Women in the church

[Lione]

What really could 1Tim 2:9-11 mean? Could this have been a contextual instruction or it holds to the church of today?

[Igakusei]

What it means is that Christianity evolved out of a misogynistic, male-dominated culture, and not much more. As early as a century ago, it was widely believed that women simply weren't intellectually capable of doing much more than homemaking, and it's the major reason why it took so long for women to be able to go to college, graduate school, and vote.

Even in many SDA churches today (which is probably why we're talking about this now), people will fight tooth-and-nail to keep women out of the pulpit. Maybe it's time to acknowledge that we've learned a few things since the time of the early church and stop pretending that every verse in the Bible has some deep eternal meaning for us.

[fccool]

I don't think that misogyny is the issue here, because the culture was fairly expecting and demanding of both genders. I think it would be overlooking to say that women were oppressed. It's very easy to judge the ancient culture by the standards of today, where we hardly think about the issues of survival and basic needs. We are so far beyond these, that certain societal structures may seem quite bizarre to us. Many of those societal structures formed for various reasons, many of which revolve around immediate survival of the tribe and the family, which was the core unit of the tribe.

Therefore, the responsibilities were forced upon people. You've had very little choice, because people don't just went about their life picking the college they are going to and filling a certain occupation in society. The occupations in tribal culture are limited, and generally revolve around gender.

Many Mesopotamian ancient cultures actually worshiped the female divine. Israel was a departure from that paradigm, as we have Israel Gods exclusively male. But, once again this view evolved out of societal need, rather than some misogynistic views.

We can approach some issues with intellectual idealism that we tend to approach in our state of mental and societal evolution, but in reality that societal evolution went through several progressions, out of which the best state fit for the survival of society was established. Every other order was eradicated and vanquished.

The more I learn about ancients, the less I tend to condemn them. Sure, we view much as immoral based on our modern understanding, but given our position in that particular culture, we would not be any different.

[Igakusei]

Fair enough, but all the more reason not to automatically apply their solutions to our problems.

[Kevin H]

Archaeology gives us an insight to this text and you can look up the story in much more detail than the summery here; but in the same time that Paul was writing to Timothy, the city where Timothy was living and pastoring there was a women's movement among uneducated women where they were going into houses of worship of all faiths and interupting the services and presenting their views. They were seing marriage as sinful, women as supperior to men and men as scum and demanding the male leaders of the houses of worship bow and submit to them.

Christians, with their tendency to be kind was a target of this movement, and Paul is letting Timothy know that there are times for tough love, a time to stand firm and to not be intimitaded by this movement and to not let these uneducated pagan women take over the worship service.

Paul was very open for educated women speaking and teaching such as Pricilla and Phebe etc. Acts and the closing of Romans teaches us that the counsel in Corinthians and Timothy does not seem to be consistant with Paul's routine practice, however looking at the historical situations of what type of city Corinth was (multi linquistic, trancient population where the men would come for short periods of work and communicate in Greek but their wifes tended to ony know their home language) we find that Paul saw these as special situations that needed to be addressed.

[Igakusei]

Does it now? The majority consensus for almost 200 years among scholars has been that Paul didn't even write 1 Tim.

[ClubV12]

There is no doubt and it is a 100% sure that Paul wrote this letter to Timothy.

This is certainly NOT the first time "scholars" (I use the term loosely) have questioned not only the author of a particular book of the bible but also the date. The most grievous example I can think of is the book of Daniel. According to some that book was written AFTER some prophetic events had taken place. Making it a "history" book instead of a "prophecy" book.

The word of God is sure, man is not, he just goes off on one tangent after another trying to figure it out.

Speaking of Paul we have this from the inspired messenger of the Lord:

"And later, in writing to Timothy, the apostle said, "The laborer is worthy of his reward. 1 Timothy 5:18."

Acts of the Apostles, pg 336

For those they don't accept Ellen Whites inspired referrence, I don't accept your countless scholarly gods as anything more than your idols without a clue.

[CoAspen]

Thread started in wrong section...per stans post!!

[ClubV12]

Lione, with only two posts to his name, was doing the best he could.

Welcome to Club Adventist Lione, stick around, enjoy your stay.

