My Elder, The Cow
Posted on June 13th, 2005 by Reformed Pope into the Uncategorized categoryThe following are some observations that I have had in regards to women and the Bible.
Genesis 2:7 & 18-25
If you read these scriptures closely (posted below) you see that in Gen 2:7 God creates man, and then in Gen 2:18 decides it is not good for him to be alone. So God set out to find a helper (not a partner, not a friend or companion, not an elder but a helper.)
Now it is at this point that you expect God to form women, right, well he doesn’t. No, in Gen 2:19 God forms “every beast of the field and every bird of the sky” and let’s Adam name them all.
In verse 20 we see Adam going through and naming each animal. He names the cattle, the birds, and finally “every beast of the field”. The next line is the real kicker (sorry Jiminy) “…but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.”
This passage struck me as somewhat odd. I’m picturing Adam talking with God saying “Cattle, God? You don’t want me to be alone and you send me cattle? Four legs God, count them: one, two, three, four. How’s this supposed to work? Seriously, do you see the ass on that thing? What am I supposed to do with that??”
So God knocks Adam out. Now, if I’m Adam, I’d be a little nervous right now. I’ve just seen every option out there and I’m not sure that shacking up with a beast for the rest my life sounds like a good option. This is the first real example of faith; Adam lying on the ground fast asleep dreaming of running through a field hand in hand with a grizzly bear.
When Adam comes to (v22) he sees that God has created a helper out of his own flesh and (v25) “the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” (Clearly Adam understood the principles of tithe and here God was pouring out his blessing.)
The order these scripture set is: 1.God 2.Man 3.Beast 4.Woman.
Women were actually the last thing to be created. Created as a helper to man.
Now remember Eve wasn’t around for all the helper talk. She hadn’t been created yet when Adam was busy telling God “Ok, I’ll take the llama over the oxen, but I’m really looking for something a little less hairy”. She may not have known why she had been created and that could be why Satan went to her with the forbidden fruit.
She eats, Adam eats, and we’ve all been paying for it since then, but there is one more important scripture: Genesis 3:16. Here God tells the woman her place in the authority structure.
“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you”
I know these scriptures are not kind to women, but what do you do?
Figure out how to give birth without any pain and you’ll be well on your way.
June 13th, 2005 at 9:57 am
A little help. It says God will greatly increase pains in childbirth, not that pain would not have been present before hand, but that it would be increased. And your arguement implies that the beasts are on some kind of higher plane than women.Can’t wait for jiminy’s 300 word response
June 13th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
Not kind to women, how about the scriptures not kind to man? How he was the lazy ass, doing nothing just laying around while his wife was talking to the serpent. The ground then was cursed because of him, with thorns requiring painfull toil and sweat producing work to bring forth fruit and eat of the earth.
June 13th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
True,
but then again he may not have been in that position if he would have chosen the cow as his helper.
June 13th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Women are below both man and beast? That’s just wrong on so many levels. I think the only part of that post I agree with is Adam not wanting to shack up with a beast for the rest of his life. (Which is also very very disturbing on so many levels.)
Yes, I too wait with bated breath for jiminy’s wordy and angry, albeit researched and documented, response.
June 13th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
So let’s have it, Jiminy… opine. Bring forth the soapbox (and don’t let your Buddhism or veganism influence your opinion).
June 13th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
“Imitate biblical principle.
Imitate biblical patterns.”
- Richard Hanner
Let’s get right to the point: Women were created equal in the sight and image of God and are equal in the reception of salvation; however, in regards to roles within the home and church, let us stay biblical and read Ephesians carefully…that is ofcourse, we all believe the Bible to be THE inspired Word of God which sets the standards for life, home and church.
June 14th, 2005 at 10:15 am
So, if we believe these passages in the bible are “THE inspired Word of God which sets the standards for life, home and church”, then this one should also apply:
Ephesians 6:5: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear…just as you would obey Christ”.
If we preach and believe men as the head, then we should also preach and believe masters as the head of their servants.
Amen?
- A Non-Moose
June 14th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Hey I was studing my bible and came across this scripture what do you do with this inspired Word of God?
1 corninthian’s 14:34
As in the church’s of the saints, women are to remain quiet at meetings since they have no permission to speak; they must keep in the back ground as the Law itself lays it down. If they have questions they should ask their husbands at home.
June 14th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
The word QUIET could be translated as UNDER CONTROL.
From what I understand, women back then were uneducated and would often disrupt the meetings with stupid questions. Therefore they were asked to not interrupt, but rather to wait until after to discuss the teaching with their husband. This scripture may not be saying that women could not utter a sound during church, but instead saying that they need to let the flow of the meeting continue.
It’s kind of like at CBC when they told everyone they were no longer aloud to stand up and worship during the offering because it interrupted the flow of giving. (They didn’t actually say the term “flow of giving” I made that part up, but they did tell people not to worship during tithe time.)
June 14th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
There is a time and place for everything and Tithe time is for Tithe and other special offerings.
June 14th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
I didn’t say it was wrong; I merely used it as an example.
It’s kind of LIKE…
June 14th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
Sorry to disappoint, but….
Even a vegan Buddhist (though I am truly neither….and thanks for visiting my blog, though perhaps you were disappointed to find that I’m uninterested in the commentary of people who aren’t willing to state some name in addition to their business) can tell the difference between:
A real argument and sarcasm
& also
A real argument and bait.
