Dangers of Feminism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I've corresponded with a Greek scholar online, a former chair of Classics who is now retired. He is a Messianic Jew and describes his knowledge of Hebrew as intermediate. One of his concerns is that a lot of seminary professors who teach Greek don't even know it that well. He knew of some who did, but in his opinion, it was a big problem. One thing that concerns him is supposed experts proving their points about Greek using the 'silly non-rules' from Greek text books rather than looking up how the words are used.
I don't know if Hebrew scholars outside of the seminary realm would have the same opinion about Hebrew. It would be interesting to look at other opinions aside from the Hebrew scholars in seminaries.
I don't know if Hebrew scholars outside of the seminary realm would have the same opinion about Hebrew. It would be interesting to look at other opinions aside from the Hebrew scholars in seminaries.
A
1 Timothy 2:11–15 (NASB) states:
"A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."
This passage is at the heart of the ongoing discussion of the place and role of women in church, home and society.
As a male, I am sure I cannot fully grasp the impact this apostolic word must have on modern Christian women. But given that limitation, I can nonetheless understand something of the damage to one’s self-worth and sense of giftedness this restrictive word can evoke when not properly understood.
We are living at a point in history in which women and men enjoy a reputation for equal giftedness. In such a climate, the apostolic prohibition seems particularly difficult to understand and accept. For what is it about gender which militates against the full expression of the Creator’s gifts of heart and mind and spirit? Or, as Misty said, "what changed so that a phallus has become a prerequisite to leadership?"
This question has often been answered with the assertion that clearly defined roles for men and women are divinely ordained and that Paul’s restrictive instruction is evidence of such a universal norm. That response, however, is problematic. The account of the creation of male and female in Genesis 1–2, which we take as a foundational theological statement of the Creator’s design and intention, affirms male and female as equal and complementary.
Both are bearers, together, of God’s image (Gen 1:26–27). Both are given the mandate to responsible sovereignty over the created order (Gen 1:28). The creation of the woman is intended to rescue the man from his aloneness and to provide him with a complement (Gen 2:18).
AND, in spite of the ancient pagan view that the gods played a trick on man by creating woman of inferior material, the Judeo-Christian creation account of Genesis affirms the exact opposite! That the woman is of the same essence as man (“bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” Gen 2:23) and created with the same Imago Dei.
Thus the view that God intended the woman for a restricted role in home, church and society cannot be grounded in the order of creation.
But, a restricted status for woman has been traditionally grounded in the account of the Fall (Gen 3) in both Jewish and Christian thought and practice as biscuit pointed out. However, it is clear from the context of Genesis 2–3 that the words of 3:16 to Hebrew biblical scholars that “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” do not announce God’s created design for a male hierarchy. Rather these words announce a cursed existence because of a broken relationship between the human creation and the Creator. A restricted place for woman, and male-over-female dominance, is thus not divine purpose but an expression of human sin.
For Paul, the purpose of Christ’s redemptive work was to set God’s creation free from the curse of Eden. Those “in Christ” were new creations (2 Cor 5:17), freed from the bondage of sin and its expression in human relationships (Rom 6:5–7). In the new humanity created in Christ, the culturally and religiously ingrained view that some human beings, on the basis of gender or race or social status, were in some sense inferior could no longer be maintained (Gal 3:26–28). That was surely one of Paul’s central theological convictions.
So what IS happening in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy? In discussing the passage in 1 Corinthians 14:33–40, where Paul instructs women in the church to “remain silent,” we saw that this restriction was not universally applied either by Paul or by other early congregations. Women functioned in prominent leadership positions (Phoebe, Lydia, Euodia, Syntyche, Priscilla, Junia), designated as ministers (or deacons, Rom 16:1), fellow workers (Rom 16:3), colaborers in the gospel (Phil 4:2–9), apostles (or messengers, Rom 16:7).
The Spirit of God empowered both men and women to be proclaimers of God’s redemptive work in Christ (Acts 2:14–18). Women’s participation in the edifying presentation of the gospel and vocal prayer in the congregation were a normal part of early church life (1 Cor 11).
