How the Bible and the Quran seriously view women

[Grace Seeker]

It's my assertion that the bigoted sexist suppressive attitudes of Man-kind are responsible for such gems as Pauls commands to cover the head and not to speak in church. We can wash these instructions endlessly till they conform kicking and screaming into modernity and civility.

"Let the women keep silent in the churches." That surely is direct and specific enough for all needs. He then adds explanatorily: "For it is not permitted to them to speak."

It is direct and specific, but was it given as a universal instruction to all women in all times and places? Or was it particularlized for a certain given time and place? I submit to you that it is the latter, and not intended to be used as a polemic on how men and women in other settings are supposed to relate to one other.

But you are right that it is the bigoted sexist suppresive attiduces of Man-kind that are responsible for these gems. Whether or not Paul was himself bigotted and sexists, or if he just thought that this was the best advice to a given situation, I don't think you can say from a single verse of scripture.

When I look at the larger picture, I see evidence of both in Paul's life. The arguments that he is a bigotted sexists have been well put forth, so let me share the other side. Paul included women in his own ministry, repeatedly wrote to them personally and thanked them for what they did to assist him and even applauded one one (Phoebe) for her role as a deaconess (i.e. female deacon) of the church. That's a far cry from the way some see Paul as excluding women from any role of leadership in the life of the church.

If we leave Paul, we find that Jesus is even more inclusive of women. His acceptance of the ministries of Mary and Martha, his response to Mary Magdaline, opennes to the Samaritan woman by the well all indicate that he did not himself practice the bigoted, sexist, suppressive standards that were common in his day. Indeed, many women have found in the life and ministry of Jesus a cause celeb for a liberation theology of radical feminization (see Rosemary Reuther for one).

So while you will certainly find in the Bible a way of looking at women that is not as equitable as one encounters in present day western culture, I believe it is inaccurate to try to paint a monolithic portrait of the Bible view of women as one that denigrates them. That simply isn't supported by the totallity of the evidence. Those who say otherwise do so based on isolated texts (and often misconstrued ideas as to what even those texts are about) and not the whole picture.

 

[barney]

Hi Grace. Nice to see you again

Paul may have well thought that it was the best advice at the time. I'm sure he did. Not even the Greeks were progressive enough in those days to allow Women to vote or take positions of leadership, but at least they could go and worship Jupiter freely.

I see Pauls teachings as a product of his times.
This said, its facinating as an atheist to see the Modern Church of 2010 ripping itself to bits quite literally over women bishops and gay marriges or even gayness. Sure there are the original texts, Cover thy head, stone gays to death in front of the whole community. Its taken the church millenia to water this down to fit with modernity and secularism and it still isnt fixed!
The catholic church debated last week for days, and finally was divinely inspired to announce that peadophillia was a sin that god disaproved of. Really? well hey! Thanks for telling us Mr Ratzinger. I kinda figured that out decades ago without any hand-wringing! He wasnt inspired to apologise for the Church's systematic covering up of such acts amongst its clergy. Mayby in 2350 eh?

The point being is that religions are slaves to their scriptures and the scriptures although containing a few gems,(Sermon on the mount/Golden rule etc) are laced with embarrasment for any human beleiver with dignity.No matter; how much longer will those of faith struggle to square the circle of racism/sexism/intolerance that has no place in our world of today.

Italianguy, Yup Its strong condemnation of Paul, but how else could it be interpreted? Paul was a freedom loving campaigner for womens rights, but just chose to order covering of heads and silence in church? You wife I would support to the end to wear her scarf in church if she wills it. She may even think that she is somehow pleasing god by this. I would simply question, as I do, how this is possibly pleasing to any deity that squares up with modernity? I would further raise my ever skeptical eyebrow that we should 1900 years on be following doctrines based on one guys claims of visions any more than we would give credence to a more modern day prophet

 

[Grace Seeker]

The point being is that religions are slaves to their scriptures and the scriptures although containing a few gems,(Sermon on the mount/Golden rule etc) are laced with embarrasment for any human beleiver with dignity.No matter; how much longer will those of faith struggle to square the circle of racism/sexism/intolerance that has no place in our world of today.

Paradoxically, I'm going to agree with you that religions are "slaves" to their scriptures. But I don't think the Catholic Church would. They would argue that the Church existed before the scriptures and that it was the Church that produced what we now have and call the New Testament. So, far from being slaves of it, they are creators and interpretors of it.