Sometimes it takes a large number of words to say what one means. Sometimes it doesn’t. I’m willing to entertain the accusations of anger and verbosity. Such is the fruit of my upbringing and subsequent education. It’s given me quite a lot to say, and a sense of integrity about saying precisely what I mean….and none of you is obliged to read it.
And, I could be wrong, but I took Johnpaul’s crack in the blog as a reference to the fact that I’m masquerading as a cricket (and therefore an unfit helper to our dear Adam)….nothing more. As for the actual “argument” (if that’s what it is), I don’t think I’ll bother. If you believe in keeping women subservient, you believe in it. Have a nice life believing in it.
Well-behaved women rarely make history.
PS: I suppose there are only two words that would sum up my sentiments about all of this, and I would use them in a tone of playful banter to some, and vehement sincerity to others….they ain’t “Let’s dance” and I don’t think my post would last on the blog if I used them. But, if you’re looking for brevity, know that it did occur to me to provide it in place of the 280-some words you see here. Still less than one full printed page, though.
June 14th, 2005 at 9:34 pm
Cricket, do you have a boyfriend? Poor guy. Has to put up with not only your rhetoric, but your attitude.
June 14th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
No, here’s Cricket: She drives a Subaru. She has a “Free Tibet” sticker on it. She has a butch haircut. She’s plump. No boyfriend there, friends.
June 14th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Hilaarious! That reminds me, let’s try to figure out Crickits 2 words that sum up her sentements. I have a few ideas:
“Free Tibet”
“Praise Jesus”
“Praise Allah”
“Got Milk?”
“Go Beavers!”
“Kerry / Edwards”
“Organically Grown”
“Vagina Monologues”
“Hare Krishna”
“Dali Lama”
“Where’s Waldo?”
June 14th, 2005 at 10:48 pm
Come on, you guys, that’s childish. I would propose Cricket meant “f*** you”, and I would say that to your faces as well if I knew whose faces to direct it at. But of course, you hide in your anonymity.
Even if all the horrible things you are saying were true about her, (and I don’t believe any of it), she still appears to be more intelligent than all of you put together.
June 15th, 2005 at 7:52 am
“Sour Grapes”
June 15th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
My, my, my,
It seems I’ve developed QUITE the fan club. A veritable gaggle of sycophants.
And, as flattering as all that is, maybe you all could find a more productive way to spend your time rather than currying my favor.
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God, and everyone that loves is born of God and knows God. They who love not know not God, for God is love.” I John 4:7-8
Yes, I did consult the song and intentionally switch to gender-neutral pronouns. I just can’t quite understand all this “personal attack” nonsense. I put the term in quotes because I also can’t quite understand how it is that you expect me to take any of that as an insult. Last I checked, my validity as a human creature was not dependent upon (to address issues in the order in which they’ve appeared):
my relationship status
what car I drive
what stickers my car has on it
how my hair is cut
my weight/body type
my political affiliations/activism
my religion (gasp!)
whether or not I consume dairy products
whether or not I root for OSU
who I voted for in the last election
whether or not I purchase organic products
whether or not I’ve watched the Vagina Monologues
….or any of the other crap that’s flown in the past few posts. You’re only a) embarrassing yourselves and b) showing me that you’re not even interested in behaving in a way that is civil, let alone Christian. Make fun of liberalism if it makes you feel good about yourselves….knock yourselves out. But, you need to realize what it is you’re doing: you’re cutting yourselves off from a lot of people who have something to teach you….and you’re not really hurting them. Even when you personalize it, even when your comments are intended to wound or enrage. People who watch the Vagina Monologues or buy organic produce or even (gasp!) don’t have a boyfriend choose those things, and if they’re being honest with themselves, they don’t care if you point it out.
You are depriving yourselves and me…I want to have the chance to talk issues out with people who want to do the same. I don’t want to have a petty insult war.
So, let’s get back to the point, shall we?
Either we’re fundamentalists and we make sure we know the context of scripture so that we understand the rules (”If P, then Q” is different than “If P-varied, then Q”), or we stick with what is currently understood to be the interpretation of Biblical “rules” and mistakenly call ourselves fundamentalists (when we’re really just hypocritical preservers of the status quo), or we realize that real fundamentalism is a great idea, but no one knows enough right now to truly make it work and consequently pursue other feasible options. That leaves a lot of room for discussion, it seems to me. It’s hopefully open-ended enough to get everyone nice and riled up….
June 15th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
You know, this is EXACTLY why women should remain silent.
June 15th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
AMEN
June 15th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Can’t the moderate delete the verbose, nose-in-the-air comments…
They are so wordy it takes forever to even scroll past them to read something from a REAL person.
June 15th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
Someone wake me up when JiminyCricket81 is off her soapbox. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
June 16th, 2005 at 1:21 am
The tribe has spoken. Jimeny Cricket, bring your torch. You are the blogger voted off the island tonight. You must leave the island immediately.
June 16th, 2005 at 7:02 am
To the last five post and others laughing at them.”When I became a man I put away childish things” is this all you got! Is this how you address challenging thoughts, don’t respond to an arguement just make fun of the person challenging you. That speaks volumes of your maturity, but you most likely don’t care about that you would rather be “funny”. I suggest that you guys eat a bunch of fish tonight, let that settle in and then try to make an inteligent response. Better yet humble yourselves, read your bibles not just verses to try to prove your point( that is so cbc)and be silent for five minutes.
