Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

The Biblical Truth about Gender

by Mimi Haddad 05-29-2009 | 5:30pm
Print
28 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

I heard a preacher once say, "Don't let facts blind you to the truth." What did he mean? Facts, misunderstood or taken out of context, can take us further away from, rather than closer to, truth. This risk is ever-present when reading scripture because you can focus on one set of facts to the exclusion of all the others! We call this "selective literalism." And, because the passages in scripture addressed an ancient situation, it is critical to understand the historic and cultural context-the specific situations to which these words had original meaning, and to which they still have moral and spiritual application today. Let me say it another way. Interpreting scripture requires more than reading the words on the page of the Bible. To grasp scripture's fullest meaning, we need to discern the author's original intent, asking how it might apply to our lives today.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Consider the issue of women's clothing and jewelry. Paul asks the women at Ephesus to adorn themselves "not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God" (1 Timothy 2:9-10). Yet, if you visit evangelical churches today, you will observe many Bible-believing women wearing gold wedding bands. Are these women disobeying scripture? No, because a literal reading of 1 Timothy 2:9-10 misses the point! Gold and pearls were "attendant features" to Paul's argument which was culturally and historically defined. Paul's primary emphasis is that our clothing and behavior should reflect our commitment to God. Wearing gold and pearls are not the point. Paul's point is that all of our lives should honor God, including our clothing. Many Christians today wear gold and pearls because they realize that when interpreting scripture they must:

  • Understand the historical and cultural context.
  • Allow what is clear in scripture to inform that which seems unclear.
  • Let moral and spiritual teaching of scripture take priority over the "attendant features."

Interpreting scripture accurately is especially critical when dealing with issues of power. Abolitionists helped free slaves by showing that slavery was an attendant feature of ancient culture, rather than part of the moral and spiritual teachings of scripture, as William Webb and Willard Swartley have shown.

The moral and spiritual teachings of scripture are also overlooked when gender and authority are at stake. Consider Peter's request in 1 Peter 3:1-4 that wives submit to the authority of unbelieving husbands. Some assert that Peter was emphasizing the universal authority of husbands over wives, but this is not the case. Peter makes clear that the husbands in question are unbelievers. The point of the passage is not universal wifely submission, but the evangelism of unbelieving husbands in a cultural context where obedience to husbands was expected. After all, Peter makes the same request of slaves several verses earlier (1 Peter 2:18ff). The attendant features in this passage concern the cultural authority of masters over slaves and husbands over wives, while the spiritual principles compel Christians to submit to cultural norms for the sake of the gospel. If we were to apply the moral and spiritual principles of this passage today, some scholars have argued that it would compel us to share authority in marriage in order to advance the gospel in a culture where decision making is now shared equally between husbands and wives.

Mimi Haddad

Mimi Haddad is president of Christians for Biblical Equality. Join her this July 24-26 and consider these themes more closely at CBE's 2009 conference, titled "Are Men from Mars and Women from Venus? A Biblical Response to Gender Difference."

28 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: Palosaari

06-01-2009 @ 5:00pm

Minnesotan,

I'd agree with you, accept: the words for slaves and children are different from the words used for wives. The words for slaves and children are indeed more correctly translated as "obey".

by: 1Grace

06-01-2009 @ 6:36pm

"hierarchical relationship "

Thanks I did not know she was advocating that . I always looked it as say the wife and husband going out to dinner . The wife wants to go to Tony Romas and the husnamd wants to go to Outback Staek House . The decision Bibically falls to the man , who then decides to go to Tony Romas because the head of the household is the head servant . Maybe if she is around she could clarify this . Because Bibically the decision making process is not equal .
Bibically with two Christians in a marriage , the role of head decision maker is the males, and we males better get in the program of doing it better and with the Mind of Christ.

by: alana2

06-06-2009 @ 2:42pm

i think logic needs to be applied fully with empathy and consistency.

first of all, if you are going to apply everything to each one of these three like you said, you'll run into problems. for instance, we don't believe that slavery is correct, but that doesn't mean that we don't believe that men and women should not be married, or that children should be without parents. this logic is clearly flawed.