So what are the reasons for the particular restriction imposed on women in Timothy’s congregation since, as we have seen, a curtailed role for women was neither a part of the divine intention in creation nor a normative aspect of the redeemed order?
The problem then correlates well to the problem we see today with respect to feminism. Female false teachers had arisen and were threatening the very integrity of Christianity and putting the church at risk. Action had to be taken.
Upon reading 1 Timothy, one becomes immediately aware that the integrity of the Christian faith is at stake. There are some in the church who teach false doctrines and are occupied with myths and other speculative ideas which militate against sound and sincere faith (1 Tim 1:3–4).
Some have wandered into vain debates, seeking to be teachers without understanding and discernment (1 Tim 1:6–7) and there is throughout a serious concern in reaction by Paul for maintaining and guarding the truth of the faith (1 Tim 1:19; 2:4–7; 3:14–16; 4:1–3, 6–7, 16;6:1–5, 12).
The false teachings have led to a disregard for proper decorum and practices in the church (1 Tim 2:8–15) as well as to a rejection of the institution of marriage (1 Tim 4:3). In light of this last aspect of the heretical teaching, it is noteworthy that particular attention is directed to young widows (in 1 Tim 5:9–15), who are urged to marry, have children and manage their homes (1 Tim 5:14).
When these normal, socially prescribed roles and functions are neglected or rejected, these women are prone to “gossiping” and being “busybodies, saying things they ought not to” (1 Tim 5:13). Heretical teachings were upsetting accepted patterns of congregational and home life and they were emanating from women.
Such a situation in the Ephesian church is addressed in 2 Timothy 3:6–9, where women are the special targets of those “who oppose the truth” (2 Tim 3:8), becoming “unable to acknowledge the truth” (2 Tim 3:7).
In all cases, Paul’s restrictive word in 1 Timothy 2:11–12 must be understood within a context where false teaching is at issue. The general prohibition against all those who “teach false doctrines” (1 Tim 1:3) is now focused specifically on the women who have fallen prey to such false teaching and whom are involved in its promulgation.
The admonition of 1 Timothy 2:11 to “learn in quietness and full submission” is thus directed at the women who, on the basis of the heretical teaching, have become loud voices, strident advocates of ideas that are upsetting the ordered contexts of congregational and home life.
The “submission” enjoined on them is most likely a submission to the elders in the church, who are guardians of the truth and ordered worship.
The prohibition against their teaching is occasioned by their involvement in false teachings and heresy. Finally, the prohibition against “authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12) must be understood within the context of their rejection of the authority of others, probably the male leaders in Ephesus whose orthodox, authoritative teaching is being undermined by their heretical views.
The unusual Greek word used carries primarily the negative sense of “grasping for” or “usurping authority.”
Thus, the restriction of women’s place and participation in the life and ministry of the church at Ephesus is “directed against women involved in false teaching who have abused proper exercise of authority in the church (not denied by Paul elsewhere to women) by usurpation and domination of the male leaders and teachers in the church at Ephesus.”
Paul goes on to ground this instruction in reflections on selected passages from Genesis.
All of this, of course, is VERY relevant for today in the face of destructive feminist inspired heresy.
However, what amounts to church discipline for the heretical, unruly, and ungodly must not be extrapolated to orthodox godly women. It CANNOT be used as a reason to undermine the latter's self-worth or giftedness in any way within the church.
"A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."
This passage is at the heart of the ongoing discussion of the place and role of women in church, home and society.
As a male, I am sure I cannot fully grasp the impact this apostolic word must have on modern Christian women. But given that limitation, I can nonetheless understand something of the damage to one’s self-worth and sense of giftedness this restrictive word can evoke when not properly understood.
We are living at a point in history in which women and men enjoy a reputation for equal giftedness. In such a climate, the apostolic prohibition seems particularly difficult to understand and accept. For what is it about gender which militates against the full expression of the Creator’s gifts of heart and mind and spirit? Or, as Misty said, "what changed so that a phallus has become a prerequisite to leadership?"