June 16th, 2005 at 7:16 am
OK, OK, despite your taunting, my guess is that Jiminiy is not a woman, so let me bring the female voice of reason…
Has anyone looked up the word “helper” in Hebrew lately? I haven’t, but my guess is that it would shed some light on God’s view and intention for women pre-fall. Maybe someone could look that up in a lexicon & post the definition?
Hmmm…given that “increased pain in childbirth” and “your husband will rule over you” are both in the same sentence, and both after “the fall,” it seems obvious that both are part of the curse? Not really God’s “perfect will.”
There’s much more to be said about the concepts of a wife’s “desire being for her husband” and a “husband ruling over a wife,” but it mostly sounds like both partners have less-than-fulfilling roles. The woman is essentially “trapped” in that she only desires her husband and where’s the love in “ruling?” Control is great for the ego, but since self-centeredness is the essence of our sinful nature, it’s not exactly something we want to cultivate. Also, when you control someone, how much respect do you have for them? How much affection? Think about it. Isn’t it the antithesis of Christ’s self-sacrificial, passionate, tender, self-less love for us?
Let’s all be thankful that Christ redeemed men and women and marriage on the cross, along with everything else. Post-cross (i.e., now), the old divisions that used to determine value (i.e., gender, ethnicity, slave/free, etc.) no longer determine value; Christ determines our value. Now marriage is about love and reflects Christ’s relationship with the church; it’s not about control and entrapment. Even “pain in childbearing” is now not a given with all of our wonderful, modern drugs.
That the Bible addresses certain cultural realities at the time it was written (i.e., urging slaves to submit, the unruly Corinthian women to be quiet in church) shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that God wants slaves or unruly women…or that God wants women’s (or men’s for that matter) “role” in every time and culture to be defined by “division of labor” and the same “division of labor” (you know the drill, man’s only “role” is bread-winner & woman does everything else to make life work). Don’t even get me started on that one!
As I mentioned in an earlier post, if we genuinely want to understand what the Bible says about women, then we need to look at everything the Bible says about women.
I’m glad we’re blogging about this topic. The fact that it’s on this site is ironic since CBC’s view and treatment of women is dispicable.
FFTM
June 16th, 2005 at 8:10 am
FFTM— Jiminy indeed has XY chromosomes
June 16th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Cricket, if you want to talk about issues, make your posts intelligible. I wondered, “What the hell is a sycophant–is that like a psychotic elephant?” But then I looked it up and discovered it’s someone tying to gain favor with someone by flattering them. From every angle, Crick, there ain’t NOBODY flattering you. Fact is, nobody can understand you.
I visited your blog and was scarcely able to keep up with most of what you’re saying (with the help of simultaneously listening to the Twin Peaks soundtrack, I daisy chained my way through the gist), and to be completely honest, I do think you are one very, very confused individual. Still, I do belive you probably have learnt yourself some very valuable things out of studying abstract thought, relativism, Buddhism, Magic 8 balls, “illusory dualism,” and “the universe sending good things to all of us, all the time.” And maybe folks should listen (I mean, if God can speak through a jackass, he certainly can use do-zazan girl).
But please, for the love of blog, use real-life, everyday language when you post–throw in a “true-dat” or a “yeah” here and there and stop trying to sound like a human textbook–and maybe your posts will appeal to a wider audience. Yeah.
June 16th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Word.
June 16th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Consider this scenario. Four people (A,B,C,D) are picking on another person (F). If a fifth person (E) watches what is going on and starts picking on F as well, then E is a sycophant because he is going along with the herd just to gain their favor. See where this is going?
I find it interesting that on a blog dedicated to exposing the group think mentality of a church that someone who brings a different perspective is getting personally attacked so much. Could it be that some of the posters here are proving the blog founder’s points for him?
June 16th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
I’m not sure what the point of all this was…except that maybe Jiminy was right and it was really just to bait her into an argument. Regardless of intent, Cat and RP, you really should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing this to continue. This is neither satire or healthy criticism on CBC, it seems (to me anyway) an excuse to pick on females with a differing opinion about gender roles in the church. I don’t know if Jiminy and I would agree on everything (or anything) on this topic, but I would hope I could be an adult enough not to insult her for stating a well-thought opinion, which is more than I can say for the rest of the comments on this topic. Y’all need to grow up. It’s stuff like this that causes the reaction you seem to want to supress and denounce, and ironically, that makes you a lot like the culture of CBC that this blog tries to criticize. I realize I just lumped everyone into one big category, so apologies to the not-guilty.
I still can’t believe someone criticized her because she used a vocabulary word he couldn’t understand! “Me man! You no use big words! You go back to kitchen! Make pie!” Heck, I’d be honored to meet a girl with an education with writing skills past the high-school level…
June 16th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
If my memory serves me correct, I believe Jiminy was homeschooled. I’m sure she doesn’t care what ANONYMOUS says about her.
You see, it’s only people with “social skills” that care when someone calls them a name. To us homeschoolers it just doesn’t mean anything.
YOUR MOM.
June 16th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
RP,
Let’s hear it for the home team, son!
And…..to my unnamed critics, let me echo RP’s use of that comeback of all comebacks:
YOUR MOM!
FICM,
Thanks for the backup…I’m also a little alarmed that people are whining about vocab. Last I checked, our bodies were thought to be the “temple of the Holy Spirit” and our brains are part of our bodies. Therefore, we train them and we use them. A very smart man named Nelson Mandela said:
“Your playing small doesn’t serve the world.”
Here, however, I have learned that my playing full size is more than likely to piss them off.
