There's a to-do among female Senators over President Bush's recently-confirmed judicial nominee J. Leon Holmes. More than anything, the controversy reveals that many people are quicker to condemn the Bible than to understand it.
Women senators are expressing outrage at a controversial judicial nominee who co-authored a 1997 article with his wife in which he suggested biblical passages about wives being subservient to their husbands should be taken literally.J. Leon Holmes (search) — nominated by President Bush to serve on the federal district court in Arkansas — and his wife wrote the article for the Arkansas Catholic Review (search) that reads "the wife is to subordinate herself to the husband ... the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man."
Holmes said the words have been taken out of context, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein (search), D-Calif., calls Holmes unacceptable.
"How can I or any other American believe that one who truly believes a woman is subordinate to her spouse [can] interpret the Constitution (search) fairly?" she asked during a debate Tuesday on the candidate.
Even Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas claim Holmes does not have a "fundamental commitment to the equality of women in our society."
There are a few passages on this topic in the New Testament, but the most relevant is probably:
Ephesians 5:22-3322 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[1] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[2] 32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
The majority of the controversy is based on the worldly assumption that the person in charge is in a better position than the person following. But is that really the case? Jesus says no.
Luke 22:24-2724 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves."
Throughout the Bible the virtues of humility are extolled, as are the dangers of pride.
Which is better then, to serve or to be served? Which is better, to strive for earthly mastery and displease God, or to submit in love to others and receive an eternal reward? After all, the command to submit isn't given only to wives -- humility is the path to greatness. Further, the verse directly before the passage about marriage above is this:
Ephesians 5:21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
We are all to show humility and love towards each other, regardless of our positions.
Anyone who complains about submission reveals that he or she is more concerned with earthly praise and position than with pleasing God.
See also John 13.
Update:
Another thought. Most men don't strive to be worthy of submission, and most women don't strive to be worthy of dying for.
It's all well and good to say that a confirmed sexist is a Christian believer in good standing. It's quite another to suggest that someone like that should be on the bench. I don't mind nominally Muslim judges, either, but I wouldn't be too wild about one who supports Sharia.
X: If you want to argue about semantics, I'll object to your characterization and say that what the Bible teaches isn't sexism at all, any more than it's "sexist" to argue that men don't have the right to abort their children but that women do.
I would think that his ability to read the bible and then apply what it actually says means that he is uniquely qualified to interpret the constitution fairly.
He doesn't have a "fundamental commitment to the equality of women in our society"? SO WHAT? I don't see anything about equality in the constitution. I see equal protection. That 'taint the same as equality.
I wonder if the female Senators cringe over the thought that the exact same Bible tells citizens to submit to their government. I suppose if I wrote an article about that, it would prove that I didn't have a fundamental commitment to the equality of all people in our society?
Headship is not the same as superiority, and submission is not the same as inferiority. It's about roles and relationships, not value or worth.
I do not believe I'll be voting for Kay Hutchison again.
My best friend just recently got married, and they selected that that Ephesians 5:22 -33 passage to be read at the ceremony. It seemed somewhat odd with the way people think nowadays, but I liked the fact that they both took the passage literally and were bold enough to have it read at their wedding. It was pretty cool. Also going out of the chapel they had a Five Iron Frenzy song playing, that was pretty neat too.
Not sexist? You've got to be kidding. If analogizing men and women to God and the church isn't sexist, there's no such thing as sexism. You might as well argue that slavery and the Jim Crow laws weren't really racist.
You'll get more mileage out of the argument that some sexism is OK than from saying that sexism isn't really sexism if it's done in the name of a religion.
X: Hm, interesting. I suppose if you count anything involving treating people differently because of their sex as "sexist", then you're right. To me, the term normally has a negative connotation.
It is, likewise, sexist for a strip club to only hire female dancers, for the law to refuse men the right to abort their babies, and so forth. The term just seems less useful when you only mean "discrimination based on sex" rather than "unfair discrimination based on sex".
How can Senator Feinstein question _anyone's_ ability to interpret the Constitution fairly?
MM: Yeah, it's hard to take anything DiFi says seriously. She's the one who fights tooth and nail against the 2nd amendment and then carries a concealed weapon herself, as well as hiring armed bodyguards.
To me, sexism implies that the sexes are treated differently for an arbitrary reason. Arguing whether non-pregnant men should have a "right" to abort their non-existent fetusus is silly, so discussing women's rights/responsibilities only is not unreasonable. Similarly, a strip club that hires only women because no one wants to pay money to see naked men is not acting out of sexism; it's just using sound business judgment.