This question has often been answered with the assertion that clearly defined roles for men and women are divinely ordained and that Paul’s restrictive instruction is evidence of such a universal norm. That response, however, is problematic. The account of the creation of male and female in Genesis 1–2, which we take as a foundational theological statement of the Creator’s design and intention, affirms male and female as equal and complementary.
Both are bearers, together, of God’s image (Gen 1:26–27). Both are given the mandate to responsible sovereignty over the created order (Gen 1:28). The creation of the woman is intended to rescue the man from his aloneness and to provide him with a complement (Gen 2:18).
AND, in spite of the ancient pagan view that the gods played a trick on man by creating woman of inferior material, the Judeo-Christian creation account of Genesis affirms the exact opposite! That the woman is of the same essence as man (“bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” Gen 2:23) and created with the same Imago Dei.
Thus the view that God intended the woman for a restricted role in home, church and society cannot be grounded in the order of creation.
But, a restricted status for woman has been traditionally grounded in the account of the Fall (Gen 3) in both Jewish and Christian thought and practice as biscuit pointed out. However, it is clear from the context of Genesis 2–3 that the words of 3:16 to Hebrew biblical scholars that “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” do not announce God’s created design for a male hierarchy. Rather these words announce a cursed existence because of a broken relationship between the human creation and the Creator. A restricted place for woman, and male-over-female dominance, is thus not divine purpose but an expression of human sin.
For Paul, the purpose of Christ’s redemptive work was to set God’s creation free from the curse of Eden. Those “in Christ” were new creations (2 Cor 5:17), freed from the bondage of sin and its expression in human relationships (Rom 6:5–7). In the new humanity created in Christ, the culturally and religiously ingrained view that some human beings, on the basis of gender or race or social status, were in some sense inferior could no longer be maintained (Gal 3:26–28). That was surely one of Paul’s central theological convictions.
So what IS happening in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy? In discussing the passage in 1 Corinthians 14:33–40, where Paul instructs women in the church to “remain silent,” we saw that this restriction was not universally applied either by Paul or by other early congregations. Women functioned in prominent leadership positions (Phoebe, Lydia, Euodia, Syntyche, Priscilla, Junia), designated as ministers (or deacons, Rom 16:1), fellow workers (Rom 16:3), colaborers in the gospel (Phil 4:2–9), apostles (or messengers, Rom 16:7).
The Spirit of God empowered both men and women to be proclaimers of God’s redemptive work in Christ (Acts 2:14–18). Women’s participation in the edifying presentation of the gospel and vocal prayer in the congregation were a normal part of early church life (1 Cor 11).
So what are the reasons for the particular restriction imposed on women in Timothy’s congregation since, as we have seen, a curtailed role for women was neither a part of the divine intention in creation nor a normative aspect of the redeemed order?
The problem then correlates well to the problem we see today with respect to feminism. Female false teachers had arisen and were threatening the very integrity of Christianity and putting the church at risk. Action had to be taken.
Upon reading 1 Timothy, one becomes immediately aware that the integrity of the Christian faith is at stake. There are some in the church who teach false doctrines and are occupied with myths and other speculative ideas which militate against sound and sincere faith (1 Tim 1:3–4).
Some have wandered into vain debates, seeking to be teachers without understanding and discernment (1 Tim 1:6–7) and there is throughout a serious concern in reaction by Paul for maintaining and guarding the truth of the faith (1 Tim 1:19; 2:4–7; 3:14–16; 4:1–3, 6–7, 16;6:1–5, 12).
The false teachings have led to a disregard for proper decorum and practices in the church (1 Tim 2:8–15) as well as to a rejection of the institution of marriage (1 Tim 4:3). In light of this last aspect of the heretical teaching, it is noteworthy that particular attention is directed to young widows (in 1 Tim 5:9–15), who are urged to marry, have children and manage their homes (1 Tim 5:14).