My language is my real life and my every day. It may not be yours. If you’d like an explanation, please ask. You’ll find I’m quite approachable and willing to be of help. I do not feel obliged to censor my vocabulary….I am not using it to make anyone feel bad or to prove a point. Believe it or not, this is just the real thing. As for my “confused” state on my own blog….I wrote those things for the people close to me. Don’t expect to understand it right off the top — you just don’t know me or my situation that well. It’s actually a nice segue back to Paul and Genesis: a non-intended audience must know the original audience in order to have a crack at truly understanding the speaker’s meaning.
Now can we talk about the real issues? I’m not going to defend myself anymore….there’s just no need.
PS: “sycophant” was being used sarcastically, though not in the sense that fezzik pointed out (although that also works)….I meant to highlight the mindlessness of the name-calling by pretending to perceive it as praise….it’s irony, get it?
June 17th, 2005 at 6:15 am
I agree w/Jiminy: can we get back to the topic at hand? Are we finished w/the personal slights for now?
FFTM
June 17th, 2005 at 10:31 am
This debate does seem to have gone far afield. AS I recall, the original question had to do with what was God thinking when He created women?
(Like we could ever know what an infinite omniscient Being thinks). But since He did state some of His thoughts, and gave us a brain to understand them somewhat, we can try.
The premise given here by RP seems to be that women were created just so men would be physically happy. Leave it to a man to make his anatomy the central concern. Obviously, there is some validity to that idea since each living thing was to reproduce after its kind, and Adam didn’t see anything that looked like his kind.
God was trying to make a point, which He stated in case we missed it: “It is not good for man to be alone.” It was the first thing in His whole creation that wasn’t good.
Since man was created in God’s image, the Lord was actually making a statement about Himself: “I don’t want to be alone.” So He created beings who could have a relationship with Him. And the first thing He did was give Adam an object lesson in aching for companionship.
It seems to me that this whole scenario has more to do with God revealing Himself to us, and less to do with authority structures.
As for what God thinks about women, I think He made that abundantly clear when He walked on the earth — Jesus being the express image of the Father. He continually surprised everybody by His love and attention specifically for women.
June 17th, 2005 at 11:55 am
Bravo, Anna. More clear thinking.
And I totally agree with what Jiminy said about understanding the context of Scripture when trying to understand women’s roles. I’m no expert on the history of the letters to the Corinthians, but it would seem he was addressing issues of women misbehaving in church. Not whether or not they could be spiritually mature or worthy of respect. You only have to keep reading chapter 12 to understand that we are all part of the body and no one (man or woman) is more important than another.
However, I am going to go out on the proverbial limb and say that I think that while women are certainly capable of being capable leaders, I do think that God did establish a line of authority when it comes to husbands and wives. (Yeah, that’s easy for me to say, being a man and all.) And that’s why Paul can say women shouldn’t have positions of authority over men in the church. If you doubt that, ask yourself this question: would a wife feel comfortable with another woman having the final spiritual say in matters, including perhaps even her own marriage? It goes against the grain - no matter how liberal-minded you think you are.
This is the reason for my questioning CBC on ordaining women independently of their husbands. For what purpose? They didn’t clarify if it was to teach other women or to have an equal status of authority as men in the church. If the latter, I have to disagree with the move.
June 17th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
FICM,
I’d like to respectfully disagree. You said:
“And that’s why Paul can say women shouldn’t have positions of authority over men in the church. If you doubt that, ask yourself this question: would a wife feel comfortable with another woman having the final spiritual say in matters, including perhaps even her own marriage? It goes against the grain - no matter how liberal-minded you think you are.”
Au contraire! For me, this goes back to the whole “In Christ there is no slave or free…” bit. And the theory that since women were not allowed to be educated in the culture of the early church, they made uneducated comments and ignorant mistakes.
There is nothing intrinsically inferior about a female brain vs. a male one, neither is there anything intrinsically inferior about a female decision-making mechanism vs. a male one. How can you claim to know what a woman would feel about another woman having authority over spiritual matters in her life? If you are uncomfortable with women being in charge of you, that’s fair for you to say. However, it seems inappropriate for you to claim knowledge that is outside your experience. It doesn’t go against “the grain” because that term already assumes a standard “grain” that “everyone” or “all reasonable persons” share. This is not the case. I am acquainted with many reasonable people of both sexes who feel as comfortable if not more comfortable with female clergy.
I’ve seen female clergy deal with tough situations prayerfully and decisively, and I’ve seen congregations rally behind them. That’s not liberal-mindedness talking — it’s a breadth of experience combined with open-mindedness and a willingness to reassess my opinions. I was very uncomfortable with my first experience with female clergy. I have since had a series of overwhelmingly positive experiences.
So, there’s a couple ways to think about all this. Can we only assess something by what the Bible has already said about it (in which case we’re in a pickle for the situations that aren’t specifically mentioned)? Or, can we assess the tree by its fruit as Jesus taught? I’ve seen at least some good fruit, folks. There’s something to that.
June 18th, 2005 at 8:47 am
A little research on the latest blog:
JiminyCricket81:
4 comments:
1439 words typed (36%)
All others:
32 comments:
2509 words typed (64%)
Seems as if someone is seriously dominating this blog.
June 18th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
If one person posts a lot because s/he is interested in the topic and others do not, whose fault is that? Even if the writer is guilty of superfluous verbosity, s/he has no control over how much others contribute. Therefore, your point is moot.
