January 15, 2003
-
Bible Blogging
Last week when I asked about topics you like to see covered, Steppenwolf asked for a blog on the role of women in the Church and he specifically asked that it be in the context of 1 Cor. 14:33-38. I've thought about this for a couple of days and finally (obviously) decided - yes, I will address this topic.
I find that most people outside Christianity yawn and go in search of beer when the discussion turns to doctrine. But, on the subject of Women and the Church, even people who have never been interested in Christianity have an opinion. I'm putting on my theologian hat now, so buckle in.
The particular passage that Stepp asked me to address is from a letter that the apostle Paul wrote to the Church in Corinth. This particular church was having more than it's share of weirdness going on in the pews. There were people bringing wine to the communion meal and getting sloshed, there was a case of open incest that was so scandalous it had people outside the church gossiping, there were people who converted to Christianity on Sunday but still went to visit the prostitutes at Artemis' temple on Monday, and the list goes on.
By the time that Paul gets down to Chapter 14 of the letter, he has worked up a considerable amount of passion for chewing these people out. Paul has a habit of getting a wee bit sarcastic with people who have irritated him. (Check out the letter to the Galatians, some of the people in that church were getting all righteous and insisting that new converts be circumcized. Paul says that if they are all that fired up to slice and dice, he'd like to see them start by cutting off their own penis before they go telling other guys to line up at the chopping block. Gal. 5:12)
In order to understand the passage that Stepp asks about, it's good to look at the whole context. Earlier in the letter Paul has given instructions for proper female decorum when praying in the church (he says, "don't dress like a prostitute, it sends mixed messages"). In the first part of chapter 14, Paul talks about the orderliness of worship and makes the point that when one person has something to say, the others should be quiet and listen. He doesn't say when one man has something to say, he uses a pronoun tht includes both genders. It seems an obvious conclusion that he expects women will be praying, speaking, and prophesying (that's Bible talk for preaching) since he includes them in the isntructions for doign so.
Now, we get down to verses 33-35 where he writes that women aren't allowed to speak or ask questions in the congregation but have to be silent and wait til they get home when they can ask their husbands. Then in verse 36 (now this is a little known translation, it will read differently in your Bible) he says "*&^@#! who the hell do you think you are!?" Only one English translation includes the expletive, and they toned it down - the RSV says "What! ....."
The only way that anyone could interpret the passage as anything other than Paul rebuking certain people by quoting their "rule" on women and then blasting them is by 1) failure to properly interpret the passage from the original Greek text or 2) failure to read the passage in it's full context.
Unfortunately, some Christian leaders today still contort that text to support a doctrine of women as second class citizens in the church. (I find that the same people who interpret this verse to restrict women find other verses they can interpret in equally restrictive ways on all kinds of other issues.) I don't argue with them, I nod, smile pleasantly, and on the way home, I tell my husband that I'm not going back to that place again.
Comments (31)
it's sad that some leaders today still believe that women are 'second class citizens' in the church... truly sad...
Amen, sister--no pun intended.
The Bible's never an easy thing to have an open discussion about, but Paul in particular seems to spark a lot of debate, and is the source of a lot of ideas which are controversial by modern standards.
I've never heard the verses 33-36 referred to as being sarcastic--like everyone else, I was told they truly meant women aren't to take an active role in religion. Is there a particular book, translation, or school of scholarship you can recommend that would help me look into this more deeply? I am very curious now. Thanks!
The coolest thing I was ever told (it was by one of the greatest women I have ever known - and she is about 7 years younger than I am) was after we'd made an offer on our last house (the one we subsequently sold to move into our present residence). My wife had seen the house and urged that we make an offer (before I'd even seen it). It was more than just a question of me wanting to keep her happy. I had entrusted her with the task. Anyway, this woman told me that this was, in point of fact, Biblical. She went on to point out many of the responsibilities that a woman is supposed to be entrusted with. Not only that, a correct reading of Genesis holds that Adam was, in point of fact, the ONE responsible for Original Sin (not Eve). There is nothing in the Bible (in fact there is plenty of scripture that says the exact opposite) that indicates that a woman is to be a second class anything. Unless, that is, a man takes the scripture out of context toward his own purposes of subjugation. And that is such a shame...
The thing that gets to me the most is that I have seen people take verses out of the bible, and other religious texts, and use that to prove any point they are trying to make. It seems that there is a verse and version that can prove any point anyone wants to make. It's only when you take it as a whole, and not out of context, that it can be understood as it was intended. Even then, things can be confused by those who choose to see things only their way. I avoid those people and places too.