As for myself, there are indeed places in the scripture that I wince when I read. But again, I am reminded that not all of scripture is meant to be understood as universally applicable. Nor was it ever intended that it should be. When Amos cried out, "I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies," it wasn't God saying that all religious feasts and assemblies were bad, but in the context of the injustice that was being perpetrated in the name of religion that he would not accept their offerings at that time. So, the cry is levelled at a particular situation, and the more universal principal "to do justice and love mercy" must be gleaned from that context to be applied in other situations.

The problem is that sometimes people only look at the words, and then try to make them rather than the thought behind them universally applicable. This is my objection to those who favor a strictly literal interpretation of scripture. For instance, you probably remember the thread I started years ago to ask questions about Islam. I began with what I thought was a rather innocuous question about music in Islam. Well, I found out it was anything but an innocous question. I've since reached the conclusion, that if Muhammad were to be alive today, he would probably accept and utilized music just as he did in a few instance at weddings in his own life. But, I don't think we'll find many Muslims agreeing with that today, because, as you so well said, religions become slaves of their scriptures. But, I would argue it need not be.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we throw scripture away either. They are our foundation documents. But I find learning to interpret scripture to be as much art as it is science. With science there is the notion that there is always a right answer, but with art there is room for continued inspiration. Since, I believe in a living God, I prefer to think of scripture and its interpretation as both needing to be inspired.

 

[Grace Seeker]

When I look at the larger picture, I see evidence of both in Paul's life. The arguments that he is a bigotted sexists have been well put forth, so let me share the other side. Paul included women in his own ministry, repeatedly wrote to them personally and thanked them for what they did to assist him and even applauded one one (Phoebe) for her role as a deaconess (i.e. female deacon) of the church. That's a far cry from the way some see Paul as excluding women from any role of leadership in the life of the church.

In response to the above statement I've been asked the following question:

May I ask? What is the difference between allowing woman to be a deacon and forbid her from speaking in the church?....aren't both roles are in the church?

The difference is that I don't think that Paul actually was forbiding women from speaking in the church. Yes, in certain limited circumstances he gave that counsel, but I don't believe that this was meant to be understood by Christians as a general principle. And the reason I say that is because Paul himself didn't live by that priniciple as evidence by his co-ministry with many different women in the church across the Mediterreanean basin. I believe that though who cite the few passages where Paul did tell women to be silent as if this is a rule for all women in all circumstances are twisting Paul's message to ends that he never intended.

 

[`Abd al-Azeez]

can any christian explain these two verse of the bible??

1 A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you.

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.
(Zechariah 14:1-2 NIV)

 

[barney]

Paradoxically, I'm going to agree with you that religions are "slaves" to their scriptures. But I don't think the Catholic Church would. They would argue that the Church existed before the scriptures and that it was the Church that produced what we now have and call the New Testament. So, far from being slaves of it, they are creators and interpretors of it.

As for myself, there are indeed places in the scripture that I wince when I read. But again, I am reminded that not all of scripture is meant to be understood as universally applicable. Nor was it ever intended that it should be. When Amos cried out, "I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies," it wasn't God saying that all religious feasts and assemblies were bad, but in the context of the injustice that was being perpetrated in the name of religion that he would not accept their offerings at that time. So, the cry is levelled at a particular situation, and the more universal principal "to do justice and love mercy" must be gleaned from that context to be applied in other situations.

The problem is that sometimes people only look at the words, and then try to make them rather than the thought behind them universally applicable. This is my objection to those who favor a strictly literal interpretation of scripture. For instance, you probably remember the thread I started years ago to ask questions about Islam. I began with what I thought was a rather innocuous question about music in Islam. Well, I found out it was anything but an innocous question. I've since reached the conclusion, that if Muhammad were to be alive today, he would probably accept and utilized music just as he did in a few instance at weddings in his own life. But, I don't think we'll find many Muslims agreeing with that today, because, as you so well said, religions become slaves of their scriptures. But, I would argue it need not be.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we throw scripture away either. They are our foundation documents. But I find learning to interpret scripture to be as much art as it is science. With science there is the notion that there is always a right answer, but with art there is room for continued inspiration. Since, I believe in a living God, I prefer to think of scripture and its interpretation as both needing to be inspired.