[fccool]

Quote:

Archaeology gives us an insight to this text and you can look up the story in much more detail than the summery here; but in the same time that Paul was writing to Timothy, the city where Timothy was living and pastoring there was a women's movement among uneducated women where they were going into houses of worship of all faiths and interupting the services and presenting their views. They were seing marriage as sinful, women as supperior to men and men as scum and demanding the male leaders of the houses of worship bow and submit to them.

I doubt Archeology can give such deep of insight apart from literary exposition, but even if the above is true there's an issue is with the that you are missing. Paul (or whoever wrote that book) does not write these things to address the problems that Timothy is facing. He writes these things to teach teach his view and what he is already doing:

Quote:

Women should learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.

Therefore, any attempt at explaining the situation in terms of addressing the "rebel culture", also has to explain as to why Paul took it for general practice for himself?

Quote:

Paul was very open for educated women speaking and teaching such as Pricilla and Phebe etc. Acts and the closing of Romans teaches us that the counsel in Corinthians and Timothy does not seem to be consistant with Paul's routine practice

It's difficult to read into the situation based on the these examples provided. One can likewise point out that these could have been exceptions than the rule of thumb during these days. Out of all of the church fathers, the Biblical writers, and central Biblical Characters, the overwhelming majority of these are men, which should tell you something about the culture and its preferences about women not being in teaching positions.

Likewise, there's an exposition of :

Quote:

For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.

The above two sound more like a dogma, than an exception that applies only to women of certain region.

[Igakusei]

There are always valid reasons for scholars reaching the conclusions they do. They may not always arrive at the correct conclusions, but they always try to use sound logic and critical thought to do so.

But instead of addressing those concerns and pointing out why they are wrong, you simply dismiss them all out of hand as some sort of conspiracy to undermine the word of God.

Further, you accuse me of setting up scholars as "gods" as if I'm worshipping them and taking their conclusions unquestionably as gospel. That's completely wrong and completely dishonest.

[olger]

Quote:

They may not always arrive at the correct conclusions, but they always try to use sound logic and critical thought to do so.

Pretty generous with your suppositions there.

[Igakusei]

You're right, always wasn't the correct word to use. Regardless, as a general trend the majority of scholars/scientists/archaeologists/theologians/etc are honestly seeking to discover truth in the best way they know how.

[olger]

gotcha

[ClubV12]

An idol, a false god, is anything that takes up your time, thoughts, energy in place of that time which should be reserved for the one true living God.

An obsession with "mans logic" and "reliance" on science over the word of God is just another idol, just another false god, just another lie.

"...instead of addressing those concerns and pointing out why they are wrong, you simply dismiss them..."

Thats a LOT of concerns to point out whats wrong! Could take a few years and many books. I'd rather focus on the truth and not chase every rabbit down every hole. Now if you have a PARTICULAR rabbit you would like chase, then maybe....

[Igakusei]

An idol, a false god, is anything that takes up your time, thoughts, energy in place of that time which should be reserved for the one true living God.

An obsession with "mans logic" and "reliance" on science over the word of God is just another idol, just another false god, just another lie.

"...instead of addressing those concerns and pointing out why they are wrong, you simply dismiss them..."

Thats a LOT of concerns to point out whats wrong! Could take a few years and many books. I'd rather focus on the truth and not chase every rabbit down every hole. Now if you have a PARTICULAR rabbit you would like chase, then maybe....

"Man's logic" is all we have. We have to use our own human logic to come to the conclusion that a good course of action is to respect our interpretation of the Bible more than what makes sense to us in our own heads.

So if you're going to consciously shut your brain off go right ahead (I'd risk my life for your right to do so), but it relegates us to just talking past each other since you are deliberately choosing not to think for yourself.

[M. T. Cross]

Was it not the biblical God that gave us the ability to logic? Is that not what seperates us from lesser animals? So would it not make sense to use that logic?

[Igakusei]

That's another good answer.

[phkrause]

Was it not the biblical God that gave us the ability to logic? Is that not what seperates us from lesser animals? So would it not make sense to use that logic?

Good point EC

[ClubV12]

"Man's logic" is all we have.