When these normal, socially prescribed roles and functions are neglected or rejected, these women are prone to “gossiping” and being “busybodies, saying things they ought not to” (1 Tim 5:13). Heretical teachings were upsetting accepted patterns of congregational and home life and they were emanating from women.
Such a situation in the Ephesian church is addressed in 2 Timothy 3:6–9, where women are the special targets of those “who oppose the truth” (2 Tim 3:8), becoming “unable to acknowledge the truth” (2 Tim 3:7).
In all cases, Paul’s restrictive word in 1 Timothy 2:11–12 must be understood within a context where false teaching is at issue. The general prohibition against all those who “teach false doctrines” (1 Tim 1:3) is now focused specifically on the women who have fallen prey to such false teaching and whom are involved in its promulgation.
The admonition of 1 Timothy 2:11 to “learn in quietness and full submission” is thus directed at the women who, on the basis of the heretical teaching, have become loud voices, strident advocates of ideas that are upsetting the ordered contexts of congregational and home life.
The “submission” enjoined on them is most likely a submission to the elders in the church, who are guardians of the truth and ordered worship.
The prohibition against their teaching is occasioned by their involvement in false teachings and heresy. Finally, the prohibition against “authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12) must be understood within the context of their rejection of the authority of others, probably the male leaders in Ephesus whose orthodox, authoritative teaching is being undermined by their heretical views.
The unusual Greek word used carries primarily the negative sense of “grasping for” or “usurping authority.”
Thus, the restriction of women’s place and participation in the life and ministry of the church at Ephesus is “directed against women involved in false teaching who have abused proper exercise of authority in the church (not denied by Paul elsewhere to women) by usurpation and domination of the male leaders and teachers in the church at Ephesus.”
Paul goes on to ground this instruction in reflections on selected passages from Genesis.
All of this, of course, is VERY relevant for today in the face of destructive feminist inspired heresy.
However, what amounts to church discipline for the heretical, unruly, and ungodly must not be extrapolated to orthodox godly women. It CANNOT be used as a reason to undermine the latter's self-worth or giftedness in any way within the church.
AgeofKnowledge and Biscuit,
I find it interesting that Paul does not base the concept of male headship and wives' submission on the statements God made to woman at the fall, but on man being made first and other statements. If that were the intent of the passage in Genesis and our source, as Christians, for believing in a certain order in marriage, Paul could have quoted it. He does refer to Christ and the church, also, in relation to submission. Wives submitting to their husbands does not rely on the statements made at the fall.
I find it interesting that Paul does not base the concept of male headship and wives' submission on the statements God made to woman at the fall, but on man being made first and other statements. If that were the intent of the passage in Genesis and our source, as Christians, for believing in a certain order in marriage, Paul could have quoted it. He does refer to Christ and the church, also, in relation to submission. Wives submitting to their husbands does not rely on the statements made at the fall.
A
I meant what I said in post 350, "The pastorals give serious attention to the respective roles and authority of men and women and seek to put in place a gendered church order in keeping with scriptural norms."
However, that doesn't mean what male chauvinists OR female chauvinists think it does... lol.
However, that doesn't mean what male chauvinists OR female chauvinists think it does... lol.
B
Paul didn't have to quote it because God did. When did Paul ever had the power to overrule God? Jesus never overruled His Father's laws & commandents, He just established a new covenant with different rules or standards with many of His Father's laws & commandents still intacted.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
That women is the New N word video, I couldn't even watch the whole thing. Anytime someone doesn't like what they read, they just attack the translation and say it's mistranslated. I've seen people play the translation card so many times, and every time I've bothered to look it up and painstakingly translated the Greek word for word.....there has never been a real translation issue.
Second to that is the context issue, people like to say things were only meant in specific contexts that "you" just don't happen to know about because you are not educated. Context claims actually have weight sometimes if someone actually is taking something out of context, but I'm speaking of when someone claims that the context is different than what it actually is to suit their personal preferences.