Pity I Repped you so recently, because this is a refreshingly honest post.

The obvious answer to me is, Christians need a new Bible. A modern Testemant, written by someone today who feels just as "Divinely Inspired" as Paul did. A discarding of the Ridiculous old testament, an acceptance that Jesus was a good and great teacher, but fallible and not a god. A man who left a pattern to build on for the future.
I know all these ideas have been floated in christianity in the past and only really stopped being floated when the heads voicing them were removed from the neck.

Mayby rather than keeping printing different ways of "happy is the man who dasheth the infants head against the wall" and Elishas Bears, struggling to make them peaceful and fluffy, we should start all over again.
Choose a new Messiah and dispense with the need to frenzidly attribute miracles to them.

 

[Danah]

In response to the above statement I've been asked the following question:

The difference is that I don't think that Paul actually was forbiding women from speaking in the church. Yes, in certain limited circumstances he gave that counsel, but I don't believe that this was meant to be understood by Christians as a general principle.

Like?
Do you have any idea of what kind of circumstances those might be?

 

[Froggy]

Are women allowed to speak in mosques? Can they become imams and so on?
One think I noticed is that Judaism has female prophets whereas Islam doesn't.

 

[Grace Seeker]

can any christian explain these two verse of the bible??

1 A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you.

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.
(Zechariah 14:1-2 NIV)

What's to explain? They prophetically speak of a judgment being brought against Israel for her unfaithfulness to the covenant she made with Yahweh. It is also understood by many to go on to refer to a last times scenario with a great climatic battle after which God will set all things in their proper place.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Like?
Do you have any idea of what kind of circumstances those might be?

Based on my background reading of the circumstances of the early church, I understand that life in Greece imposed certain expectations on all women -- be they Jew, Christian, Roman, or native inhabitant. And that place was low, very low. In Corinth, the commercial crossroads of 1st century Greece, women were stereotypically placed in one of two categories: (1) the chaste and virtuous women led a secluded life and largely confined themselves to running the household and the children, (2) women who presented themselves in public were known for loose morals. This was so much the case that Sophocles is quoted to have said, "Silence bestows grace upon a woman." Paul's words, encouraging silence among the women of this major Greek city, would have served to protect their reputation in much the same way that wearing the hijab protects the reputation of women in Islam today.

In addition, education was another area in which Greek women were kept down. Though Greek is known for its great philosophers, you'll note that none of them are women. Women were discouraged by their culture from becoming educated. As a result men would engage in conversations that, not by intellect but by practice, were over the heads of most women, who were then dependent on their husbands for explanation. As attendance at services in Greece is likely to have been in the format where women sat separately from men (customary in Jewish synagogues of the time), women in attendance may have had questions to ask of their husbands and shouted them out to them in the midst of the service. We don't know this to be the case, but Paul's letter to the church in Corinth indicates a congregation that seemed to lack in ettiquette in many other ways, and so this is not unreasonable speculation. In that context Paul might have had cause to tell women to be quiet in the service and ask these questions of their husbands at home.

And then I suspect that by the time Paul is writing to the church in Rome, where we see his most adamant affirmation of the role of women in ministry, that he may have undergone some personal growth as well from his earlier correspondence with Corinth. Rabbinic Jewish culture (and Paul was thoroughly educated in rabbinic schools) was filled with sayings such as: "As to teaching the law to a woman one might as well teach her impiety!" or that to teach a womans was the equivalent of "casting pearls before swine." The Talmud even lists among the plagues of the world "the talkative and the inquisitive widow and virgin who wastes her time in prayers." According to custom (not God's law) it was even forbidden to speak to a woman on the street.

Paul would have not been immuned to this poisioning of his mind. And it is out of that context that he wrote to the Corinthians. But, again, I think this is mostly in response to the peculiar situation that we see in Corinth. In Philippi and Rome (both later letters), we see a different Paul. And I suspect that this is because Paul allowed his experience to help educate him. As one who was arguing that Gentiles had as much of a place in the Church as did Jews, and given the productive help of women that came alongside of him in ministry, I suspect that this may have mollified Paul on this topic over time to see that women are also as much a part of the church as men are. Add to that, the churches in Philippi and Rome were not the quarrelsome church that Corinth was, and a letter to Corinth gets different treatment than would be applied other places and in other times.