Actually, it isn't. We have Gods logic which over rules mans logic in many areas. Evolutuionists point to science and logic and reason to determine what happened. Whether I understand the "logic" of creation or not, I know it is truth. I must conclude creation is right over evolution, regardless of whether or not I understand the "logic".

In the late 1700's FRANCE played the "logic and reason" game. The ENTIRE GOVERNMENT through out the bible, literally burning them in piles in the street. They LITERALLY set up statues and works of art in honor of logic and reason. This led to the overthrow of the Pope in 1798. France flat out rejected every form of Christian based religion. The results were predictably bad as the country suffered terribly.

Christians need to apply the PRINCIPLES of the bible for their standard of a lifestyle, no matter what science, the State, the militant Army at the gate, your family and friends have to say about it. Thou shalt not steal, NO amount of logic can overide that fundamental claim on your conscience. Not death, not watching someone else die, nothing. How can that be? Impossible to understand for those that do not have faith in God. They will wrestle with the problem in vain.

[Igakusei]

"Man's logic" is all we have.

Actually, it isn't. We have Gods logic which over rules mans logic in many areas.

But you have to choose to let whatever you think God's will is override the use of your own logic, and by definition you must use your own reasoning to do that. You could use your parent's logic, or your friend's logic, or some guy you saw on TV's logic, or Barney the purple dinosaur's logic instead of your own, but you still must use your own reasoning to come to the conclusion that doing so is the correct course of action. That's what I meant by saying it's all we have. Obviously there are alternatives, but you can't get around using your own to choose an alternative.

[ClubV12]

Well thats true, God says come let us reason together. The difference is, at some point, that reasoning leads to faith and thats when you apply the principles regardless of the logic. You simply trust God's word enough to do what He says, no matter what.

[John317]

The majority consensus for almost 200 years among scholars has been that Paul didn't even write 1 Tim.

Who cares? What you have to do, though, is study their reasons for believing this.

Just as you ask "who cares?" when people say the Bible condemns something, I ask "who cares?" when people tell me that some scholars don't accept the Bible or don't accept certain books of the Bible. A lot of them also don't accept God's existence or the existence of Christ.

Belief in God and in Christ is a choice. There's no scientific proof one way or the other. There's enough evidence and reason to believe in God and in the Bible if people are willing to believe, but if they don't want to, there is plenty of reason not to.

If it wasn't that way, belief and acceptance of God wouldn't be a choice but it would be something we'd have to do, just like we have to believe in things that can be proved scientifically, such as the law of gravity, etc. Who could deny or reject God if it could be demonstrated that He exists?

Have you ever noticed how the really important things in life cannot be proved? For example: love, beauty, Truth, God's existence, etc.

Consider just two verses:

John 7:17

If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.

Daniel 12:10

Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand.

NOTE: It's not the intellect but the desire for truth, and the willingness to obey it, that determines whether a person will recognize and understand the truth. If it depended on high IQ, God would be unfair. But as it is, God has made it so that all people have what it takes to seek Him and find Him because all they have to do is seek Him with their whole heart.

[fccool]

Quote:

Belief in God and in Christ is a choice. There's no scientific proof one way or the other. There's enough evidence and reason to believe in God and in the Bible if people are willing to believe, but if they don't want to, there is plenty of reason not to.

If it wasn't that way, belief and acceptance of God wouldn't be a choice but it would be something we'd have to do, just like we have to believe in things that can be proved scientifically, such as the law of gravity, etc. Who could deny or reject God if it could be demonstrated that He exists?

That's where I think it's important to make a distinction between belief and delusion. Delusion in most cases is a choice. A personal choice to believe that's demonstrably not true, or which lack substantial evidence of validated truth.

For example, a mother who gets a letter in the main that her son has been killed in action can choose to believe otherwise and ignore the evidence based on emotional attachment, thus circumventing the logic and creating reality in her mind that otherwise does not exist.

The difference between belief and delusion is that belief is not a choice. I can't choose not to believe in things that were demonstrated true to me. I can choose to delude myself into thinking otherwise, but at certain point of time I have to come with grips with reality and realize that it's an exception that I would make based on some emotional attachment.