By contrast, the Biblical - Pauline, mostly - teachings that put men in charge of women do so arbitrarily. Any for-profit corporation that generally required its female employees to be submissive toward their male counterparts would rightly be condemned, almost universally, as sexist in the extreme. So too would any non-religious man who bossed his wife around to the extent that the Apostate Paul urged the men of his day to do, provided he relied on anything other than a religious doctrine to justify his behavior. You seem to be carving out a convenient "Biblical exception" that rests on the premise that anything that appears in the Bible, however outrageous it may be on its face, must be true, and tehrefore cannot be decried as racist, sexist, or anything-else-ist. Am I wrong?
Let's try other religions on for size. How about the verses in the Koran that say Allah made men superior to woman, or the common Orthodox Jewish prayer in which men thank G-d that they were not born as women? Are those sexist? If so, why does the other guy's s--- stink more than yours? If not, how far does the religion exception go?
X: Whoa, you certainly don't mean to imply that an unborn child is any less the father's than it is the mother's do you? That strikes me as a wholly new position that needs some explanation and defense.
I'm not sure why you think the Biblical distinction between men and women is arbitrary. There are numerous reasons given all throughout scripture, so I can only assume that you haven't studied the topic very thoroughly. They may not be reasons you approve of, but they're not at all arbitrary. (And, naturally, even if they were arbitrary, God has the right to be arbitrary if he wants to be.)
As for other religions and their justifications, it's easy to dismiss them because I believe they're wrong. You, not having any particular beliefs, can't dismiss or accept anything, so you're left in a tough position -- but I'm not.
Further, you're apparently neglecting to factor in the weight of history. Christians (and Jews) have always been far more empowering of women than just about any other religion on the planet, and more so even than atheist systems such as Communism.
Can you honestly claim that modern secular humanism is less exploitative and oppressive towards women than Christianity is? You couldn't if you'd ever worked with teenage girls struggling to deal with our depraved culture. Parents buying their kids breast implants gor graduation. Women being told they have to work to be worth anything and then waking up when they're 40 and too old to have kids, depressed and practically suicidal. Divorce running rampant, and women paying almost all of the consequences. And so forth.
So spare me your charge of "sexism".
X: Also, you said, "Any for-profit corporation that generally required its female employees to be submissive toward their male counterparts would rightly be condemned, almost universally, as sexist in the extreme."
Which is irrelevant, since no one said women should be submissive to men in general. We're talking only about the marriage relationship here.
Abortion is a difficult issue precisely because it pits the semi-child's interest in life, on the one hand, against the woman's right to control her own body, on the other. It imposes nothing analogous to that on men.
Most parts of the New Testament do not talk about Paul's sexism. Indeed, one could construct a fairly reasonable, non-sexist version of Christianity by accepting the four Gospels and the rest of the New Testament as Scripture, but writing off the works of Paul as apocrypha. The reasons Paul gives for his sexist rantings consist of little more than a regurgitation of his sexist conclusions: women should submit to men like the church to God, because men are their heads, like God is to the church. That's no reason at all; it's just circular logic. Equally (un-)convincing arguments have been used in the past to justify slavery, and with just as much Biblical justification. [I assume, of course, that Ephesians 6:5 is no more or less valid than Ephesians 5:22.]
God, if he exists, is entitled to be every bit as arbitrary as he wants. People do not have that luxury, and do not obtain it simply by claiming to speak for God, especially in a world were so many people have claimed to speak for God, yet all have him saying wildly different things. In my book, the fact that a statement purports to be divinely inspired should subject it to more scrutiny than usual, not less. As Dr. Dean (Edell, that is, not the barking moonbat and ex-governor of Ben-and-Jerry-Land) likes to say, "Big charges, big proof."
We're talking about whether a specific Biblical doctrine is or isn't sexist. Whether some other ideology is also sexist, or whether it disproportionally harms women, or whatever, is irrelevant. Tu quoque (Latin for "so's your old man") is not a legitimate arguing strategy. Sorry.
Unless you start with the premise that men are generally superior to women, it's pretty tough to justify a rule that requires women to be enslaved by their husbands, or required to relate to them as men do to God. It's tougher still to compartmentalize that mentality such that it has no impact at all on men's general attitudes toward women, and vice-versa. Paul himself doesn't even try to do that; his antipathy toward women also precludes them from speaking out in church, as well, with or without their husband/owner's blessing. Paul thought it was "disgraceful" for women to speak out in church (1 Cor. 14). I defy you to argue that that is not sexist, without employing some ultra-clever definition of "sexism" that automatically excludes anything that may appear in the Bible because ... well, just because.
