It is an understatement to declare today a historic day in United States history. It appears to be a historic day world wide. The global support President Obama is receiving is incredible. He campaigned on hope and change. People are full of hope and a change has certainly arrived. It is also refreshing to see popular representatives of the Church rise up to show solidarity and respect for the new President despite differences in political and social issues.Max Lucado and Natalie Grant are calling for Christians everywhere to pray for Obama. K-Love the popular Christian radio station has joined in calling for Christians to pray for our President regardless of differences. Author and Pastor, Rick Warren, is assisting in the Inauguration ceremony. Everywhere I turn I am hearing Christian leaders speaking out about respecting and praying for our President. I am hearing them denounce the way the Christians spoke regarding former President Bill Clinton. I regret I was one who spoke many unkind things about him when I ought to have respected his leadership regardless of my strong disagreements with him and his policies. I had no right to speak less than respectfully regarding him.
I have heard Church leaders celebrating the election of an African American President in a country once ridden with slavery. We have come far from those days and it is a great accomplishment for our nation to elect someone from a minority group that has undergone such mistreatment from the same country.
I am not ignorant of the things President Obama stands for which conflict with Christian morality and positions on various matters. However, by no means should I or any other Christian channel that disagreement into anger, bitterness, or disrespect for our leader.
Paul wrote that we are to pray for those in authority and respect them. He wrote this when Nero was in power. Nero was bent on killing Christians using them as human torches to light his garden. Paul knew this well when he wrote that God wants us to pray for our leaders and respect them as such. I am glad to see much of the Church taking this to heart and committing themselves to pray and guarding their hearts and words to be respectful and kind.
It is a day of hope and change on many levels. Obama faces many difficult decisions in the coming months regarding international matters and the economic crisis at home. He desperately needs the prayers and support of the people as he takes office and faces these great challenges. Let us remember who we are in Christ and always have the attitude of Him who gives of life.
54 comments:
karla said: The global support President Obama is receiving is incredible.
Just imagine what it would've been like if McCain had won..... [rotflmao]
I'm guessing that there would be a lot *less* celebrating going on about now....
I would expect Christians to have been happier with the outcome had McCain won, but to see those who are the popular face of the Church to the world advocating support for Pres Obama when he is so far outside our values is an amazing thing. It is the way it should be.
Yes McCain would not have been an historic occasion. It would have been a much quieter day in Washington.
"I am not ignorant of the things President Obama stands for which conflict with Christian morality and positions on various matters."
With your brand of Christianity perhaps. There are a lot of Christians who stand with him completely, including himself.
I am happy to see those who don't share his beliefs supporting him.
Mike, you are right there are many Christians who stand with him despite the disagreements other Christians have. Regardless to see the support from those who don't agree, especially on such crucial matters of the sanctity of life, it is good to see an extension of support and prayer for him. I wouldn't have had this mentality of support a few years back, but I see how very important it is and how it is the Lord's way.
karla said: Yes McCain would not have been an historic occasion. It would have been a much quieter day in Washington.
...and I'm sure that the rest of the world wouldn't be as pleased either. At least with Bush gone we have more hope of getting back on the right track again.....
"I am not ignorant of the things President Obama stands for which conflict with Christian morality and positions on various matters."
What Mike said. This is just the No True Scotsman fallacy. You dare to speak for all Xians as if they all agree with you and Obama is an outsider? Obama IS a Xian, just like you. There is no unified Xian front, because no two Xians can agree on exactly what it means to be Xian. This impacts your other arguments about how atheists make strawman arguments against Xianity simply because not all arguments are aimed at your specific subset of Xian beliefs.
Wow, it's amazing that no matter what you say on your blog, you're attacked.
I'm sorry to comment anonymously, but I'm not ready for this on my own blog.
Keep the faith -- you're not alone.
"Wow, it's amazing that no matter what you say on your blog, you're attacked."
Well, that happens when you make statements that are erroneous, unsupported, dishonest, etc. Do you think that Karla's statements implying (or outright stating even) that Obama's views are not Xian are fallacious or not?