The Entire Book is written with that slant...
Or did you miss that shipmate?
Sail on... sail on!!!
which means I think that all too often people take scrpture out of context for their own human purposes rather than to edify.
Amen!
Interesting discussion.
It is sad that some would use this text to support their false beliefs of women's supposed second class status in society. In Greek, (I couldn’t type "Greek" without laughing to myself about the movie, My Big Fat Greek Wedding
) the word submit does not imply that women are inferior to men. Rather, it means a willingness to put oneself under the guidance or direction of another. The same word is used in Luke 2:51 where Luke portrays how Jesus returend to Nazareth with Mary and Joseph where he was subject unto them.
I recall a few years back when England was just beginning to talk about having female priests within the Anglican churches, that a few priests who had been within the church all of their life stated that if it ever became common practise, then they would resign their office - which they later did.
That, I believe, is a perfect example of sexism within the church - and the refusal of some men to relinquish the role that they have held for so long.
I, personally, thought it was a great idea - as some people would find it easier talking to women over men...the men didn't agree, and resigned.
I think it shows that they were not really as committed to the chains of office as they pretended - but, more probably, they were committed to the chains of power.
I hear that Pope John Paul is totally against this kind of liberation within the Catholic Church...I recall, a while back, that he had hopes of bringing all of the different demoninations under one roof - that smacks of control...I thought that we had already been down that road before.
Then he smiles and nods and hides the wine back under his jacket.
You would have to take on this passage, wouldn't you?
I'll be honest enough to admit that a good part of my issues with any of Paul's letters is the personality behind it. I find it hard to take any man seriously when he talks about being like a woman in labor, about to give birth. Sure, buddy, I'm sure you know ALL about it.
Oops, starting to go off on another Paul tirade...
Thank you for your translation of the above.
That was the conclusion my bible proffesor lead me to in a discussion. I wonder though sometimes after I talk to certain women in my church. Of course a few minutes of talking to the men make me realize they're much worse. They actually believe what they're saying.
I agree with you. And people who twist Scripture just to restrict and discriminate I just try to avoid when possible.
Good discussion topic--and your last line is a hoot!
Excellent interpretation of the passages!! And I enjoy the way you state your thoughts as well. I have no room for people that take Scripture and use it to benefit themselves, as you said, nod, smile and bubye.
No doormat here! I think sometimes men miscontrue this for their own pleasure/purpose. In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, or male for female ~ that is free indeed!
I'm completely with you on this. By the way, I read your brother's pickle blog and it was hysterical.
This Church of Corinth sounds like it was pretty out of control. As far as interpretations go, the sad thing about it is people too often interpret things to suit their own purposes.
Like the way you said it. I have no argument with you. Agree on people using out of context to make a point in their favor. When Paul said to keep the head covered in church, it was so they wouldn't look like the prostitutes, also the part about not talking. The little tarts would use those things to bring attention to themselves. Nice blog.
Interesting (as usual). o/
God Bless - Dale
We are all affected, in our thinking, by the society we live in, it's laws and mores, and religious leaders are not exception. All churches have changed their rules to reflect that. Going back to a time soooo long ago is ludicrous.
This is the best treatment of this scripture I've seen. Good job.
For you who have no room for people that take Scripture and use it to benefit themselves: grace, please. The act is despicable, but the people are loved by God.
Interesting translation. One of the reasons I have given up on Churches entirely is how they use the bible - for their own purposes, that is.
This was a wonderful blog. I learned a lot and it was entertaining, to boot. We have four preachers at our church, three of whom are women. No descrimination there.....
Excellent post, qm. Now if we can only explain this to the Promisekeepers. . .
Is there some problem with Promisekeepers. Someone, say on. Anyway, image that. The Bible not translated correctly? Differing interpretations, even contortions? My, my. What's a Christian to do?
Well, okay -- I confess that when you first posted this, I thought to myself: yeah, okay: Christianity stuff -- moooovin' right along........ Bad, bad me. So now that I'm reviewing your blog for nefarious purposes of my own
I'm actually reading this. And how COOL is it? I read the Bible, front-to-back, for a "winter term" project at my veryliberal college, years ago, got to this letter, and thought: oh, yeah, great, yet another opinionated, stupid, out-of-date old patriarch. But hey. I was young. And I never went back. Thanks for the eye-opener, and also for that great translation 
.
thank you. I'm buying me a nice "updated new revised standard version" as soon as I get some spare cash. And as soon as I can get the education, I'm doing my own translation of the bible, just so I can not tone it down...
Comments are closed.