however, it can be reasonable to say that in that age children, women, and slaves were treated "as children" and certainly "as property" which we can agree that women are not and should not be. that may be the common link. women today are educated and are expected to make decisions by themselves and that should not completely disappear because one gets married. that is keeping women in a state of eternal childhood or treated as property. so stating that as the common link would not nullify the idea that children should not obey their parents.

by: solrev

06-02-2009 @ 5:24pm

Being from a little known Christian sect, the Trinity for us is God, God's Soul, and God's Spirit, so we do not speak of God as a person. Having said that, it almost seems to us that God is a woman. Who was the first to speak to the Master Deceiver? When God cursed the Beast who was protected and separated for all time that the creation could not be contaminated? When we here the words your desire shall be to your husband, we interpret that as your choice and that choice serves the purpose of creation. Who was the first to testify to the resurrection? While we were given different gender roles in the creation, one day we believe the last shall be made first, again. Sure seems like God is a woman to me.

by: alana2

06-06-2009 @ 12:42pm

i think logic needs to be applied fully with empathy and consistency.

first of all, if you are going to apply everything to each one of these three like you said, you'll run into problems. for instance, we don't believe that slavery is correct, but that doesn't mean that we don't believe that men and women should not be married, or that children should be without parents. this logic is clearly flawed.

however, it can be reasonable to say that in that age children, women, and slaves were treated "as children" and certainly "as property" which we can agree that women are not and should not be. that may be the common link. women today are educated and are expected to make decisions by themselves and that should not completely disappear because one gets married. that is keeping women in a state of eternal childhood or treated as property. so stating that as the common link would not nullify the idea that children should not obey their parents.

by: solrev

06-02-2009 @ 5:24pm

Being from a little known Christian sect, the Trinity for us is God, God's Soul, and God's Spirit, so we do not speak of God as a person. Having said that, it almost seems to us that God is a woman. Who was the first to speak to the Master Deceiver? When God cursed the Beast who was protected and separated for all time that the creation could not be contaminated? When we here the words your desire shall be to your husband, we interpret that as your choice and that choice serves the purpose of creation. Who was the first to testify to the resurrection? While we were given different gender roles in the creation, one day we believe the last shall be made first, again. Sure seems like God is a woman to me.

by: alana2

06-06-2009 @ 12:42pm

i think logic needs to be applied fully with empathy and consistency.

first of all, if you are going to apply everything to each one of these three like you said, you'll run into problems. for instance, we don't believe that slavery is correct, but that doesn't mean that we don't believe that men and women should not be married, or that children should be without parents. this logic is clearly flawed.

however, it can be reasonable to say that in that age children, women, and slaves were treated "as children" and certainly "as property" which we can agree that women are not and should not be. that may be the common link. women today are educated and are expected to make decisions by themselves and that should not completely disappear because one gets married. that is keeping women in a state of eternal childhood or treated as property. so stating that as the common link would not nullify the idea that children should not obey their parents.

by: alana2

06-06-2009 @ 2:42pm

i think logic needs to be applied fully with empathy and consistency.

first of all, if you are going to apply everything to each one of these three like you said, you'll run into problems. for instance, we don't believe that slavery is correct, but that doesn't mean that we don't believe that men and women should not be married, or that children should be without parents. this logic is clearly flawed.

however, it can be reasonable to say that in that age children, women, and slaves were treated "as children" and certainly "as property" which we can agree that women are not and should not be. that may be the common link. women today are educated and are expected to make decisions by themselves and that should not completely disappear because one gets married. that is keeping women in a state of eternal childhood or treated as property. so stating that as the common link would not nullify the idea that children should not obey their parents.

by: SisterMarie

05-29-2009 @ 11:10pm

Mimi,

What you wrote brings back a lot of memories. In the church of my youth:

1. Ladies could not wear pants, lipstick, or makeup.
2. Attendance at the theater was prohibited. Some exceptions were allowed for educational movies at school.
3. Dancing was prohibited.
4. Mixed bathing (no it does literally mean taking a bath together) was prohibited.
5. All work (except women's work) was prohibited on Sunday.
6. Reading comic books and Sunday funny papers was a sin.