June 18th, 2005 at 5:01 pm
People who are verbose and boring are most always very insecure and boring people and try to make up for it by sounding self-important in their speech with big words, lots of words that say the same thing in many different ways… maybe if we ignore GD, she will go away.
June 18th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Nah,
I think she is good for the blog.
June 18th, 2005 at 11:15 pm
Well Paul must have been insecure and boring, cause he sure had a lot to say. And maybe if we ignore CBC, it will go away too.
What kind of reasoning is that, anonymous?
June 19th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
This is me begging the question.
Can someone please respond to the thread at hand?
June 19th, 2005 at 9:22 pm
Regarding the thread at hand, it is curious to me that the women at CBC that are to be ordained are all married to men who have been ordained (by CBC) for many years. So is it a prerequisite for women to be married to a man who is ordained by CBC in order to be considered? Could a single woman be ordained?
June 19th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
Gender, just like race, forces us to look at our preconceived ideas that aren’t necessarily true. They say that anything you sincerely believe to be true before the age of 12 (i.e. your parents’ beliefs) you will continue to believe for the rest of your life and only with a lot of submersion in other teachings will you believe anything else. Christians in general are raised to believe that women are to submit to men when it comes to leadership. While that may be true in certain instances (or cultures?) it is not always to be so.
The Bible says that God has characteristics of both Father and Mother. I don’t mean to say that God is just some genderless all-supreme being, but a man without a woman is not a man. He is just an it. I personally believe it is necessary for people to receive teaching from both male and female, because it makes it more meaningful to identify with both the Fatherhood and Motherhood of God. (If “Motherhood of God” sounds funny to you, like it did to me a while ago, see Is. 66:13, to name one of many ref’s.) To hear and learn from a man and see a man as he makes decisions in leadership in my opinion is to see only half the picture.
In reply to Sparrow, yes it is a whole lot easier for CBC to ordain women who are already elders’ wives. To me that is just a technicality in many respects. What would truly be revolutionary (for them) is to ordain a woman who was not the wife of an existing elder, or (let’s face it, this probably won’t ever happen at CBC) a single woman.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:48 am
Jeremy,
According to Jesus, God is a genderless being (”there [in heaven], they are neither married nor given in marriage…”). When Jesus referred to God, the Aramaic word he used had no gender implications. “Abba” could be more accurately translated as “mommy” or “daddy” rather than “father”.
The gendering of God is mostly a linguistic issue — usually, ungendered pronouns (”it”) refer to objects rather than beings, so we don’t use them in reference to God because it’s considered disrespectful. Over the years, this has meant that we’ve learned to conceptualize God as male.
Humanity has a funny little habit of crafting God in our image and forgetting that we are crafted in God’s image. Also, let’s remember: both males and females were created in the image of God….therefore, the image of God must encompass both sexes.
June 20th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Our Father,
the hermaphrodite???
June 20th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
Jiminiy’s latest verbage is disgusting. A total distortion of the Word of God. Is she trying to justify a lesbian lifestyle?
June 20th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
Honestly, you guys, can you learn how to disagree without insulting someone at the same time? Can you stop assuming that you’re the true authority on the Word of God and say things like “in my opinion” unless you are actually going to back it up with fact? It would make for a much more friendly and intelligent debate.
June 20th, 2005 at 6:32 pm
(RP, that was in response to the last anonymous, not you.)
June 20th, 2005 at 10:03 pm
Jeremy, you moron–I TOTALLY disagree!
June 21st, 2005 at 11:29 am
Anonymous:
“A total distortion of the Word of God.”
I’m just curious (because I don’t know much about this stuff) can you qualify that? It seems to me that Jeremy and Jiminiy are able to back up their opionions. Can you, or are you just spewing what you’ve been told? Educate me.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:59 am
“A total distortion of the word of God”
I’m with bubbs….how exactly is this so? Why is it so necessary to your faith for God to be what you presently conceptualize God to be? Are you in charge of what God is, or is God? Which one of you is supposed to be infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.? How can you expect to keep one understanding of all that for the rest of your life and be living in the light of God? This is precisely my point: we don’t have the luxury of imposing our reality on God. It just doesn’t work like that.
If I’m wrong about the Aramaic business, I truly do beg to be corrected. I initially learned about this non-gendered pronoun bit from listening to NPR, and then I did some follow-up reading. I also know that C.S. Lewis has my back on this one (take a look at his Space Trilogy, specifically “Perelandra” if you’re curious), so I’m not completely alone in my stance on this issue….in fact, I’m more than satisfied with my company.
PS: RP, the term “hermaphrodite” is now considered offensive (similar to calling a person with mental retardation an “idiot”). The term now in common usage is “intersexed” — just FYI.
June 21st, 2005 at 3:54 pm
so now NPR and C.S. Lewis are the inspired Word of God…???
jiminy is WAYYYYYYY out there. You need to get Jesus in your heart and serving Him instead of NPR and C.S. Lewis
June 21st, 2005 at 4:13 pm
To the most recent Anonymous,
Jiminy never said anything about C.S. Lewis or N.P.R. being divine. She was using them as sources to support her post about LINGUISTICS, not divine doctrine. She is referring back to her post about the aramaic word “abba” being interchangeable as either father or mother.
I am still mystified by all of the anonymouses blind bitterness toward Jiminy. I know you all struggle with big words like, completely and distortion, but seriously you are all trying way too hard to find excuses for calling her the antichrist. Perhaps Jiminy is not the one who needs the love of Christ in her heart?
June 21st, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Good point Spade. Thanks for adding another clear head to the mix.
