Church History

Why do women hold women down?

February 23, 2007 by amanda 2 Comments

This morning I was going through my old emails, and came across an entry from one of “Laine’s Letters“. I often enjoy her letters, and her recipes are killer – I use a bunch of them. Some of her homemaking entries have inspired me on difficult days. The entry that I came across was called “A Gracious Woman Retains Honor“. It sounded good, so I started reading it.

Laine goes on to list things she has learned about women from her Bible reading, and they include lots of great things and also some things that are completely out of context, like

“She learns in silence in the church with all submission.”

Luckily for me, I was reading a book that had nothing to do with women, as far as I knew. It is called What Paul Meant by Garry Wills. In today’s reading I came across his chapter on Paul and women, and I am so glad that he dealt with this issue so I can respond to Laine with a scholarly word, and not just my own ramblings, LOL. Here’s what Mr Wills said (after a lengthy discussion on the very important and egalitarian role of women in the early church)

Prophecy is now popularly thought to mean prediction of the future. But the Jewish prophets were inspired denouncers of those who lapsed from the Lord’s ways, reformers and purifiers. The faults at Corinth had their excoriaters, and some of the prophets were women. Paul writes that in the gatherings there a woman “should not pray or prophesy with her head uncovered” (1 Cor 11.5)… He is just as strict in saying that men should not have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy.

Well then, I suppose this was silent prophesy, no? Jewish prophesy does not align with learning in silence and sitting in full submission. I mean, it was submission in the way that all believers submit to one another, but not in the patriarchal sense of the term where women never speak up when they see something wrong. For the full debate, feel free to pick up this book, or any number of other amazing scholarly works. Email or comment and I’ll happily list some of my faves 😉 As a matter of fact, I was listening to a VERY conservative Christian podcast from some folks from Dallas Theological Seminary, and they agreed on some related issues. Its not just the crazy liberals saying this stuff. Laine’s list is SO long, and yet she doesn’t even address that one should cover her head while prophesying. Why is this? Why take away liberties that were given to women? The first century church was not like we think of church now. I’m guessing Laine may very well look at her links and pop over here, so if so, please comment 🙂

And just to close, a few more thoughts from Mr. Wills on Paul’s associations with women

Prisca even went to prison with him…Â Phoebe is his protectress.Â Another Sister is like his mother.Â Chloe’s establishment keeps him informed.Â His crack team assembled in Rome for the Spanish campaign includes ten women, at least three of them married.Â He knows a woman emissary (apostolos), a woman attendant (diakonos), and women prophets.Â He knows two women leaders in Philippi, Euodia and Syntyche, who have become rivals, and he begs for their reconciliation (not their condemnation) at Philippians 4.2-3.Â The later misogyny of the Christian churches would never have occurred if the spirit of Paul had continued in them.

Grace Vs. Works

October 17, 2006 by amanda 2 Comments

I had already planned on having this as my next post, but it works out really well considering that the comments from the last post went in this direction 🙂

I want to say before I even start quoting that I almost completely disagree with the author’s description of Palestinian Jews vs. Hellenistic Jews, but oh well. I’m using his version in order to discuss.

From Chapter 2 of Church History in Plain Language

The Palestinian Christians, steeped in traditional Judaism, said, “Tell them that unless they submit to the Jewish law, in addition to believing in Jesus, there is no hope for their faith.”

OK, I agree with most of his description, but not so much the use of the word “steeped”.

Paul, however, found this impossible. His own experience pointed another way. If a person could gain the righteousness of God by obeying the law, said Paul, I would have been the greatest in the kingdom. But righteousness by personal effort can only lead to failure. Man can be accepted as righteous only through God’s undeserved mercy. That is grace. And grace always arises from the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Hmm, so perhaps a middle ground?

Many Christians thought Paul was impossibly optimistic. They were deeply troubled by the decline in Christian morality they felt sure would come in the gentile churches. If you teach justification by faith alone, they argued, people will imagine that once they have accepted Christ by faith it does not really matter how they live.

Again, this is too much either-or thinking. This is exactly what punitive parents say about grace-based discipline. “If you show grace, then people won’t behave appropriately.” Obviously God didn’t feel that way! I almost feel like Bruce Shelley is missing that you don’t have to say that the law was done away with in order to say that we are saved by grace. As I’ve heard it said before, I believe that people who are growing in Christ become more Torah observant whether they know it or not. The spirit of the Torah is all about grace, all about love, and a privelege, not a duty! As Crystal Lutton said – “To the Jewish mind the Torah isn’t restrictions, it’s guidelines, boundaries, the way to be holy in an unholy world!” And I think Shelley is missing that.

On the contrary, said Paul, if they really have accepted Christ by faith, then they have accepted the way of Christ and the mind of Christ. The man who really loves God can do as he chooses, for if he really loves God he will choose to do the will of God.

As my friend said

Paul rebukes the Judaizers. They taught that Gentiles could not be saved UNTIL they became Jewish converts and were part of God’s chosen people. Peter and Paul both experienced God making himself available to Gentiles while they were still Gentiles. Pre-Cross there were Jews, there were converts, and there were God-fearers who lived according to Torah without actually converting. Cornelius was a God-fearer The Jews taught that if they were Torah observant they’d get in to heaven, but they were not allowed to be part of the community in this world. This is what the Judaizers were mixing up. They wanted the Gentiles to be part of the community of faith so they thought they had to BE Jews first. Paul and Peter taught that the Gospel was now for the God-fearer too–that conversion to Judaism was not necessary!