My point in raising the analogy, however, was not to argue that the Bible requires all women to submit to all men all the time. Obviously, it doesn't; something about serving more than one master, I think. My point was simply that it is no more arbitrary - and hence, by any consistent definition of the word, no more "sexist" - for a corporation to order all of its female employees to submit to their male co-workers than it is for a religious leader to order all of his female followers to submit to their husbands. To call one "sexist" and the other not is to hold religion to one standard and everything else to another. That, I am unwilling to do. God gets the special dispensation, but no one else can get it just by dropping his name.
X: I guess I just don't see why you think it's sexist for men and women to have different roles. Can't people be equal without being identical?
I suppose you see voluntary submission to be a bad thing, but really, society depends on it. There's a difference between deciding to submit and being forced to submit. The part about "slaves and masters" that you so quickly dismiss is very applicable to employers and employees, and so forth. As I said earlier, it comes down to humility, which you probably don't value particularly highly.
Hello. My name is Megan. I am an intelligent young twenty-something with a degree and a blog and I can't wait to submit to my husband. Yep, you heard me. It is going to be a joy for me to be under Daniel's authority. Why? Because, Ephesians 5:22 commands me to submit to my husband. Genesis 2:18 explains why I submit to him. It's because God created me to be a suitable helper for Daniel. God made an order when he created man first, and then female out of man. In putting myself under Daniel's authority I will be honoring God and respecting the order that he put in place. Note that right after the command for wives to submit husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. (Eph 5:25). In my opinion that's the harder command to live by, but that's just me.
Listen, we're all commanded to submit to God (Jam. 4:7), and wives are given somewhat of a sub-command to submit to their husbands as that will help them submit to God.
I'm reading a book right now called The Excellent Wife by Martha Peace. It talks a ton about this issue and addresses how God provides for women in marriage and how the call to submit is not there because women are dumb, illogical or untrustworthy. We are to submit because God said so and if that isn't enough reason for you to do so, well, then you probably won't understand or agree with Michael and I on this issue.
I would like to point out that my future husband is a kind and generous man. He is not going to abuse his position and ask me to submit to his every whim and desire, even when it's obvious that I'm not interested or will even dislike what he's asking me to do. It also means that he won't require me to ask his permission before I make even the smallest of decisions (The chicken or the fish?). He loves me and my opinions and wants me to be able to function independently at times. Now, I do have friends where they feel that the wife should be submissive to the extent that the husband will tell her that she needs to finish all the food on her plate, wear a winter coat or remember to wash her hands before she eats. That kind of relationship would make me sick, but it's what the two of them wanted.
Anyway, I'm excited about submitting to my future husband. There are lots of benefits to it including obeying God's word, the possibility of saving a nonbelieving husband* (1 Peter 3:1,2) and being able to show my husband that I love, respect and trust him.
Anyway, I could go on and on about this topic. If you want to hear more from me feel free to send me an e-mail. I would certainly not say that the call to be submissive is sexist due to the fact that it's a call made in conjunction with the call for men to love women as Christ loved the church.
*My future husband (August 21!) is a believer, but for women who have pagan husbands this would be a good thing. My hope is that my submissiveness will further encourage my husband in his relationship with Christ.
Michael: Of course people can be equal without being identical. In the Christian hierarchy, Christ and the church are not equals, nor even close. Advocating that men speak in church while labeling it as a "disgrace" for women to do so is not just "different"; it's unequal in the extreme. So too is a statement in 1 Cor. 11:8-9 that women were made for men, but not vice-versa. And then there's that gem about requiring women to cover their heads in church. The smart money says your church doesn't require that - but Paul does.
So no, you can't follow the teachings of a misogynist like Paul, while also respecting women as equals at the same time. Nor, for that matter, can you credibly oppose slavery without tacitly admitting that Paul got at least one thing wrong. And if he got one thing wrong, who's to say he didn't also screw up with his me-Tarzan-you-Jane attitude toward women?
Megan:
Of course it is reason enough, just as soon as either of you can prove that it's true. Paul was not God; he was a very naughty boy. First he persecuted the Christians for being Christians, then he persecuted them for not being "Christian" enough, and that according to a series of doctrine Jesus himself hadn't said word one about. If I were to follow everyone who claimed to speak for God, or even limit myself to those who threaten me with hellfire and damnation if I don't take them at their word, I'd have to many different religions at once, not just Christianity.
That said, I wish you the best of luck in your marriage. Whatever works for you, that's great. As for me, I'm happy to say that Mrs. X and I are looking forward to October, with Baby Xrlq due just in time for our ninth anniversary. If I had quoted Ephesians 5:22-33 at her on our wedding night, there wouldn't have been a first anniversary.