June 21st, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Our Father,
the intersexed????
June 21st, 2005 at 5:55 pm
Rather… Our Cricket,
The confused, the most loathsome purveyor of verbal demigoguery, the “enlightened,” the haughty.
June 21st, 2005 at 8:59 pm
Ummm, okay…
Again, why all the name-calling? If you disagree with what Jiminy’s saying, then please give a dissertation on your beliefs, a refutation of her supposed inaccuracies. But insulting someone without cause is unnecessarily adolescent.
June 22nd, 2005 at 8:11 am
Anonymouses: I’m still waiting for an answer to my question.
—I started to write out another question that’s come to me as I read these comments. As I said before. I don’t really know much about this stuff. But the fact is, I think I might be wasting my time here. Here’s why:
I’m not a Christian (I found this page through google) but I have been around a few churches. Please understand I mean no malice here, this is only an observation from an outsider, so take it with a pound of salt.
The comments I read here pretty much match what I found in every church I’ve been to. The people posting using their names are cool, with well reasoned thoughts and intentions (RP is funny). Then there’s the uneducated, unreasonable, name calling masses (anonymasses?) that make up the majority.
If you can’t take the time to come up with a well reasoned and balanced response, why do you waste your time? Is this the way you’ve decided to live your life? Does it line up with what your religion says?
It was with great amusement that I read the discussion about “airing your christian dirty laundry” in public.
I have respect for the person who bloggs on this site and the people that make insightful comments, even if I don’t agree with them. However, they don’t turn me off to christians, the angry name calling anonymouses trying to cover up do.
Irony no?
Anyway, sorry if I ranted
Good luck
June 22nd, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Bubbs,
Thank you for your candid commentary. I have a lot of respect for you because of the window you have offered into your own experiences. There is much to be said for the word of one’s testimony.
So, anonymasses, let’s hear your rebuttal…as they say in a favorite movie of mine:
“Don’t sing it…..bring it.”
June 22nd, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Oh it’s already been broughten!
June 22nd, 2005 at 1:25 pm
RP, you beat me to it! hahaha
Jiminy, I never meant to imply that women were somehow inferior. If that’s the way I came across, I apologize. The women in my life have been some of my best bosses, leaders, mentors, teachers, and friends. My point was that God instituted a heirachy of spiritual authority in the home, starting in Genesis, and that principle is borne out throught the rest of the Bible all the way to Paul. If a man is to be the spiritual head of the home, it seems a contradiction to have a woman have spiritual authority over a man in the church. Now perhaps I asked a poor question in regards to that. There are women out there that probably would be OK with that situation. I would not. There are a number of notable women in the Bible who accomplished great things, but off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single example where a woman had spiritual (or another kind of) authority over men. Correct me if I’m wrong on this one. And feel free to disagree with me - you’re one of the most intelligent debators on this blog, and (oh noes!) you’re a woman!
June 22nd, 2005 at 1:50 pm
FICM,
Thank heavens…a sparring partner!
First off, your respect for women on an everyday basis was obvious from your initial posting…and I appreciate your clearing the air. However, I still have some bones to pick:
I can think of a couple Biblical examples of women in charge over men (there aren’t many…as you already know, I think there’s less-than divine reasons for that, but that’s beside the immediate point). First, Deborah in the OT (Judges 4) judged Israel. And, in Acts 16:11-15, Lydia was the one who called the religious shots for her family (Paul was there in person…he didn’t seem to object). It’s definitely not an overwhelming precedent, but instances are there.
However, that doesn’t answer the point I closed with in the post you responded to….what about this business of good trees bearing good fruit, etc.? Again (and I hate to keep harping on this), why is it ok for us to completely ignore biblical writings on slavery (on the argument of modern cultural differences), but not ok for us to revise our stance on women in leadership?
Can’t wait for the next round in the reindeer games…and may I say that I immediately have to like anyone who knows “Bring it on!”.
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:24 am
There is an excellent treatise on the subject of women by David Kirkwood:
http://www.shepherdserve.org/dmm/dmm_twelve.htm
As far as judging by fruit: we humans have very short-term perspectives. Many things appear to have good fruit in the beginning, but in the Day of Judgment, they will burn. So the criteria for judgment must not be our own evaluation of the immediate results, but a comparison with the the Word of God.
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Anna,
Thanks for your response. However, that’s circular logic….it leads right back to where we started from, and that’s not what Jesus was saying. Of course our human perspective is limited….the only danger in that lies in not acknowledging it. Nevertheless, we are forced to make life-and-death decisions based upon our perspective on a daily basis….you do it every time you make an unprotected left hand turn in your car. It’s a cop-out to say that we just can’t make the decision…we are still responsible for assessing fruit for ourselves.
And, just to muss things up a little more, let me say that 2006 is the 50th anniversary of ordination of women in the United Methodist church….is 50 years long enough to make an assessment? Because they seem to be doing ok.
No one has addressed the slavery business yet….
June 23rd, 2005 at 6:53 pm
Who cares what the Methodists are doing Jimmy?
June 24th, 2005 at 8:45 am
/puts on his sparring helmet & gloves
Jiminy,
I think we’re beating this topic to death, but I’ll address your questions.
It’s going to take me some time to research every instance of female leadership in the Bible to address that point. But shooting from the hip, the instances you mentioned it sure seems to me that women like Deborah were filling in roles where men failed to rise to the occassion and be true leaders. Judges is full of stories where people rose to the occassion simply because the nation of Israel lacked real leadership. But that’s just my opinion.