by: Palosaari

05-30-2009 @ 12:51am

And the word "submission" here is "hupotassomai", in the middle voice, neither active nor passive, a sort of "sich unterstellen". It is not saying "Submit wives" in the active, nor "wives, be submitted" in the passive, but "submit oneself", a voluntarily giving up of one's self and one's rights (as indeed, we are called to in Ephesians, one to another), thereby affirming by it's very phrasing that the control is in the woman's hands, and she is loving her husband by giving up herself, even as Christ showed in his life, and death.

by: 1Grace

05-30-2009 @ 4:36pm

Palosaari

Thanks that was well stated .

by: Minnesotan

05-31-2009 @ 12:36am

Mimi, I think your analysis is too slick, because it can't be reasonably applied to other situations taught in the Bible. For example, the Bible commands children to obey and honor their parents. Under your reasoning, children obeying their parents must be an archaic relic like slavery, and should not be observed today. I doubt that you would agree with that, so there are limitations with negating Biblical teachings on slavery and then applying them to other areas of life. Therefore, there is more going on here in the Scriptures than what your analogy concludes. I think your Biblical interpretations seek too much to conform to modern-day feminism, rather than let the Scriptures speak for themselves, whether they conform to prevailing liberal orthodoxies or not. I urge everyone to investigate these issues with the rich research by groups like Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

by: 1Grace

05-31-2009 @ 5:12pm

Hey Minnesotan,

How ya doing ?

But to your belief that the writer is linking too much to modern day feminism . Well their is perhaps some truth to that , We live in this culture , as Christians get many of our views from the Reformation, and even have to deal with this western civilization deal that causes us to perhaps to try to hard to figure out what God is saying through our own logic instead of just accepting his .

'o} In other words I think Christian Women are feminists in a sense , they have a KING reigning in their hearts , and as Palosaari so elegantly stated have the knowledge what they say do it up to them . Thats Christianity , deciding to allow Jesus not us .

I don't see the comparison of Honoring Our parents and slavery . For one we can honor our parents , but if they are doing something evil or dis respecting God and wanted the child to participate it would not be violating Scripture to not obey them would it / I believe this is what she is speaking to .

by: SisterMarie

05-29-2009 @ 11:10pm

Mimi,

What you wrote brings back a lot of memories. In the church of my youth:

1. Ladies could not wear pants, lipstick, or makeup.
2. Attendance at the theater was prohibited. Some exceptions were allowed for educational movies at school.
3. Dancing was prohibited.
4. Mixed bathing (no it does literally mean taking a bath together) was prohibited.
5. All work (except women's work) was prohibited on Sunday.
6. Reading comic books and Sunday funny papers was a sin.

by: Minnesotan

06-01-2009 @ 1:45am

The Bible says in Eph. 6:1 for children to obey their parents and it says for slaves to obey their masters. Eph. 5 also discusses wives obeying their husbands. The author tries to negate the directive about wives by saying that if slavery is wrong, then a hierarchical relationship between husbands and wives must be wrong, too. However, that also means that parents directing their children, and children obeying their parents is also a sinful, obsolete dynamic. Children and parents are equal the way slaves and masters are in Christ and wives and husbands are in Christ. I am saying that unless she is willing to say that parents have no authority over their children, then her analogy on slavery/'husbands and wives may also break down without further explanation. There is more Biblical data that she has to account for than just slaves and wives.

by: Palosaari

05-30-2009 @ 12:51am

And the word "submission" here is "hupotassomai", in the middle voice, neither active nor passive, a sort of "sich unterstellen". It is not saying "Submit wives" in the active, nor "wives, be submitted" in the passive, but "submit oneself", a voluntarily giving up of one's self and one's rights (as indeed, we are called to in Ephesians, one to another), thereby affirming by it's very phrasing that the control is in the woman's hands, and she is loving her husband by giving up herself, even as Christ showed in his life, and death.

by: SisterMarie

06-01-2009 @ 9:38am

"I urge everyone to investigate these issues with the rich research by groups like Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood."