 

[zana]

christians and muslims do think the same?

 

[barney]

Wasnt Paul supposed to have been operating under divine guidence? Jesus manifested himself in front of him, gave him a mission. To let him just operate using his own judgement is at the very minimum, gross negligence.

Paul could have written
"Women are equal to men, they may take part in all aspects of church life and in society. Shed your old dusty ideas about them for they are too made in Gods image, God abohors to see his creations treated like dirt beneath mens feet"

Or something similar: I would Imagine a divinely inspired speech would be better than a drunken Yorkshiremans off the cuff attempt.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Wasnt Paul supposed to have been operating under divine guidence?

Guidance, but not dictation. Christians may be directed by the Holy Spirit, even inspired, but they still retain their own essential character that God both uses and sometimes must work through (or inspite of) to communicate his message.

Jesus manifested himself in front of him, gave him a mission. To let him just operate using his own judgement is at the very minimum, gross negligence.

Much worse has been said about God. After all he created us with free will and then left us prey to temptation at the same time. Some have gone so far as to blame God for all the sins of humanity because he didn't create us as little automans that simply do his bidding without any thoughts of our own. My response is that he did create such things as well, they are called trees and rocks.

Paul could have written
"Women are equal to men, they may take part in all aspects of church life and in society. Shed your old dusty ideas about them for they are too made in Gods image, God abohors to see his creations treated like dirt beneath mens feet"

Or something similar: I would Imagine a divinely inspired speech would be better than a drunken Yorkshiremans off the cuff attempt.

Or, it may be that like with so much of Paul he simply didn't see a reason to get into the relationships between men and women any more than he did between slaves and masters, parents and children. He made a few comments, such as husbands and wives be submissive to each other, out of reverence for Christ. But his focus seems to have beren more on the "reverence for Christ" part.

Albert Schweitzer (The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, c. 1906) proposed that Paul had a "status quo theory" with regard to human entanglements, that Chrisitians are to "remain in whatever external condition they were in when they became believers." Schweitzer proposes that this theory is stated by Paul in general terms in 1 Corinthians 7:17 & 20 ("Each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches." and "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.") and applies that to things such as circumcision in vs. 18 ("Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised."). The reason is because these various status us "circumcision or uncircumcised, slave or free, male or female, mean nothing in the light of his understanding of the immediate the new creation that occurs for all who are in Jesus Christ and the new world order that he is bringing with his (soon, althought apparently somewhat delayed) return.

Schweitzer recognizes that such a position may sound like a mere expedient, perhaps a compromised arrived at under the pressures of missionary experience, but he insists that we are dealing with a logical and "necessary inference" from Paul's fundamental convictions that "from the moment that a man [or woman for our discussion] is in-Christ his whole being is [to be] completely conditioned by that fact.... If in spite of this he begins to make alternations in his natural condition of existence, he is ignoring the fact that his being is hence for conditioned by the being-in-Christ, and not by anything else connected with his natural existence" (Mysticism, pp. 194-195).

Note: According to Schwietzer, when Paul spoke of "being in Christ", it means having died and risen with again with Christ as more than just a metaphor, but a real event that happens on the metaphysical plane of existence. This process began with baptism, and led the knowing of one's self as a being who is raised above the sensuous, sinful, and transient world, and already belonging to the transcendent world to come.

If that's how one views one's self, one could hardly care about some of the things that other ("natural" or "fleshly") people in this world would care about.

 

[Italianguy]

Wasnt Paul supposed to have been operating under divine guidence? Jesus manifested himself in front of him, gave him a mission. To let him just operate using his own judgement is at the very minimum, gross negligence.

Paul could have written
"Women are equal to men, they may take part in all aspects of church life and in society. Shed your old dusty ideas about them for they are too made in Gods image, God abohors to see his creations treated like dirt beneath mens feet"

But he didn't writr that, so we can't change it to fit our needs.

Or something similar: I would Imagine a divinely inspired speech would be better than a drunken Yorkshiremans off the cuff attempt.

Anything is better than that

 

[barney]

Guidance, but not dictation. Christians may be directed by the Holy Spirit, even inspired, but they still retain their own essential character that God both uses and sometimes must work through (or inspite of) to communicate his message.