As far as the comparison to slavery - well, that’s like comparing apples to rotten tomatoes. You’re all but equating the trafficing of human beings to roles of spiritual leadership? This is WAYYYY off topic, but God “condoned” slavery in the OT as a means of social justice. If a man owed money he could not repay his only honorable option was to indenture himself (and his family) to someone else until the debt could be repaid. The “owner” also had an obligation for the care of the man and his family. It seems barbaric to us, but it prevented worse forms of social injustice like homelessness - it meant someone down on his luck could at least live to work for someone else. God didn’t intend anyone to be indentured indefinitely which is why he instituted the year of Jubilee - every 49 years everybody went free. In modern society we have other means of social/economic justice, such as bankruptcy. And in the church, we are to care for one another in such a way that no one ends up homeless. But I have a hard time believing that God would condone or encourage the kidnapping and enslavement of anyone. So when we think of slavery in modern terms we remember the slavery of blacks in America - which was by anyone’s account, a major social injustice, and a sin. It’s obvious why we’ve reformed our ideas about it.
So how can you compare what the Bible would consider wrong (i.e., kidnapping & enslavement of other people is a sin), to the idea that women in spiritual authority is not a Biblical idea and ergo even a sin against women? Especially when, as I’ve stated before, the order of spiritual authority was clearly establish in Genesis and borne out throughout the rest of the Bible?
I will compromise with you on this point, in that married couples are to be “one”. If a married man is put in a position of spritiual authority, part of the requirements is that his wife be “on the same page” spiritually as outlined by Paul. If they are “one” then as “one” they act as a team for spiritual authority in the church. I think it’s good that women finally get “credit” for their roles in this area. However, I still can’t justify, in my mind, how ordaining women into spiritual authority over men, outside of marriage (single or married) lines up with what the Bible teaches.
I’m trying to be open minded here, but I have to use the Bible as a baseline for my opinion on this.
June 24th, 2005 at 10:21 am
FICM,
If you feel like this topic has been beat to death, I understand. However, it’s not at all resolved from a logical perspective, so I think it’s important to keep talking about it.
First of all, yes, Deborah took charge because she needed to…this is true. However, that doesn’t explain Lydia, and it also doesn’t say that both women weren’t completely qualified and didn’t do a good job (sorry for the double negatives). Again, trees and fruit.
We have abolished slavery in all of its forms in our society, and as you mentioned, we have established alternatives. The masters who were good to their slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries would still be in violation of both the law and prevalent public opinion if they were to be beneficent slave owners today. My argument is about ideology, not about the practice per se. If it’s acceptable to revise our ideology in the face of fundamentalism with regard to slavery, why is it unacceptable to do the same thing with regard to women in leadership? The trend of slavery is comparable to the trend of female subservience in the Bible….you illustrated that point nicely. Therefore, why can we re-contextualize and change the rules for one and not the other?
You are welcome, of course, to use the Bible as a basis for your opinion. I’m just saying it looks a little funny for you to do so inconsistently. My point from the beginning in all this has been: we all pick and choose. If that’s true, then it means that everything is called into question.
June 24th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
Jiminy, please explain why you think it is circular logic (or picking and choosing) to use the Bible for the bases of one’s thoughts. Please explain why trees and fruit are a better criteria.
Please explain what you mean by “the trend of female subservience in the Bible.” And what exactly does it mean to “re-contextualize and change the rules”?
And just out of curiosity, does the “81″ in your name identify the year of your birth?
June 26th, 2005 at 10:43 am
I agree w/Jiminy in her comparison between slavery & female subservience. The Bible has several passages that speak to both, not in the sense of promoting or opposing, but as cultural realities. Separating Biblical truths from cultural context is challenging, but the Bible as a whole certainly gives us guidance on doing so. How can we accept “no slave or free” but reject “no male or female?” It makes no sense.
FFTM
June 27th, 2005 at 11:25 am
anna,
I didn’t say:
“[I] think it is circular logic (or picking and choosing) to use the Bible for the bases of one’s thoughts.”
I said I thought that you had engaged in a case of circular logic that went like this:
The Bible says that a tree is known by its fruit
Therefore, we can look at the fruit and assess the tree.
However, you expressed the opinion that we’re not qualified to assess the fruit or the tree, and we have to go back to the Bible….right back where we started from, and the circle is complete.
Trees and fruit were Jesus’ idea, not mine. I’m just saying that it seems like we were told to use our brains in that particular parable…that Jesus seemed to be saying that we were going to have to figure certain things out on our own, and that trees and fruit provided a good principle to look to as a guide.
The picking and choosing was illustrated nicely by FFTM: we choose to take what the Bible says about women in leadership “literally”. However, we also choose to take what the Bible says about slavery not literally. That’s picking and choosing.
The trend of female subservience in the Bible is exactly what it sounds like. In the Bible, women are overwhelmingly depicted in subservient roles, in everything from geneologies (where they are hardly mentioned) on down the line. Women are depicted as subordinate if they are depicted at all. The absence of their depiction is a telling depiction in itself: women didn’t matter much in that culture. However, Jesus began a far different trend, and Paul himself said, “In Christ there is neither….male nor female.” Sounds like a turning point to me.
Re-contextualizing and changing the rules is what I would call honest fundamentalism. As we learn more and more about social context in the Bible, we learn more about the people who these things were said to and we learn more about why they were said. In this way, we enrich our understanding of scripture by understanding it in a different context….therefore, re-contextualization. Changing the rules is the next logical step…if it didn’t mean what we thought it meant, then we have to revise what we thought we knew. It’s not that the Bible changed…it’s that we changed, we learned, we grew, and we understand it more completely now. That’s not bad, even if it is scary.