Even so, none of the scripture supports oppressing women or forcing them to do anything. Submission is a choice that a person makes. It's not a license to force people to bend to your will or something that grants you the authority to "enslave" them as the lady in the video put it.
Second to that is the context issue, people like to say things were only meant in specific contexts that "you" just don't happen to know about because you are not educated. Context claims actually have weight sometimes if someone actually is taking something out of context, but I'm speaking of when someone claims that the context is different than what it actually is to suit their personal preferences.
Even so, none of the scripture supports oppressing women or forcing them to do anything. Submission is a choice that a person makes. It's not a license to force people to bend to your will or something that grants you the authority to "enslave" them as the lady in the video put it.
A
1 Timothy 2:11 A WIFE should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a WIFE to teach or to assume authority over her HUSBAND; she must be quiet.
The CORRECT translation, which is backed up by the NIV, and fits in with the rest of Scripture in the immediate context and as a whole.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...1332747373047.46138.1661930167&type=3&theater
The CORRECT translation, which is backed up by the NIV, and fits in with the rest of Scripture in the immediate context and as a whole.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...1332747373047.46138.1661930167&type=3&theater
Well since you're so qualified, I want to ask you, did you learn this also from seminary?
To copy paste other people's work and pass it off as your own?
WORD OF THE DAY - PLAGIARISM
Plagiarism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Hard Sayings of Paul - Manfred Brauch - Google Books
Hmmm. There are secular university classes on Modern Hebrew. I studied a little Hebrew at a large state university. There were no Modern Hebrew classes as far as I know. I'd be surprised if Modern Hebrew classes were as common in secular universities as Ancient Hebrew. Another source for scholarship would the Yeshivas and other Jewish arenas of scholarship.
A
Rachel, maybe next time you should just ask for sources in an informal discussion where anonymous monikers are used rather than reveal your ignorance and behave in a morally blighted manner.
This is an informal discussion in which I am sharing information. I am not a student turning in a paper, nor an author selling a book or article in which I am passing off other's work as my own. You are ignorantly applying formal standards to an informal discussion. In informal discussions, it's not expected nor required to source or conform to APA or MLA academic standards.
And, though you were too ignorant to know this, a necessary component of plagiarism involves an empirical assertion of representation. I have made no such assertion of representation with respect to the post you cited nor do I intend to ever make an assertion of representation unless the work is actually my own at which time I will state so.
What I have done is state that I have a lot of resources here that I am using in this discussion. But you never bothered to scroll back and find where I said that.
There's an old saying that goes like this, when you assume you make an ass out of you and me. Stop assuming.
I would happily have provided and will provide ANY and ALL sources you desire with respect to any post I make simply for the asking and have stated repeatedly that I am accessing a wide range of resources.
I, in fact, did provide the source for this information in an earlier post (#393) and happily reshare that source below [1] once again for your benefit since you didn't have the sense to ask.
[1] Kaiser, W. C., Jr., Davids, P. H., Bruce, F. F., & Brauch, M. T. (1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (666). Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity.
All you've done Rachel is reveal that you are ignorant and morally blighted with respect to YOUR thinking and behavior lacking even the common sense to ask a simple question in an informal discussion.
If you would like to join the discussion, then instead of acting like a troll, notice that there's a topic under discussion. We welcome any content or opinions you have with respect to the actual topic under discussion.
If you can't manage that, then please stop trolling and leave. Thanking you in advance.
This is an informal discussion in which I am sharing information. I am not a student turning in a paper, nor an author selling a book or article in which I am passing off other's work as my own. You are ignorantly applying formal standards to an informal discussion. In informal discussions, it's not expected nor required to source or conform to APA or MLA academic standards.
And, though you were too ignorant to know this, a necessary component of plagiarism involves an empirical assertion of representation. I have made no such assertion of representation with respect to the post you cited nor do I intend to ever make an assertion of representation unless the work is actually my own at which time I will state so.
What I have done is state that I have a lot of resources here that I am using in this discussion. But you never bothered to scroll back and find where I said that.