Well, Xrlq, then it comes down to whether or not you believe in the entire Bible as the word of God. I believe that the verses I referenced, although from Paul's mouth, are the words of God. If you don't believe that the entire Bible is the word of God, well, then this is going to turn into a whole different debate.
What about Paul's verses condoning slavery? Were those the word of God, too?
Excellent discussion going on here, folks.
Michael, you said this: " Most men don't strive to be worthy of submission, and most women don't strive to be worthy of dying for." This was the exact thought forming in my mind before I reached the end of your post.
Yup. It's all the word of God. How does one pick and choose certain parts to believe? Either you believe none of it or all of it. I believe all of it.
It's all well and good to say "all or nothing," but seeing as Christians cannot agree among themselves as to what that "all" is, is it really that far-fetched to suggest that the Council of Nicea screwed up when it included the writings of Paul in the Bible? And if not, why are these all-important teachings about men, women, slaves and masters completely absent from the four Gospels? Surely if these ideas were THAT important to Christianity, Christ himself might have had something to say abou them.
Xrlq, many of the Gentile churches were made up of the poor and slaves, servants of the richer folk who lived in each of the cities where a church was planted. When Paul was addressing the issue of slavery, he was addressing the Christians who were servants, telling them that it was right to submit to their masters. Slaves who rebelled or tried to start an uprising against those who owned them at the time would've been a sight contrary to Jesus's teaching of loving their enemies. Furthermore, there's a verse somewhere in the NT in which the authors says that a Christian's submissive and obedient conduct towards others, esp. those in authority, shames those who try to accuse them falsely. (That's a very bad paraphrase.)
Unfortunately, YES, those verses from Paul about slaves have been taken out of context and twisted in our history. However, that doesn't mean we CONDONE slavery.
A lot of good does come from a Christian submitting to authority, whether it be in the church, family, or civil authority. Yes, Christian women are exhorted by Paul to submit to their husbands, because the man is regarded as the head of the household. Maybe "enslaved" is how you see it when it comes to a woman submitting to her husband or her parents, but the point of submission is to learn to obey God, ultimately.
The point of the epistles was to address issues that arose as Christianity spread from the Jews to the Gentiles - issues that set apart the Gentile churches from the traditions of Judaism, which the Jerusalem church was slow to pull away from. And a lot of the issues that came up then still plague the church now - just in a more modern form.
The problem inherent in this argument is *exactly* the reason I feel so strongly about keeping **all** religion out of **all** government in the US.
Basing any argument about government on any religious text is bound to lead to just this type of silliness. I cannot tell Michael that his interpretation of his Bible is wrong the same as I cannot tell Mohammed about his Qran or Aaron about his Torah. It is none of my business. And it can remain none of my business *because* in America none of them can impose his religious-based laws on me.
If I as employer/citizen hire an employee in the role of a judge who will be in a position to interpret the Constitution in particulars, he damn well better not be basing his justifications on a religion to which I do not subscribe. [Or to which *you* do not subscribe -- that's fair all 'round.]
Sure, some American values resemble and may have grown out of the Judeo/Christian history. Some may have been influenced by Shintoism, too. *Not* the point. The point is that the Founding Fathers, having seen the incredible ugliness, danger and death that religious squabbling can cause to a country, a people and a government [vis English Civil War etc.] set up this country so that horror would be prevented from happening again.
If we lose that point we will be shooting ourselves in the brain.
I will not relate to anyone as *you* relate to *your God* because your God is not mine. If a judge believes strongly, based on *his* religion, that a woman ought to be subservient to a man, all the Biblical interpretative wrangling in the world means naught. He will naturally include that preconception in his rulings, the rulings which affect *me*, and that is not the point of America. Living in America means that I don't have to be ruled by your or anyone else's religion -- and neither do you.
oh, and strip clubs *do* hire men -- just maybe not the clubs *y'all* frequent...
; >
"He will naturally include that preconception in his rulings, the rulings which affect *me*, and that is not the point of America."
That's sort of a leap, don't you think? How will his opinion on whether or not a woman should submit to a man have any bearing on a case that has nothing to do with this issue, period?
That makes me wonder, also: do a lot of non-Christians think right off the bat that a politician or judge who's a Christian will go so far as to defy the law because it trumps Christian principles? Christians are told to submit to authority (and not just in the NT, either) - defying the law, as Roy Moore did where the 10C were concerned, isn't exactly the rule here, more like the exception.