As for your final question….only my hairdresser knows for sure… I’m curious about your identity as well…feel free to email me separately (jiminycricket81@yahoo.com).
June 27th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
Wait a sec… only your hairdresser knows how old you are?
June 28th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
It’s an old-school figure of speech from a Clairol Hair Color advertisement or something…now used as a catch-all euphemism for “I’m not tellin’.”
June 28th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
I don’t understand how I was guilty of picking and choosing which Scriptures I believed about women and spritiual authority.
I gave my basis as the events in Genesis and 1 Corinthians as well as others. You agreed that the examples you gave were isolated incidents that were hardly precedent for changing doctrine. So which Scriptures am I ignoring on this topic?
I also thought how I explained the differences of slavery (people as property) and indenture (people oweing a debt) were very different, and hardly a worthy comparison to the topic at hand.
Finally, I think you may be confusing my stance on this issue. I think the only thing we disagree upon is that I don’t believe that women should have spiritual authority over men. Everything else is OK. Women can be teachers, preachers, prophets, administrators, healers, and yes, even pastors. And I think that all those things are possible within the framework of Scripture.
Let me explain it more clearly, using an abstraction.
If A > B, and C = A, then C > B. It does not follow that B > C!
If a husband (a man) is to be the spiritual authority for his wife (a woman), then it seems to me that it would follow that men should be in a position of spiritual authority over men and women, but women cannot be in spiritual authority over men.
That’s my whole argument in a nutshell. That’s why I can’t “recontextualize” this, or reconsider it regarding modern cultural/social values. I’m not basing my opinion on context or culture here, as far as I know. I’m not trying to suppress women or follow tradition, nor am I trying to promote an ideology. I’m trying to determine the principle based on Scripture.
June 29th, 2005 at 10:38 am
FICM, I think we’re all trying to base our beliefs on Scripture. The rub is determining and agreeing upon what Scripture says about the role of women. I do have a couple of issues with your logic.
1. If you don’t believe that women should “have spiritual authority over men,” how can you also believe that women can be pastors? Don’t pastors have “spiritual authority” over an entire church (including men)?
2. How do you believe that slavery (people as property) is different than traditional women’s roles (women as property of their fathers or husbands, and otherwise marginalized)? The practices and mindsets that accompany both dynamics are nearly identical in that the root issues of both are that some people are more/less valuable than others, and dominant groups (i.e., masters or men) benefit from the oppression of other groups (i.e., slaves or women).
FFTM
June 29th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
FFTM & FICM,
FFTM has summed it up nicely. That’s what I’m getting at as well.
Also, FICM, I see that you’ve explained slavery within its cultural context so that it’s more than just our contemporary association. What I propose is that you do the same thing where women are concerned. Women are not less than men, as your B
July 1st, 2005 at 8:55 pm
De-socialization is creeping steadily into the church. I believe setting a precedent for women being elders is dangerous because it is an exception to the rule. It’s not the norm. It never has been, and it never should be. It’s not about value or ability necessarily, but roles.
The qualification for an elder is ruling the home. Women that rule their home are a rarity (as well as a tragedy, not because they shouldn’t be allowed to, but it sucks for her to wear the pants).
July 2nd, 2005 at 12:11 pm
financialblessings,
Speaking as a person who took on a leadership role in her family that superceded her father’s at about age 14, I can tell you this:
Wearing the pants doesn’t suck. Pants are comfortable. It’s only when one is forced to carry the responsibility of wearing the pants while wearing a miniskirt and stilettos that the problems arise. Women in charge is not tragic by itself. It’s only tragic when they’re coerced into apologizing for it and not allowed to admit their own strength and ability.
This notion of God-given roles has been discussed extensively above…if you have thoughts on the debate, I’d be very interested to hear them. However, just making a blanket statement about the nature of God doesn’t address the issue at hand.
July 3rd, 2005 at 1:06 pm
financial blessings, please explain what you mean about “it” (presumably God now allowing women to lead spiritually) being “about roles.” What kind of timeless roles do you believe the Bible ascribes to women and to men? The pat statement “equal value, different roles” is often quoted, but rarely analyzed or elaborated upon. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
FFTM
July 6th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
yuck. Can’t somebody fix this anonymous overload? E-branding or something? Dogtags? Whatever…
But on to the thread at hand. Why would you want to wear the pants, though?? Personally, I’d rather wear a skirt any day, while maybe baking something, but that’sjust me. I understand that sometimes you are obligated to break out the Levi’s but in the instances where you can choose, why wouldn’t you want to be taken care of, valued and cherished?
July 7th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
God given roles? Funny, any man who is married knows that most of them are “wife given” roles.
LFTC seems a little naive and young. Keep trying, you’ll figure it out.
Let me know when I can buy you your first beer….Legally.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:52 am
Young and naive? Tell me there aren’t guys out there who feel the same way.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
In case you didn’t notice… you can’t post anonymously anymore…
So you must be new here. Where you from? How’d you find the blog? What’s your favorite beer?
July 14th, 2006 at 11:12 am
I’m from all over, I found it on the internet randomly searching for info on pbc/cbc, and I don’t know. I’ve never tried it. Which do you recommend?
July 14th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
That depends on several factors. I’d be happy to take you out for one sometime though.