Paul
My husband is a BYU student still. Sometimes I feel like I will never leave Provo... sigh. But that's another post.
He's in a New Testament class right now. So of course the first thing a feminist thinks about when I hear New Testament class is the inevitable lesson on Paul's gender opinions and then the feeling of dread sets in. Some of Paul's gems include,
" 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
He's in a New Testament class right now. So of course the first thing a feminist thinks about when I hear New Testament class is the inevitable lesson on Paul's gender opinions and then the feeling of dread sets in. Some of Paul's gems include,
" 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
and this:
" 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is thehead of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
There are so many things that I hate about Paul's words to/about women and their use/quotation in the church. Why is it that when these verses are read, cultural context is not discussed? Why is it that we suddenly forget that words of modern prophets trump words of dead prophets?
I love what feminist Christian author Sarah Bessey said about Paul's words,
"I believe it's misguided, and probably profane, to look at a diverse collection of books written over thousands of years - history, poetry, law, Gospel accounts, proverbs, correspondence and other writings - as absolute, literal instructions without context... We can miss the gospel forest for the word-by-word trees. We try to make poetry and metaphor, history and letters fit into a prescriptive and literal box in all cases. We've embarked on an adventure in missing the point, cloaking it in "God said it!" smug, sound-bite piety. We indulge in semantics and slippery-slope rhetoric to excuse injustice. We read a few verses about women in a vacuum of literalism and prideful laziness."
I'm not a historian, but I do know that the rights of women in the time of Paul were about zero. He was a Roman and by the standard of the time, Roman women actually enjoyed a relatively better life. They were actually considered citizens, although their citizenship didn't get them much. They couldn't vote or hold public office. They were considered perpetually under the rule of their father, even after marriage. They could however, own land and testify in court. But Paul wasn't only speaking to Romans. He was speaking to ancient people who more often than not regarded women as little more than children or slaves. There was no such thing as the concept of domestic abuse or marital rape. Women's bodies were not their own. They were owned by their husbands from whom they received anything that they owned.
So maybe we should interpret Paul's words as how to make the best of an unfortunate societal situation, much like how his advice to slaves isn't considered by most to be an endorsement of slavery. Especially since they're not in line with the comments on the subject of more modern prophets such as Spencer W. Kimball,
“When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner.”
Or Elder Packer, of all people,
"In the home it is a partnership with husband and wife equally yoked together, sharing in decisions, always working together... his wife is neither behind him nor ahead of him but at his side."
So it would seem the the Lord didn't actually want his daughters to look to their husbands as the church looks to Christ, as Lord and Master, after all. When women are silenced and marginalized using these verses, we are allowing an imperfect, male-dominated ancient culture to drive our understanding of the work of Zion rather than the Savior and His more current leaders.
More HERE
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is thehead of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
There are so many things that I hate about Paul's words to/about women and their use/quotation in the church. Why is it that when these verses are read, cultural context is not discussed? Why is it that we suddenly forget that words of modern prophets trump words of dead prophets?
I love what feminist Christian author Sarah Bessey said about Paul's words,
"I believe it's misguided, and probably profane, to look at a diverse collection of books written over thousands of years - history, poetry, law, Gospel accounts, proverbs, correspondence and other writings - as absolute, literal instructions without context... We can miss the gospel forest for the word-by-word trees. We try to make poetry and metaphor, history and letters fit into a prescriptive and literal box in all cases. We've embarked on an adventure in missing the point, cloaking it in "God said it!" smug, sound-bite piety. We indulge in semantics and slippery-slope rhetoric to excuse injustice. We read a few verses about women in a vacuum of literalism and prideful laziness."
I'm not a historian, but I do know that the rights of women in the time of Paul were about zero. He was a Roman and by the standard of the time, Roman women actually enjoyed a relatively better life. They were actually considered citizens, although their citizenship didn't get them much. They couldn't vote or hold public office. They were considered perpetually under the rule of their father, even after marriage. They could however, own land and testify in court. But Paul wasn't only speaking to Romans. He was speaking to ancient people who more often than not regarded women as little more than children or slaves. There was no such thing as the concept of domestic abuse or marital rape. Women's bodies were not their own. They were owned by their husbands from whom they received anything that they owned.
So maybe we should interpret Paul's words as how to make the best of an unfortunate societal situation, much like how his advice to slaves isn't considered by most to be an endorsement of slavery. Especially since they're not in line with the comments on the subject of more modern prophets such as Spencer W. Kimball,
“When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner.”
Or Elder Packer, of all people,
"In the home it is a partnership with husband and wife equally yoked together, sharing in decisions, always working together... his wife is neither behind him nor ahead of him but at his side."
So it would seem the the Lord didn't actually want his daughters to look to their husbands as the church looks to Christ, as Lord and Master, after all. When women are silenced and marginalized using these verses, we are allowing an imperfect, male-dominated ancient culture to drive our understanding of the work of Zion rather than the Savior and His more current leaders.
More HERE
Comments
Post a Comment