A lot of times, it's not really about "defying" the law, so much as distorting it. Where the law isn't crystal clear, it ends up being whatever the judge says it is. Discrimination cases in particular often boil down not so much to whether or not there was some form of discrimination, but whether such discrimination was reasonable. A judge who is thinks that total submission is the natural order between men and women in the family is likely to have a similarly warped view of what is "reasonable" gender discrimination in other contexts.
I don't think there would have been any outcry if the same guy had been appointed to sit on the Tax Court.
Just for my own amusement xrlq, please point out where Paul okayed Slavery.......this ought to be most amusing.......Let me guess......your going to butcher the exegesis of Philemon??
I await....
Thanks
I find it hilarious that there are a couple of voices preaching against having an individuals' religious views placed into their decisions. If the judge is doing his job, he will do what is in accordance to the law. If a judge chooses to subvert the law and place their own personal beliefs as law instead they should be removed. Oh wait, that's what the liberal courts are doing now.
I'm sorry to add that in there, but my point is simply that having an absence of religion does not prevent the corruption of our courts. I believe however, that having an absence of the values that our country was founded upon aids in the corruption because in religion, specifically Christianity, we are taught to be respectful towards others and treat others fairly, as we ourselves wish to be treated. There's no burying others in order to better ourselves. Instead there's compassion, faith, love, responsibility, the list goes on and on. Perhaps if more nonbelievers understood people of faith they would understand that we are not a threat to them, but instead someone who has several qualities they should desire to emulate. Which those qualities are, they're up to you to decide.
Mmmm, good meat here. I can just feel my iron sharpening.
I have to wonder if most women (Christian women, that is, as the scriptures about submission are speaking to believers) who struggle with accepting the Word of God on this subject, have been abused?
For years I really did not accept this as part of God's plan, but rather Paul's own "culture" slipping through the inspirational cracks. When I began to examine the origins of my rejection of this, I realized it stemmed from the abuse of those in authority over me. I had to accept that there will be mistakes; but misinterpretation and misapplication doesn't negate the authority or the "rightness" of God's Word. What people do can either affirm or negate the scriptures, but never the truth of them.
Albertadude: I don't know what portion of Philemon you have in mind. Elaborate?
As to the Bible condoning slavery, I've already pointed out Ephesians 6:5, which orders slaves to submit to their masters, just as Ephesians 5:22 orders women to do to their husband. For what it's worth, Ephesians 6:9 does tell slave owners not to mistreat or threaten their slaves, but it doesn't order (or even encourage) them to free them. No one in this thread has given a coherent explanation as to why Ephesians 5:22-33 should still apply today but Ephesians 6:5-9 should not. While I don't buy Megan's all-or-nothing argument about the Bible as a whole, I do tend to think that principle should apply to the writings of any one author, or at a minimum, any one book/epistle/etc. If Paul was a crank, as I think he was, none of his books should have been included in the Bible. If the original writings were great, but some portions of the book of Ephesians got screwed up in translation, none of Ephesians is reliable. If some portions of Ephesians (e.g., slavery) were right only for the church in Ephesus at that particular time in history, well, maybe other parts of the same letter (e.g., Stepford wives doctrine) should be viewed in that context, as well. I could be wrong, but I suspect that even most self-identified Christians living in this country would agree with me on that last point, or simply concede that the Bible is not inerrant. And before you write them off as fake Christians because they don't believe all the Bible, consider this: does your church meet on Saturday, require women to cover their heads and remain silent, and teach that the only thing wrong with slavery is the fact that it's illegal? If not, then we're really just haggling over the price.
NJ Rob: no one is denying that good Christians can be good judges. I have no reason to doubt that Justice Scalia is a good Christian, and he's certainly a stellar judge. Nor is the problem one of "having an absence of the values that our country was founded upon." The potential problem I see here is having the presence of a value that is inconsistent with the ones the Constitution was founded on, at least as amended by the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, and one also inconsistent with statutes the judge is likely to rule on.
Justice Scalia has forgotten more than I'll ever know about the Constitution, and is probably equally knowledgeable about the teachings of Roman Catholicism. What is important is that he understands they are not the same, and he doesn't allow his views on one to unduly influence the other. If the same is true of Leon Holmes, then the Senate was right to confirm him. But if he thinks his values - or this one, in particular - are what the current Constitution is founded on, he's well on his way to becoming one of the most frequently reversed judges in history.
The more I think about it, perhaps a staunch Muslim judge would actually be better than either a secular liberal or a conservative Christian. While liberals and Christians both claim the Constitution was about them (and both are right, to a limited extent), no Muslim would ever make that mistake, as no one believes for a minute that this country was founded on Islam.
thank you for your accurate defense of the Scriptures, michael.