The Council has published a book. It has 26 chapters - 3 are written by women. That should give some hint as to their position on gender issues.

by: 2cello

06-01-2009 @ 3:09pm

Women and men and slaves and masters are assumed to be age of consent with full capacity of thought and action. The children obeying their parents comparison doesn't hold up because a three-year old does not yet know fire is hot or drinking lighter fluid could kill you. It is a capacity issue. A thirty year old child is no longer expected to obey his parents in the same sense.

by: seekerfinder

06-01-2009 @ 4:37pm

Minnesotan, I think one of the points Mimi is making is that scripture needs to be read with moral, spiritual and cultural eyes. She isn't saying that because one passage should not be taken literally, all others surrounding it should not. We were given a brain with which to explore and understand God's creation and precepts. We were created to think, to grow and to keep on learning. The Bible as "the Living Word" of God must be read and applied in that context. Don't know how long you've been a Christian, but in the 35 years that I have, the meaning of certain texts has changed and taken on added dimension as I've grown (in grace, experience and age). There are numerous references to how we are expected to grow in our knowledge of God...milk and meat, when I was child, see through a glass darkly, etc. I think if we are truly seeking and growing, God gives us a clearer and clearer understanding of the truth. I know it's scary, but I think it's okay to open our minds. In fact, I think it's what God requires.

by: Palosaari

06-01-2009 @ 5:00pm

Minnesotan,

I'd agree with you, accept: the words for slaves and children are different from the words used for wives. The words for slaves and children are indeed more correctly translated as "obey".

by: 1Grace

05-30-2009 @ 4:36pm

Palosaari

Thanks that was well stated .

by: Minnesotan

05-31-2009 @ 12:36am

Mimi, I think your analysis is too slick, because it can't be reasonably applied to other situations taught in the Bible. For example, the Bible commands children to obey and honor their parents. Under your reasoning, children obeying their parents must be an archaic relic like slavery, and should not be observed today. I doubt that you would agree with that, so there are limitations with negating Biblical teachings on slavery and then applying them to other areas of life. Therefore, there is more going on here in the Scriptures than what your analogy concludes. I think your Biblical interpretations seek too much to conform to modern-day feminism, rather than let the Scriptures speak for themselves, whether they conform to prevailing liberal orthodoxies or not. I urge everyone to investigate these issues with the rich research by groups like Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

by: 1Grace

05-31-2009 @ 5:12pm

Hey Minnesotan,

How ya doing ?

But to your belief that the writer is linking too much to modern day feminism . Well their is perhaps some truth to that , We live in this culture , as Christians get many of our views from the Reformation, and even have to deal with this western civilization deal that causes us to perhaps to try to hard to figure out what God is saying through our own logic instead of just accepting his .

'o} In other words I think Christian Women are feminists in a sense , they have a KING reigning in their hearts , and as Palosaari so elegantly stated have the knowledge what they say do it up to them . Thats Christianity , deciding to allow Jesus not us .

I don't see the comparison of Honoring Our parents and slavery . For one we can honor our parents , but if they are doing something evil or dis respecting God and wanted the child to participate it would not be violating Scripture to not obey them would it / I believe this is what she is speaking to .

by: 1Grace

06-01-2009 @ 6:36pm

"hierarchical relationship "

Thanks I did not know she was advocating that . I always looked it as say the wife and husband going out to dinner . The wife wants to go to Tony Romas and the husnamd wants to go to Outback Staek House . The decision Bibically falls to the man , who then decides to go to Tony Romas because the head of the household is the head servant . Maybe if she is around she could clarify this . Because Bibically the decision making process is not equal .
Bibically with two Christians in a marriage , the role of head decision maker is the males, and we males better get in the program of doing it better and with the Mind of Christ.

by: Minnesotan

06-01-2009 @ 1:45am

The Bible says in Eph. 6:1 for children to obey their parents and it says for slaves to obey their masters. Eph. 5 also discusses wives obeying their husbands. The author tries to negate the directive about wives by saying that if slavery is wrong, then a hierarchical relationship between husbands and wives must be wrong, too. However, that also means that parents directing their children, and children obeying their parents is also a sinful, obsolete dynamic. Children and parents are equal the way slaves and masters are in Christ and wives and husbands are in Christ. I am saying that unless she is willing to say that parents have no authority over their children, then her analogy on slavery/'husbands and wives may also break down without further explanation. There is more Biblical data that she has to account for than just slaves and wives.

by: SisterMarie

06-01-2009 @ 9:38am

"I urge everyone to investigate these issues with the rich research by groups like Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood."