Much worse has been said about God. After all he created us with free will and then left us prey to temptation at the same time. Some have gone so far as to blame God for all the sins of humanity because he didn't create us as little automans that simply do his bidding without any thoughts of our own. My response is that he did create such things as well, they are called trees and rocks.




Or, it may be that like with so much of Paul he simply didn't see a reason to get into the relationships between men and women any more than he did between slaves and masters, parents and children. He made a few comments, such as husbands and wives be submissive to each other, out of reverence for Christ. But his focus seems to have beren more on the "reverence for Christ" part.

Albert Schweitzer (The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, c. 1906) proposed that Paul had a "status quo theory" with regard to human entanglements, that Chrisitians are to "remain in whatever external condition they were in when they became believers." Schweitzer proposes that this theory is stated by Paul in general terms in 1 Corinthians 7:17 & 20 ("Each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches." and "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.") and applies that to things such as circumcision in vs. 18 ("Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised."). The reason is because these various status us "circumcision or uncircumcised, slave or free, male or female, mean nothing in the light of his understanding of the immediate the new creation that occurs for all who are in Jesus Christ and the new world order that he is bringing with his (soon, althought apparently somewhat delayed) return.

Schweitzer recognizes that such a position may sound like a mere expedient, perhaps a compromised arrived at under the pressures of missionary experience, but he insists that we are dealing with a logical and "necessary inference" from Paul's fundamental convictions that "from the moment that a man [or woman for our discussion] is in-Christ his whole being is [to be] completely conditioned by that fact.... If in spite of this he begins to make alternations in his natural condition of existence, he is ignoring the fact that his being is hence for conditioned by the being-in-Christ, and not by anything else connected with his natural existence" (Mysticism, pp. 194-195).

Note: According to Schwietzer, when Paul spoke of "being in Christ", it means having died and risen with again with Christ as more than just a metaphor, but a real event that happens on the metaphysical plane of existence. This process began with baptism, and led the knowing of one's self as a being who is raised above the sensuous, sinful, and transient world, and already belonging to the transcendent world to come.

If that's how one views one's self, one could hardly care about some of the things that other ("natural" or "fleshly") people in this world would care about.

Grace . You are always a competant debater. you take the time to think it through.

1) rocks are not sentinant
2)Then Paul missed an oppotunity that Yaweh(tiny desert god) had already foreseen, thus Yaweh is culpable.
3)Sweitzer is attempting to explain human progress by a discarding of literalism. I would agree and call this "Shedding of the unneccesery and impossible" The addition of Jesus the Carpenter isnt a requirement

 

[Grace Seeker]

Then Paul missed an oppotunity that Yaweh(tiny desert god) had already foreseen, thus Yaweh is culpable.

You won't be alone in reaching that conclusion. After all, given our human imperfections, if we can't say, "The devil made me do it", then at least we can blame our creator. Which gets back to presupposing that God's sovereignty extends to everything that we do. Barney, you scare me, you're beginning to sound a lot like John Calvin.

 

[mog]

Revelation 14:4 (Amplified Bible)

4These are they who have not defiled themselves by relations with women, for they are [[a]pure as] virgins. These are they who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These are they who have been ransomed (purchased, redeemed) from among men as the firstfruits for God and the Lamb.

The Old Testament is NOT Christianity!

 

[AhlaamBella]

The Old Testament is NOT Christianity!

Why is it still used and printd in Bibles? And does that mean that Christianity was wrong 1st time round and needed to give it another try with a new book? Rules in Chrstianity always seem to changing. Gets terribly confusing :heated:

 

[Pygoscelis]

The Old Testament is NOT Christianity!

If the Old Testament isn't Christianity then why do I more often hear about the ten commandments than the sermon on the mount? And why all the hate for homosexuality?

 

[Italianguy]

Why is it still used and printd in Bibles? And does that mean that Christianity was wrong 1st time round and needed to give it another try with a new book? Rules in Chrstianity always seem to changing. Gets terribly confusing :heated:

I think what he is trying to say is that there couldn't have been Christians or Christianity before Jesus Christ. The defeniton of Christian is follower of Christ. Jesus Christ came after the Old Testament was written. Thus meaning there were no Christians at the time of the old testament. The Old Testament spoke of Jesus though. The new testament, other wise known as the New Convenant, came after Jesus time on earth.

MAybe thats what he meant?? I cold be wrong.....I usually amimsad