X: I don't see why you're focusing on slavery so much, as if it's a given that slavery is a terrible evil. Slavery is as old as humanity itself, and it's only in the last few centuries that anyone has questioned it.
You have to remember that the NT isn't about political reform, it's about spiritual reform. Many Christians were slaves, and Paul encouraged them to gain their freedom if they could, but to focus on living godly lives no matter what our circumstance (I Corinthians 7).
Paul himself spent much of his later life in chains as a Roman prisoner, and as he says a "slave" for Christ.You're overly concerned with the physical aspects of what is really a spiritual issue. As I wrote in the original post, Jesus clearly indicated that the most humble of humanity will reap the greatest rewards from God. Paul counted his own trials to be a joy, because they helped him identify more closely with Jesus Christ. If a Christian slave could lead his master to salvation by humility and obedience, slavery was a price worth paying.
I guess that's where we'll have to agree to disagree, then. In my view, slavery is among the worst evils that have plagued the planet, ever, right behind genocide (which the Old Testament also condoned on several occasions).
X: Again, it's spiritual vs. material. If you don't acknowledge the primacy of the spiritual, then much in the Bible will seem to be foolishness.
I think both sides are applying 21st century standards to 1st century reality. Paul could not apply his words to what he was not aware of. On the other hand, Jesus's words apply today as well as they did when they were first spoken. Think he knew something?
Dman, I agree. Paul's words were not that far out of line for his day - if he had merely spoken for himself rather than pretending to speak for God. Since he claimed to speak for God, he should be held to 21st Century standards. Or, for that matter, to 30th Century standards, if we had any way of knowing what those standards would be.
X: Slavery is more complicated than you think.
See, the ancient world was a politically unstable place. Suppose you lived there. At any time, your village could be overrun by invaders. It happened pretty regularly. The invaders rout your army and overrun your fortifications. They now own your homeland.
You can't just shrug and become a citizen of the invaders' army, for a number of reasons. Language and race are the big ones. The invading army doesn't want you as a citizen, because eventually you or your children might cause a revolt. No, it’s too complicated. For the invaders it's really much simpler if you're just dead. An invading soldier puts his sword to your neck and prepares to cut your head off.
But wait! An idea springs to mind! Maybe there's an option for you in between death and full citizenship in the expanded country! Hmmm, let's think for a second.
I know! You could be the invaders' slave! That way you don't have to die, you're a minimal security risk, and the invaders can get some benefit from keeping you alive. It's a great deal all the way around. Or would you rather stick to your principles and just be killed? Having that sword at your neck would give you a whole new perspective on slavery.
When a dominant group is willing to kill a weaker group, slavery is a great idea---even a merciful one. And it isn’t limited to the ancient world. Would you rather today’s Sudanese Muslims enslave the Sudanese Christians, or kill them?
We abhor slavery in the West today because our modern laws and governmental institutions are so strong, enjoying centuries of accumulated discoveries about government and law, supported by innumerable discoveries in other areas. (Imagine trying to maintain a government of any size without a printing press.) Governments in the not-too-distant past were much weaker. They relied heavily on their citizens’ natural attraction towards people of the same race, language, and religion—and antipathy towards everyone else.
If you despise the ancients for their slavery and race-based citizenship, then you despise them simply because they didn’t have the technology that you enjoy today. You probably wouldn’t be too happy with their hygiene either, or their literacy rate, or their grasp of medicine.
It’s very easy to bask in the splendor of 21st century technology and berate the ancients for failing to live up to your standards. It’s much harder to appreciate the conditions under which they lived.
Ben, you're missing my point. I don't despise ancient people just because they owned slaves. That doesn't mean owning slaves wasn't wrong, even if it was less wrong than other alternatives such as annihilating them. Besides, at the time of the writings of Paul, Christianity was a martyr culture. Encouraging slave owners to free their slaves would not have been that much to ask.
I don't despise primitive people for having primitive education levels, although I do resent the church for its role in helping to keep it that way. There was a period in which Christians took their Bible as seriously as today's Wahhabists take the Koran. That period is known, quite appropriately, as the Dark Ages.
As to their hygiene either, their literacy rate, and their grasp of medicine, you are right, I would not be happy with those at all. They all sucked. Then again, if I were born in a culture like theirs, I wouldn't be complaining about it. At 37, I'd probably be dead, in which case I wouldn't be complaining about anything at all. [Except maybe how hot it is in this crappy place with a big red guy and a pitchfork.]