The Council has published a book. It has 26 chapters - 3 are written by women. That should give some hint as to their position on gender issues.

by: 2cello

06-01-2009 @ 3:09pm

Women and men and slaves and masters are assumed to be age of consent with full capacity of thought and action. The children obeying their parents comparison doesn't hold up because a three-year old does not yet know fire is hot or drinking lighter fluid could kill you. It is a capacity issue. A thirty year old child is no longer expected to obey his parents in the same sense.

by: seekerfinder

06-01-2009 @ 4:37pm

Minnesotan, I think one of the points Mimi is making is that scripture needs to be read with moral, spiritual and cultural eyes. She isn't saying that because one passage should not be taken literally, all others surrounding it should not. We were given a brain with which to explore and understand God's creation and precepts. We were created to think, to grow and to keep on learning. The Bible as "the Living Word" of God must be read and applied in that context. Don't know how long you've been a Christian, but in the 35 years that I have, the meaning of certain texts has changed and taken on added dimension as I've grown (in grace, experience and age). There are numerous references to how we are expected to grow in our knowledge of God...milk and meat, when I was child, see through a glass darkly, etc. I think if we are truly seeking and growing, God gives us a clearer and clearer understanding of the truth. I know it's scary, but I think it's okay to open our minds. In fact, I think it's what God requires.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: SisterMarie

05-29-2009 @ 11:10pm

Mimi,

What you wrote brings back a lot of memories. In the church of my youth:

1. Ladies could not wear pants, lipstick, or makeup.
2. Attendance at the theater was prohibited. Some exceptions were allowed for educational movies at school.
3. Dancing was prohibited.
4. Mixed bathing (no it does literally mean taking a bath together) was prohibited.
5. All work (except women's work) was prohibited on Sunday.
6. Reading comic books and Sunday funny papers was a sin.

by: SisterMarie

05-29-2009 @ 11:10pm

Mimi,

What you wrote brings back a lot of memories. In the church of my youth:

1. Ladies could not wear pants, lipstick, or makeup.
2. Attendance at the theater was prohibited. Some exceptions were allowed for educational movies at school.
3. Dancing was prohibited.
4. Mixed bathing (no it does literally mean taking a bath together) was prohibited.
5. All work (except women's work) was prohibited on Sunday.
6. Reading comic books and Sunday funny papers was a sin.

by: Palosaari

05-30-2009 @ 12:51am

And the word "submission" here is "hupotassomai", in the middle voice, neither active nor passive, a sort of "sich unterstellen". It is not saying "Submit wives" in the active, nor "wives, be submitted" in the passive, but "submit oneself", a voluntarily giving up of one's self and one's rights (as indeed, we are called to in Ephesians, one to another), thereby affirming by it's very phrasing that the control is in the woman's hands, and she is loving her husband by giving up herself, even as Christ showed in his life, and death.

by: Palosaari

05-30-2009 @ 12:51am

And the word "submission" here is "hupotassomai", in the middle voice, neither active nor passive, a sort of "sich unterstellen". It is not saying "Submit wives" in the active, nor "wives, be submitted" in the passive, but "submit oneself", a voluntarily giving up of one's self and one's rights (as indeed, we are called to in Ephesians, one to another), thereby affirming by it's very phrasing that the control is in the woman's hands, and she is loving her husband by giving up herself, even as Christ showed in his life, and death.

by: 1Grace

05-30-2009 @ 4:36pm

Palosaari

Thanks that was well stated .

by: 1Grace

05-30-2009 @ 4:36pm

Palosaari

Thanks that was well stated .

