessings.

[Hesed]

I saw your post here & registered just to maybe help with some resources. I haven't had a change to read the other replies yet. I'll get around to it in a bit.


I missed this the first time around, but thank you. I did know about CRE but hadn't got too involved. I think I'm going to do so now. And thank you for the book suggestions.

[Willow]

Zoe, Thanks for the link. I will look into the CBE site too.

Amy

[Truthseeker]

How to deal with people like this without getting angry...

Hesed, I hope you are in a position to leave... James 3 says this about wisdom:

"Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such wisdom does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil...

But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure, then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. "

Submissive here means "teachable or correctable."

You may find a reasonable person among the group who is truly seeking to understand the truth and willing to have their perspective changed; but it sounds like the group has decided what is right; and as a woman, that is NOT you. You need to be where it's okay to be who God made you.

As a woman, I believe I am called to preach and teach. I have led many people to the Lord through speaking in public. I am a strong leader. This has been a problem for me in many places; but there are groups of people who encourage me to be what God has made me (including a man who changed his perspective after a little prayer and study).

I agree that Jesus was one of the first women's liberator's -- do you know, the only person I can think of that He actually told He was the Messiah was not only a woman but a Samaritan "serial wife"? (The woman at the well.) When Martha was upset about Mary not helping, there was more going on than that she wasn't doing enough -- Mary was doing the man stuff instead of the woman's work. She was sitting and being taught by Jesus. But Jesus said Mary had chosen "the good part." After the resurrection, it was the women who first recognized Jesus.

I think rather than spinning your wheels trying to convince people to leave off their prejudices (trust me, this gets old), it would be good for you to be where you are accepted for who you are.

[Kerrin]

I agree that Jesus was one of the first women's liberator's --
I think rather than spinning your wheels trying to convince people to leave off their prejudices (trust me, this gets old), it would be good for you to be where you are accepted for who you are.[/QUOTE]

;)
I agree with all points made here,

I too, have strong leadership/ teaching "gifts" that our old Pator /Vicar spent the last 10 yeras telling me were NOT my "gifts" that in fact I was a "loose cannon/ jezebel"!! :eek:

It's taken me a lot of months......a lot of hanging out here to see through that lie!
And a lot of pain.
I now have re-entered the workforce in a position of authority, leadership and with many staff under my supervision who are students!
I got the position on my own merrit. Together with the gifts God has given me, I look forward now to accepting that I am good at what I do and that doesn't make me "unsubmissive"!!! as I was so frequently told, ( as well as rebellious, un-teachable etc....) ;)

I also agree, that rather than stay and argue, is it possible to find somewhere where you are accepted for who you are, and with what God has gifted you with?

Love,
Kerrin ;)
( sorry if I'm a bit behind you guys, and have missed a point here........and welcome to the newbies.Look forward to getting to know you) :o

[Truthseeker]

Congratulations on your job! I want to do a study on submission and authority soon. Using your gifts is not a sign of rebellion. (I was thinking about this the other day... when Samuel told Saul that "rebellion was as the sin of witchcraft," he meant rebellion against GOD, not earthly authority. Saul WAS the highest earthly authority in the land. And he was the one in rebellion.)

My Bible study leader really feels a man should be the priest of his home, the spiritual leader... so I was very surprised the other day when he asked if we thought that a woman should "submit" to her husband if she was gifted in an area and he asked her to give it up (like, say, writing).

My response was that she had obviously married the wrong man, but now that she was in the marriage, she should submit (for peace). My leader disagreed. He thought she should continue to write! He was appalled at the possibility that a man should keep his wife from being everything she was. (I was really amazed at that.)

This is going to sound strange. I'm not only strong, brilliant, and feel I have a calling, I'm also a bit old-fashioned. (And chronically single. Ahem.)

I know that I could truly "submit" to a man who had a desire to see me become everything I was destined to be. Strength and submission are not mutually exclusive. It's not whether I submit that is the issue, but to whom? What qualifications would make you safe for me to submit myself to?

For one, you'd have to love me enough to want me to be me. To acknowledge that my ideas and my ministry have validity -- even to appreciate them. To be reasonable and able to change perspective. To this kind of person, (which Jesus is... except for changing perspective), I would have no difficulty submitting... but I could never give up who I am in order to do that.

Moreover, submission and subjection are NOT the same thing. Submission is voluntary on the part of the submitter. Subjection is when someone forces someone to "submit."

I don't know why so many men equate strength with unsubmissiveness and/or rebellion. I think it's because they are afraid that if you are strong, it will show them to be weak. And that is just insecurity. The truth is, that fearing strength shows weakness. Embracing it shows strength.

[Truthseeker]

BTW Reg - really great articles!

[Hesed]

Actually, just to be clear, I have left that environment; I left about 5 years ago.

The denomination in which I grew up (in the US) still believes that women are never called to leadership; although what they think is leadership gets weird: women can't be ministers but can be seminary professors; technically they think it's OK for a woman to help serve Communion but they don't allow it because they think it gives a better witness to just not allow the woman anywhere near the "altar". Some congregations allow women to be on the church council and others do not.

When I left that denomination, I continued to go to relatively conservative churches. I guess you stick with what you know; I don't really know why I kept being attracted to conservative churches but I was. Prior to changing churches 5 years ago, I went to an Anglican church here in the UK; in the UK, there is very wide theology in the Anglican church (I know that in the US, the Episcopalian church is generally regarded as being liberal). However, it was a conservative evangelical Anglican church I attended. Some people there thought it was OK for women to lead and some thought it wasn't OK. However, I was always on the fringe of the congregation, regarded, I think as "Not a real Christian" (I'm assuming that some people here will have that experience and know what I mean.)

I actually left that church and joined a Methodist church almost primarily because I felt God's call. I've just been accepted to train for ordination and I'll start that this autumn. Actually, I think I feel quite firm about this call; all of us who grew up in these "my way or the highway" churches probably are prone to doubt in everything, but I feel less doubtful about this than I do about other things!

It's just that you do keep encountering these people. I think I can deal with people who disagree with me on the ordination of women. With this guy, it's actually more the bit about "women are less intelligent, more easily tempted, less reliable, etc. etc." Even the denomination I grew up in always insisted that God viewed men and women equally but just forbade women to lead, but it wasn't anything about men being better (a stance which always struck me as a bit two-faced, but at least they insisted that women were "OK")

[Doug64]

I agree that pitting scripture against scripture will not be productive.

I saw a TV program on this general subject this morning (Baptist) and one point that was made is that actions are more effective than words. Of course we knew that, and some just won't accept anything that doesn't fit their 'box' of beliefs.

Closed minds don't 'see' what is directly in front of them.

Doug

[Hesed]

I found the quotation below on a website advertising a book entitled "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing" (http://www.religiousaddictionandspiritualabuse.com/site/749804/page/375551). I think it pretty much answers the question in my Original Post.

1) Religious language and rules of conduct are prioritized over the personal growth and well being of the individual and over entering authentic relationships, in direct opposition to what is called for by the very scriptures embraced. Individuals are taught what to think and how to act. Conformity behavior is stressed and rewarded. Individuals are then judged according to how well they speak the language and practice the system's rules. This is presented to the group as "obedience to God." Learning and adopting "the Christian life," as defined by the group's leader-ship, is stressed over the individual's unique and personal discovery of a personal relationship with the divine.

[Jerry]

Dear Hesed,,,
That quote is a keeper,,,,,,,,,,good stuff,,,,,,, :D make it your montra ;)
Love Jerry