There's an old saying that goes like this, when you assume you make an ass out of you and me. Stop assuming.
I would happily have provided and will provide ANY and ALL sources you desire with respect to any post I make simply for the asking and have stated repeatedly that I am accessing a wide range of resources.
I, in fact, did provide the source for this information in an earlier post (#393) and happily reshare that source below [1] once again for your benefit since you didn't have the sense to ask.
[1] Kaiser, W. C., Jr., Davids, P. H., Bruce, F. F., & Brauch, M. T. (1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (666). Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity.
All you've done Rachel is reveal that you are ignorant and morally blighted with respect to YOUR thinking and behavior lacking even the common sense to ask a simple question in an informal discussion.
If you would like to join the discussion, then instead of acting like a troll, notice that there's a topic under discussion. We welcome any content or opinions you have with respect to the actual topic under discussion.
If you can't manage that, then please stop trolling and leave. Thanking you in advance.
A
Another problem with feminism, is that feminists are using force to dampen scientific progress in academia that doesn't align with their ideology.
Take the case of Lawrence Summers, an American economist who is President Emeritus and Charles W. Eliot University Professor of Harvard University, who was forced to resign as Harvard's president after a discussion on human gender dimorphisms at an Academic Conference in which his assertions were correct.
It didn't matter that his science was accurate and true. What mattered was that he had offended feminists with the truth. Therefore, he had to resign. Harvard then pledged $50,000,000 USD to the promotion of women only and replaced him with a provocative feminist revisionist.
More later... I have to run for now. Peace.
Take the case of Lawrence Summers, an American economist who is President Emeritus and Charles W. Eliot University Professor of Harvard University, who was forced to resign as Harvard's president after a discussion on human gender dimorphisms at an Academic Conference in which his assertions were correct.
It didn't matter that his science was accurate and true. What mattered was that he had offended feminists with the truth. Therefore, he had to resign. Harvard then pledged $50,000,000 USD to the promotion of women only and replaced him with a provocative feminist revisionist.
More later... I have to run for now. Peace.
Another dangerous feminist, honoured on a US stamp!
Daughter of a slave and slave holder, Anna Julia Cooper argued to be educated with the boys when a post-slavery school separated students by gender. She married George Cooper, a professor of Greek and the second African American Episcopalian pastor who died just two years later. She attended Oberlin College, became a high school teacher in Washington, DC, and then became president of Frelinghuysen University before returning to teaching. At age 66 she defended her French-language doctoral thesis, "The Attitude of France Toward Slavery during the Revolution" at the Sorbonne in Paris and became the 4th African American woman ever to earn a Ph.D. She fostered family members then adopted five children orphaned by her relatives. She lived to 105 and made every minute of it a life worth living. She is buried next to her husband whom she lost at age 19. A few years ago she was memorialized on a US postage stamp in celebration of Black History Month and every new American passport which shared her most famous quote. "The cause of freedom is not the cause of a race or sect, a party or a class -- it is the cause of every human kind, the very birthright of humanity."
Source-: Feminists for Life
Daughter of a slave and slave holder, Anna Julia Cooper argued to be educated with the boys when a post-slavery school separated students by gender. She married George Cooper, a professor of Greek and the second African American Episcopalian pastor who died just two years later. She attended Oberlin College, became a high school teacher in Washington, DC, and then became president of Frelinghuysen University before returning to teaching. At age 66 she defended her French-language doctoral thesis, "The Attitude of France Toward Slavery during the Revolution" at the Sorbonne in Paris and became the 4th African American woman ever to earn a Ph.D. She fostered family members then adopted five children orphaned by her relatives. She lived to 105 and made every minute of it a life worth living. She is buried next to her husband whom she lost at age 19. A few years ago she was memorialized on a US postage stamp in celebration of Black History Month and every new American passport which shared her most famous quote. "The cause of freedom is not the cause of a race or sect, a party or a class -- it is the cause of every human kind, the very birthright of humanity."
Source-: Feminists for Life