by: Minnesotan

05-31-2009 @ 12:36am

Mimi, I think your analysis is too slick, because it can't be reasonably applied to other situations taught in the Bible. For example, the Bible commands children to obey and honor their parents. Under your reasoning, children obeying their parents must be an archaic relic like slavery, and should not be observed today. I doubt that you would agree with that, so there are limitations with negating Biblical teachings on slavery and then applying them to other areas of life. Therefore, there is more going on here in the Scriptures than what your analogy concludes. I think your Biblical interpretations seek too much to conform to modern-day feminism, rather than let the Scriptures speak for themselves, whether they conform to prevailing liberal orthodoxies or not. I urge everyone to investigate these issues with the rich research by groups like Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

by: Minnesotan

05-31-2009 @ 12:36am

Mimi, I think your analysis is too slick, because it can't be reasonably applied to other situations taught in the Bible. For example, the Bible commands children to obey and honor their parents. Under your reasoning, children obeying their parents must be an archaic relic like slavery, and should not be observed today. I doubt that you would agree with that, so there are limitations with negating Biblical teachings on slavery and then applying them to other areas of life. Therefore, there is more going on here in the Scriptures than what your analogy concludes. I think your Biblical interpretations seek too much to conform to modern-day feminism, rather than let the Scriptures speak for themselves, whether they conform to prevailing liberal orthodoxies or not. I urge everyone to investigate these issues with the rich research by groups like Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

by: 1Grace

05-31-2009 @ 5:12pm

Hey Minnesotan,

How ya doing ?

But to your belief that the writer is linking too much to modern day feminism . Well their is perhaps some truth to that , We live in this culture , as Christians get many of our views from the Reformation, and even have to deal with this western civilization deal that causes us to perhaps to try to hard to figure out what God is saying through our own logic instead of just accepting his .

'o} In other words I think Christian Women are feminists in a sense , they have a KING reigning in their hearts , and as Palosaari so elegantly stated have the knowledge what they say do it up to them . Thats Christianity , deciding to allow Jesus not us .

I don't see the comparison of Honoring Our parents and slavery . For one we can honor our parents , but if they are doing something evil or dis respecting God and wanted the child to participate it would not be violating Scripture to not obey them would it / I believe this is what she is speaking to .

by: 1Grace

05-31-2009 @ 5:12pm

Hey Minnesotan,

How ya doing ?

But to your belief that the writer is linking too much to modern day feminism . Well their is perhaps some truth to that , We live in this culture , as Christians get many of our views from the Reformation, and even have to deal with this western civilization deal that causes us to perhaps to try to hard to figure out what God is saying through our own logic instead of just accepting his .

'o} In other words I think Christian Women are feminists in a sense , they have a KING reigning in their hearts , and as Palosaari so elegantly stated have the knowledge what they say do it up to them . Thats Christianity , deciding to allow Jesus not us .

I don't see the comparison of Honoring Our parents and slavery . For one we can honor our parents , but if they are doing something evil or dis respecting God and wanted the child to participate it would not be violating Scripture to not obey them would it / I believe this is what she is speaking to .

by: Minnesotan

06-01-2009 @ 1:45am

The Bible says in Eph. 6:1 for children to obey their parents and it says for slaves to obey their masters. Eph. 5 also discusses wives obeying their husbands. The author tries to negate the directive about wives by saying that if slavery is wrong, then a hierarchical relationship between husbands and wives must be wrong, too. However, that also means that parents directing their children, and children obeying their parents is also a sinful, obsolete dynamic. Children and parents are equal the way slaves and masters are in Christ and wives and husbands are in Christ. I am saying that unless she is willing to say that parents have no authority over their children, then her analogy on slavery/'husbands and wives may also break down without further explanation. There is more Biblical data that she has to account for than just slaves and wives.

by: Minnesotan

06-01-2009 @ 1:45am

The Bible says in Eph. 6:1 for children to obey their parents and it says for slaves to obey their masters. Eph. 5 also discusses wives obeying their husbands. The author tries to negate the directive about wives by saying that if slavery is wrong, then a hierarchical relationship between husbands and wives must be wrong, too. However, that also means that parents directing their children, and children obeying their parents is also a sinful, obsolete dynamic. Children and parents are equal the way slaves and masters are in Christ and wives and husbands are in Christ. I am saying that unless she is willing to say that parents have no authority over their children, then her analogy on slavery/'husbands and wives may also break down without further explanation. There is more Biblical data that she has to account for than just slaves and wives.

by: SisterMarie

06-01-2009 @ 9:38am

"I urge everyone to investigate these issues with the rich research by groups like Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood."