BUT they NEVER taught that what was part of Torah was unimportant or not for the Gentiles too. When I studied the letter from the Council of Jerusalem I found a little gem in the discussionÂ They were talking about what to require of the Gentile in order to *become* part of the community of faith and they settled on the four things. Interestingly, I did a little study into the elements of the pagan communion and it was highlighted by these four things So they had to *abandon* being pagan Then James, I think it was, says, “The rest has been taught in the Synagogues since the time of Moses.” Remember that at this time “The Way” as it was called was a sect of Judaism and they were meeting both in the Synagogues AND in home churches of only believers. (I also believe that the purpose for women being told to stay silent “In Synagogue” was because the non-Christian/Jewish women were not allowed to speak and this was giving them a bad name!). But the new believers were going to learn everything else in time and that was enough according to the Council at Jerusalem.

The ironic thing is, once you actually go and read what is part of Torah, and start talking about the Spirit of it, most people ONLY come back with, “I do all those things already. Just don’t think I could give up pork and lobster” And, tbh, I do believe that the dietary laws are not in effect for cleanliness (though NOT based on Peter’s dream!!!) but I believe everything in Torah to be Wisdom and part of God’s standard and when I studied pork and lobster I realized I didn’t *want* to eat them

I’ve been in the midst of a fascinating discussion with some of my friends on whether or not we have “two natures.” Once we have become a new creation in Christ, are we still naturally inclined to sin? I feel like Shelley is dancing around this topic.

For fellow GCMers, if you haven’t seen the discussion that I’m referring to above, I can send you a link 😉

Church History – Why don’t we know?

October 16, 2006 by amanda 2 Comments

I am once again reading Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley. This is actually my second time through it, but this time I am taking notes and really studying it rather than just pleasure reading.

This re-reading has really reminded me of how frustrated I am that we, as a Christian community, don’t know our roots. There is this ridiculous gap between the early church and the Reformation, and it seems like much of it is just skipped over or ignored. It drives me a bit batty.

As I was reading today about the early church and how much Christian life stood out compared to pagan lives. This has given me a lot of food for thought. I had already been thinking about this after a recent discussion on standing out in the world. I think we really miss how big of a deal it was to be a Christian in the Roman empire. We are spoiled today. As Tertullian put it in Apology, “We have the reputation of living aloof from the crowds.” Is that really true anymore? Somewhere between 77% and 86% in America consider themselves Christians. Riiiight. We’re really living aloof from the crowds. :/
Shelley discusses it as such

The word used to describe the Christian in the New Testament is highly significant. It is the term hagios, often translated “saints.” It means holy ones, but its root suggests different. So a holy thing is different from other things. The temple is holy because it is different from other buildings; the Sabbath day is holy because it is different from other days. The Christian, therefore, is a person who is fundamentally different.

I’ve been thinking about this ever since I read it. It seems like modern Christianity doesn’t really embrace this line of thinking except to condemn those outside of the church. We point out others differences rather than being different within ourselves.

Fundamental to the Christian life-style and cause of endless hostility was the Christian’s rejection of the pagan gods. The Greeks and Romans had deities for every aspect of living–for sowing and reaping, for rain and wind, for volcanoes and rivers, for birth and death. But to Christians these gods were nothing, and their denial of them marked the followers of Jesus as “enemies of the human race.”

So to be a Christian meant that you could very well be rejecting part of every aspect of life. That’s tough.

One simply could not reject the gods without arousing scorn as a social misfit. For the pagan every meal began with a liquid offering and a prayer to the pagan gods. A Christian could not share in that. Most heathen feasts and social parties were held in the precincts of a temple after sacrifice has been made, and the invitation was usually to dine “at the table” of some god. A Christian could not go to such a feast. Inevitably, when he refused the invitation to some social occasion, the Christian seemed rude, boorish, and discourteous.

I wish I had read this back in high school. I think I would’ve felt a little better about blowing off parties. :/

The Christian fear of idolatry also led to difficulties in making a living. A mason might be involved in building the walls of a heathen temple, a tailor in making robes for a heathen priest, an incense-maker in making incense for the heathen sacrifices. Tertullian even forbade a Christian to be a schoolteacher, because such teaching involved using textbooks that told the ancient stories of the gods and called for observing the religious festivals of the pagan year.

Yet another reason to homeschool 😉

We might think that working with the sick would be a simple act of kindness. But even here early Christians found the pagan hospitals under the protection of the heathen god Aesculapius, and while a sick friend lay in his bed, the priest went down the aisle chanting to the god.

In short, the early Christian was almost bound to divorce himself from the social and economic life of his time–if he wanted to be true to his Lord. This meant that everywhere the Christian turned his life and faith were on display because the gospel introduced a revolutionary new attitude toward human life. It could be seen in Christian views of slaves, children, and sex.

Can you imagine if we lived that way today? Its not like our current culture is so wonderful and “Christian” that we should be embracing it. I think that many of us have come to take our faith as just something to be weaved into the rest of life, rather than a new frame for our entire life.
I have tons more that I want to write from the early chapters of this book, but this will do for now 😀