Or would you rather stick to your principles and just be killed?
Why, yes. I b'lieve I *would* fight to the death not to be made a dhimmi slave.
We abhor slavery in the West today because our modern laws and governmental institutions are so strong... ...their slavery and race-based citizenship, then you despise them simply because they didn’t have the technology...
Slavery and technology are not related. There were some Native American tribes who practiced slavery -- and some to whom slavery was anathema. Their levels of technology were the same. This was long before the first century.
The question of slavery is dependent on a civilization's perception of the value and dignity of human life -- not good plumbing, medicine and flying cars.
Where the law isn't crystal clear, it ends up being whatever the judge says it is. Discrimination cases in particular often boil down not so much to whether or not there was some form of discrimination, but whether such discrimination was reasonable. A judge who is thinks that total submission is the natural order between men and women in the family is likely to have a similarly warped view of what is "reasonable" gender discrimination in other contexts.
Xrlq - ya nailed it, there.
Claire: Fighting against slavery with a reasonable chance of success ("Give me liberty or give me death!") is reasonable, but deciding to fight in the face of certain failure (i.e., when the sword is at your throat) is foolish.
As for native Americans and slavery, the circumstances were quite different than in the ancient Mediterranean. North America supported only a few million Indians, whereas the Med was packed and near its population support threshold. Among many other factors.
Plus, those Indians to whom slavery was anathema just killed their defeated enemies, which is hardly more moral, as BB pointed out earlier.
This thread is easily one of the best I've read in the last 6 months. There's a quarters-worth of material here, if I were teaching sociology in a secular or Christian setting.
Thanks MW, X & others.
X:The point of Philemon is Paul saying that regardless of the position that we find ourselves in this life, as Christians, we're to treat each other as brothers, because that's the way it will be in the hereafter.
Also, another common fallacy is associating the terminolgy "servant" with "slaves". Aside from the previously discussed scenario of slaves, for life, captured in conquest, there is a group subset of bonded servants, where a person is a "slave" for a predetermined period, i.e. 7 years as repayment for a debt. These type of servants were more prevalant in that peroid, as well as a rule of law for the Jews going back to Moses.
Furthermore, although Paul was writing to the unique issues of a particular group (Corinth, Thessalonia) or person (Timothy, Philemon), his writings were predicated on eternal truths/principals as laid out by Moses, the prophets, Jesus and the other Apostles and are just as relevant to the modern day Christian. Although Paul did not experience Jesus during his time on earth, Paul is every bit as legitimate in that Jesus called him out.
If Joesph as a slave in Egypt had not submitted to his masters, as God intended, he would never have been in the position to rescue his family, thus ensuring the lineage of Christ. The Bible has plenty of examples of faithful slaves vis á vis wicked slaves.
The fact that we abhor slavery in its "traditional" form, it doesn't mean that we don't have it in other 21st century forms--typically economic. The point is we (servants/employees/soldiers) are to submit to those above us and at the same time, those in authority (masters/bosses/officers) ought to be likewise respectful of those under our charge.
Focusing only on Paul's "misogynicism", you ignore Jesus' multiple teachings on the wife/servant/master/church relationship--to wit the parable of talents; the parable of workers who put in a full day's work, while the some who worked only a 1/2 day and for only an hour, all received the exact same pay; or even the 10 virgins. And finally the issue of giving to Ceasar what was his. Bear in mind, the Jews were occupied by the Romans and for most, their ideal of a Messiah was a political one, not spiritual.
In closing, unless one is seeking the truth, and how it applies to the Christian's worldview, this whole discussion is moot. It's an all or nothing proposition:
For our conversation is in heaven; from1 whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. Phi 3:20 - 21
It's one thing to question for the sake of learning/evaluating, but if it is just to argue for the sake of argument, there's actually a downside (Rev 20:12) for the agitator, while forcing the Christian to sharpen his Sword.
BTW: The "disgracefulness" of women teaching in the church is directed at the men who are unwilling to assume their responsibilities. In situations where there aren't any men of standing available, Paul does not have any issues with women taking the lead. Look it up.
I just want to point to blogger Jerry McClellan's Truth Be Told and his recent blog Building A New Foundation.
His treatise ties in rather elegantly with this current discussion about the Apostle Paul & sexism; the Book of Genesis is the foundation upon which everything else in the Bible, including Paul's writings.
Commenter Xlrq had referenced the fact that Saul at one time persecuted the Christians, and now as the Apostle Paul, he continues his misogynic streak under a different banner and is somehow anathematic to Christ's teachings.