The Council has published a book. It has 26 chapters - 3 are written by women. That should give some hint as to their position on gender issues.

by: SisterMarie

06-01-2009 @ 9:38am

"I urge everyone to investigate these issues with the rich research by groups like Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood."

The Council has published a book. It has 26 chapters - 3 are written by women. That should give some hint as to their position on gender issues.

by: 2cello

06-01-2009 @ 3:09pm

Women and men and slaves and masters are assumed to be age of consent with full capacity of thought and action. The children obeying their parents comparison doesn't hold up because a three-year old does not yet know fire is hot or drinking lighter fluid could kill you. It is a capacity issue. A thirty year old child is no longer expected to obey his parents in the same sense.

by: 2cello

06-01-2009 @ 3:09pm

Women and men and slaves and masters are assumed to be age of consent with full capacity of thought and action. The children obeying their parents comparison doesn't hold up because a three-year old does not yet know fire is hot or drinking lighter fluid could kill you. It is a capacity issue. A thirty year old child is no longer expected to obey his parents in the same sense.

by: seekerfinder

06-01-2009 @ 4:37pm

Minnesotan, I think one of the points Mimi is making is that scripture needs to be read with moral, spiritual and cultural eyes. She isn't saying that because one passage should not be taken literally, all others surrounding it should not. We were given a brain with which to explore and understand God's creation and precepts. We were created to think, to grow and to keep on learning. The Bible as "the Living Word" of God must be read and applied in that context. Don't know how long you've been a Christian, but in the 35 years that I have, the meaning of certain texts has changed and taken on added dimension as I've grown (in grace, experience and age). There are numerous references to how we are expected to grow in our knowledge of God...milk and meat, when I was child, see through a glass darkly, etc. I think if we are truly seeking and growing, God gives us a clearer and clearer understanding of the truth. I know it's scary, but I think it's okay to open our minds. In fact, I think it's what God requires.

by: seekerfinder

06-01-2009 @ 4:37pm

Minnesotan, I think one of the points Mimi is making is that scripture needs to be read with moral, spiritual and cultural eyes. She isn't saying that because one passage should not be taken literally, all others surrounding it should not. We were given a brain with which to explore and understand God's creation and precepts. We were created to think, to grow and to keep on learning. The Bible as "the Living Word" of God must be read and applied in that context. Don't know how long you've been a Christian, but in the 35 years that I have, the meaning of certain texts has changed and taken on added dimension as I've grown (in grace, experience and age). There are numerous references to how we are expected to grow in our knowledge of God...milk and meat, when I was child, see through a glass darkly, etc. I think if we are truly seeking and growing, God gives us a clearer and clearer understanding of the truth. I know it's scary, but I think it's okay to open our minds. In fact, I think it's what God requires.

by: Palosaari

06-01-2009 @ 5:00pm

Minnesotan,

I'd agree with you, accept: the words for slaves and children are different from the words used for wives. The words for slaves and children are indeed more correctly translated as "obey".

by: Palosaari

06-01-2009 @ 5:00pm

Minnesotan,

I'd agree with you, accept: the words for slaves and children are different from the words used for wives. The words for slaves and children are indeed more correctly translated as "obey".

by: 1Grace

06-01-2009 @ 6:36pm

"hierarchical relationship "

Thanks I did not know she was advocating that . I always looked it as say the wife and husband going out to dinner . The wife wants to go to Tony Romas and the husnamd wants to go to Outback Staek House . The decision Bibically falls to the man , who then decides to go to Tony Romas because the head of the household is the head servant . Maybe if she is around she could clarify this . Because Bibically the decision making process is not equal .
Bibically with two Christians in a marriage , the role of head decision maker is the males, and we males better get in the program of doing it better and with the Mind of Christ.

by: 1Grace

06-01-2009 @ 6:36pm

"hierarchical relationship "

Thanks I did not know she was advocating that . I always looked it as say the wife and husband going out to dinner . The wife wants to go to Tony Romas and the husnamd wants to go to Outback Staek House . The decision Bibically falls to the man , who then decides to go to Tony Romas because the head of the household is the head servant . Maybe if she is around she could clarify this . Because Bibically the decision making process is not equal .
Bibically with two Christians in a marriage , the role of head decision maker is the males, and we males better get in the program of doing it better and with the Mind of Christ.

