Posted on 08/03/2005 2:52:03 PM PDT by newgeezer
I think it was Paul expressing his opinion and doing so in keeping with semetic culture. His writings at times had very specific audiences too and weren't necessarily teachings to be applied at all times among all people throughout all of time.
I don't think everything in the Bible is necessarily God's will. I think even the apostles at times were expressing their own opinions suitable to the times rather than speaking the will of God in all things.
Keep in mind Paul also indicates at one point it's better for a man not to marry, but then in another place indicates that neither is the man without the woman and the woman without the man in God. I think Paul was at times writing to specific audiences in a specific era, i.e. his own, rather than meaning to put forward a message applicable to all throughout eons of time. That being said, I think much if not most of what he is written continues to have application and need in our times as well as his own.
We could use a bit of rain here...
"You think Paul was a moron for writing this???"
If you would place yourself in history in the early 1st century you would find that this was not unusual behavior at all....(women being submissive to men). In some cultures we see the same behavior practiced today. It has been less than 100 years ago that the ladies in our own society finally received the vote. It wasn't until the 70's that the ladies received equal treatment with regards to business actions,
i.e. loans, employment, head of household etc,etc.
But to say that Paul was a moron......?????
Yup, didn't make it right.
(probably wrong, but)
I've always thought those verses should be kept in the context of the times, and I've heard the church at that time was having a terrible time with GOSSIP.
Keeping with tradition, we blamed the women.
bump
I believe only men should preach and be pastors. Is that what Paul meant?
... and the very next words...
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
You have a point.
In the Orthodox Tradition we understand varying levels of authority, as it were, as they present themselves within the larger context of Holy Tradition.
For example the mere identification of a person as a Church "Father" or "Saint" does not mean that every word they speak has "canonical" authority, that is, the kind of authority which is binding on all Christians everywhere.
We allow for something we call "theolegumena" or pious opinion which is valuable but may only be for a particular instance or a specific era. In the same way canons, or rules, of the life of the Church may change and or be modified by ensuing circumstances or simply fall out of use (there are canons regarding the quartering of animals on church property which are, practically speaking, meaningless in 21st century America but were very important when they were written and may still be important in some places today).
So the question is whether St. Paul was enunciating a universal principle or simply something that was his pious opinion or an instruction specific to a situation where correction was needed.
It is clear that most rigidly literal understanding of this makes no sense. 100% silence would mean that women would never be able to sing or pray or go to confession or for that matter tell the kids to sit down and be quiet. It also contradicts other Scriptures where Christians are advised to do those things and there is no gender limitation presented.
So what is St. Paul getting at? Two possibilities present themselves and they may be intertwined.
First, St. Paul may be addressing a specific situation or situations in which "chatty" women were taking over the worship services either as leaders or by talking during the liturgy. If this is the case he is simply admonishing these particular women to be silent so that order may be restored to the liturgy.
Second, St. Paul may be reaffirming the "hierarchy" of the Church, if you will, by reminding his readers that the liturgy was to be led by those men authorized to do so and that the new found freedom in Christ was still within the context of legitimate authority and pastoral oversight. He may also be reaffirming his understanding of the heirarchy in the Christian family.
Orthodoxy approaches this passage not in the most literal sense but largely as a reaffirmation of the need for order and legitimate authority in the Liturgy. To a certain extent, as well, it reflects the continuing understanding of the the roles of gender in the Church where the leadership of worship continues to reside in the Priest who in the Tradition of the Church for a number of reasons is male.
You could look at passages like this within the context of all the epistles too. There are plenty of things women can and are expected to do (evangelize, teach other women, pray, prophesy, exercise their spiritual gifts, etc.), but is it such a terrible thing that church leadership is to be male? Women also have the right to be discerning Christians and separate themselves from heretical or inept male church leaders and teachers. If a woman wants to teach or preach and is gifted in these areas, there are usually plenty of women around in most churches who will show up to hear her.
I wonder how people would react to hearing that I've been blessed by some things Joyce Meyer has said from time to time.... I don't regularly listen to her, but on several occasions God has used things she's said.
Thank you for a very intelligent and eloquent reply. Your points are all incredibly well-thought out and very valid. Thanks again for some new insights.
Sounds like they aren't picking and choosing which things to follow...
Of course, there must also be discussion regarding Priscilla/Aquilla, Phoebe, Lydia, etc., here, too, as they seem to be in leadership roles.
It means that people shouldn't hold side conversations in church.
What's wrong with you man!?!?
You come on this thread and make a very prudent and wise post....disrupting the flow.
Geesh...oughta be a law.
Good on ya...!!
FRegards,
I agree whole heartedly with your tag line, too. I am an originalist with the constitution as well as the Holy Scriptures.
This is exactly why we left the church and stopped tithing. Our daughter was refused permission to teach in Sunday School--because she was female! The women in my family yield to no man for their faith and moral views.
We noted that many pastors get along in life by doing no productive work and getting supported by parishioners/congregants. Women were urged to send money, but not participate. We stopped supporting this nonsense and go to a church where Christian women are respected. Our minister is a woman, who knows Scripture, and real life, better than any man I've met.
But it specifically addresses women, not men. So femaleness has something to do with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.