Not so! The rest of the story is that Saul was a devout student of the Old Testament and approved the stoning of Stephen as a heretic. After the stoning, Saul sought and received a charter from the High Priest to destroy the Church. The reason Saul acted so fanatically to defend the old faith was that he simply did not believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah.
However, when Jesus met Saul on the road to Damacus, and told Saul that He was indeed the Messiah, that was a profound revelation that physically blinded and dramtically changed Saul's worldview. Saul/Paul now realized that all of the prohecies and teachings of old were made complete in Christ's life, death & resurrection. (Once was blind, but now he sees)
Paul also realized that further meant that Jews and now Gentiles were no longer condemned and subject to the laws of Moses, but saved by grace. This is the thrust of Paul's message--our relationship to Christ as laid out by God's divine plan for humanity and repeatedly illustrated thru the years culminating in the Last Adam which was Christ.
The notion that submission is equated with losing one's worldly civic rights is mere Satanic propaganda designed to blur the distinction between that which is a holy expression of faith and the supremacy of the carnal self.
I got tired of reading through a lot of the commnets people left. I just wanted to say that your point about submission not entailing a lower position is really the key to the whole thing, and something the closed-minded echo chamber of Bush nominee criticism is unwilling to accept. They're banking their whole argument on that one unquestioned point.
I hope he keeps his bible away from my constitution. A judge needs to be able to interperet the constitution as a document by itself, without letting his own morals / religion influence it. I hope that Holmes realizes the distinction.
"Anyone who complains about submission reveals that he or she is more concerned with earthly praise and position than with pleasing God."
Not only is this logic fallacious, it also ignores NON CHRISTIANS who would complain about possible legislation of submission. I, for one, am not Christian and could care less about pleasing a God who may or may not exist. I have very right to complain about submission, and I will be PISSED if such a thing were legislated.
Oh, and men wrote the bible, Funny aside, but poignant nonetheless.
RW: As if Christians are the only ones who are influenced by their beliefs? Heh. Also, I don't think you know what poignant means.
Michael,
Perhaps it is you who doesn't fully understand the meaning of "poignant".
Several dictionaries list as one of the varied meanings of poignant : being to the point, or apt.
Ryan's mention that men wrote the bible is, I believe, relevant, to the point and apt.
Hello all,
I have a question for the minds on this site.
I am very christian and my wife has recently broken off our marriage after counseling over this very topic.
When she became pregnant I asked her to quit her job that pays way more than mine does to remain home and care for our children. She absolutely refused, and so we went to the pastor at our church for counseling after this turned into a week long fight between us.
That did not go well at all and she just left me. He suggested that she find something part time, only she is an oncology doc, and she said her work is too important to quit and since she is a resident she cannot switch to part time. She asked me to leave our house but I refused. So we've done nothing but fight about this everyday until she just left.
Unfortunately she makes allot more than I do and has never consented to letting me control the money that she makes from her job so she just moved out into an apartment. She has also stopped attending church and says that she does not believe in our religion anymore.
After talking with the husband of one of her friends I am concerned that she is going to have an abortion, and I am sure that she has already started looking for a divorce lawyer. She is totally financially independent of me and does not need my help or money to do anything.
sorry about the ranting I guess I just needed to get this off my chest.
HBG: I'm sorry to read about your situation. Perhaps if you yield in this matter your wife will be forgiving?
Yes, I am sure that you are right.
HBG -
I'm laughing at your situation you brought on yourself. Hilarious. That's what you get for being a bible beater. You diserve it. Man, I am still laughing out loud at this. I love it when people get what they genuinely diserve. You know, if being godly submissive wife is such a fabulous position to be in for women, then why aren't women begging to stay home. Most women I know who are fulltime christian wives envy my powerful, working woman who has a husband that EQUALLY shares in household chores, child rearing and monetary contribution. No religious person I know has a marriage as strong as mine. Another interesting FACT is that atheists, agnostics and non-religious have a much lower divorce rate than christians. It is also a fact that 2/3 of all divorces are initiated by women - by christian women so obviously submission is not all it's cracked up to be. Looks like god let someone down somewhere. Submission is a two way street. My wife will give in when my reasoning is stronger, I will give in to my wife when her reasoning is stronger. I don't get to have the final word b/c I have a dick. If that is what your god has in mind, no wonder people are leaving religion in droves. That's certainly not the god I want for my daughter. But back to you situation, what a laugh. Please keep us posted on how she kicks you to the curve - diservidly.
RDR: You're not very nice. Plus, your statistics are mostly BS. Plus plus, you completely misunderstand the idea of submission as we're using it in this context.