by: solrev

06-02-2009 @ 5:24pm

Being from a little known Christian sect, the Trinity for us is God, God's Soul, and God's Spirit, so we do not speak of God as a person. Having said that, it almost seems to us that God is a woman. Who was the first to speak to the Master Deceiver? When God cursed the Beast who was protected and separated for all time that the creation could not be contaminated? When we here the words your desire shall be to your husband, we interpret that as your choice and that choice serves the purpose of creation. Who was the first to testify to the resurrection? While we were given different gender roles in the creation, one day we believe the last shall be made first, again. Sure seems like God is a woman to me.

by: solrev

06-02-2009 @ 5:24pm

Being from a little known Christian sect, the Trinity for us is God, God's Soul, and God's Spirit, so we do not speak of God as a person. Having said that, it almost seems to us that God is a woman. Who was the first to speak to the Master Deceiver? When God cursed the Beast who was protected and separated for all time that the creation could not be contaminated? When we here the words your desire shall be to your husband, we interpret that as your choice and that choice serves the purpose of creation. Who was the first to testify to the resurrection? While we were given different gender roles in the creation, one day we believe the last shall be made first, again. Sure seems like God is a woman to me.

by: alana2

06-06-2009 @ 12:42pm

i think logic needs to be applied fully with empathy and consistency.

first of all, if you are going to apply everything to each one of these three like you said, you'll run into problems. for instance, we don't believe that slavery is correct, but that doesn't mean that we don't believe that men and women should not be married, or that children should be without parents. this logic is clearly flawed.

however, it can be reasonable to say that in that age children, women, and slaves were treated "as children" and certainly "as property" which we can agree that women are not and should not be. that may be the common link. women today are educated and are expected to make decisions by themselves and that should not completely disappear because one gets married. that is keeping women in a state of eternal childhood or treated as property. so stating that as the common link would not nullify the idea that children should not obey their parents.

by: alana2

06-06-2009 @ 12:42pm

i think logic needs to be applied fully with empathy and consistency.

first of all, if you are going to apply everything to each one of these three like you said, you'll run into problems. for instance, we don't believe that slavery is correct, but that doesn't mean that we don't believe that men and women should not be married, or that children should be without parents. this logic is clearly flawed.

however, it can be reasonable to say that in that age children, women, and slaves were treated "as children" and certainly "as property" which we can agree that women are not and should not be. that may be the common link. women today are educated and are expected to make decisions by themselves and that should not completely disappear because one gets married. that is keeping women in a state of eternal childhood or treated as property. so stating that as the common link would not nullify the idea that children should not obey their parents.

by: alana2

06-06-2009 @ 2:42pm

i think logic needs to be applied fully with empathy and consistency.

first of all, if you are going to apply everything to each one of these three like you said, you'll run into problems. for instance, we don't believe that slavery is correct, but that doesn't mean that we don't believe that men and women should not be married, or that children should be without parents. this logic is clearly flawed.

however, it can be reasonable to say that in that age children, women, and slaves were treated "as children" and certainly "as property" which we can agree that women are not and should not be. that may be the common link. women today are educated and are expected to make decisions by themselves and that should not completely disappear because one gets married. that is keeping women in a state of eternal childhood or treated as property. so stating that as the common link would not nullify the idea that children should not obey their parents.

by: alana2

06-06-2009 @ 2:42pm

i think logic needs to be applied fully with empathy and consistency.

first of all, if you are going to apply everything to each one of these three like you said, you'll run into problems. for instance, we don't believe that slavery is correct, but that doesn't mean that we don't believe that men and women should not be married, or that children should be without parents. this logic is clearly flawed.

however, it can be reasonable to say that in that age children, women, and slaves were treated "as children" and certainly "as property" which we can agree that women are not and should not be. that may be the common link. women today are educated and are expected to make decisions by themselves and that should not completely disappear because one gets married. that is keeping women in a state of eternal childhood or treated as property. so stating that as the common link would not nullify the idea that children should not obey their parents.