Karla said she was very happy that Christians were happy for Obama, praying for Obama, and rejoicing with how far we come.
Karla said: "to see those who are the popular face of the Church to the world advocating support for Pres Obama when he is so far outside our values is an amazing thing. It is the way it should be."
This is why I am suprised she is still being attacked.
I too am honsetly thrilled that we are living in a day when we've overcome the sin of racism. I'm glad that we've come this far, and I hope that we continue to make great progress in that area.
But it's hard to celebrate fully when that sin is replaced with the murder of innocents and the blatant, brazen display of homosexuality done in God's name.
Bishop Robinson himself, who claims to be able to reconcile Christianity with his alternative life-style, said he was "horrified" by how Christian the inaugural prayers been througout history, and wished to assure the American people that his prayer would "not be a Christian prayer, and I won’t be quoting Scripture or anything like that."
Robinson is a perfect example of why you can't reconcile being gay with being a Christian.
Obama has made it quite clear that the first thing on his agenda is to bring back partial-birth abortion. That is anit-Christian.
There is nothing erroneous, unsupported, or dishonest about saying that these views of Obama's are not Christian.
"so far outside our values" is the problem. You are advocating your version of Christianity.
There are people who consider themselves just as committed to Christ as you are, and they disagree with you.
"Obama has made it quite clear that the first thing on his agenda is to bring back partial-birth abortion."
What is your source for this? He hasn't made it clear to me.
"There is nothing erroneous, unsupported, or dishonest about saying that these views of Obama's are not Christian."
Actually there is, because you are making the No True Scotsman claim. It's fallacious. Obama IS a Xian, and he holds those views, so it is empirically shown that your statement is incorrect.
In regards to Robinson, how does lamenting the degeneration of church/state separation show that one can not be gay and Xian? This is a non sequitor. Being gay has nothing to do with your views on separation of church and state.
There's another commenter here who is also Xian and a strict separationist (Quixote). Would you like to tell him that he's also not a true Xian?
I'll have to catch up on comments tomorrow. I got some kind of virus and have been out of comission the last two days.
Get lots of rest! I hope you feel better!
Thanks Mike. I am back at work today, but not fully better yet.
Anonymous (the atheist) please tone down your comments if you want to continue to write here. I have been more than patient with you. But I really must ask you to speak respectfully especially to others leaving comments on my blog, if you can't find it in your heart to speak respectfully to me.
Christians do have a variety of opinions about different matters. I am sure their are atheists out there that represent atheism in a way that makes some of you cringe.
My point with Obama is while there are some policies and views he has that conservative Christians do not accept, I am seeing conservative Christians while not compromising their beliefs show him respect, support and committing to pray for him. I am happy to see that the Church has learned to show love despite differences without wavering on the differences.
Despite my differences with President Obama's worldview and politics I am going to support him as my President and give him the respect and kindness due to him as a human and as one in authority over my country.
I am also glad to see conservative Christians being supportive. America's strength has always been having so many differences and yet finding things that we all have in common to bond over.
Karla,
"Anonymous (the atheist) please tone down your comments if you want to continue to write here. I have been more than patient with you. But I really must ask you to speak respectfully especially to others leaving comments on my blog, if you can't find it in your heart to speak respectfully to me."
Please point out what exactly I said that is disrespectful. Is it disrespectful to point out someone's fallacies? Is it disrespectful to ask questions? Is it disrespectful to point out when someone else has been disrespectful of others here (i.e. how is it not disrespectful for the other anon. and yourself to claim that all others that don't believe as anon. or yourself do are not true Xians?) Do you really not see the difference? I have not made any personal attacks against the other anon. I have not used fallacy or ad hominem. I have merely pointed out the deficiencies in anon's statements. There is nothing inherently disrespectful about that. Of course, if you are looking for an excuse to get rid of me, you only have to ask. It must suxor to have someone on your blog constantly pointing out how vapid/fallacious/false/dishonest your views and statements are.
"My point with Obama is while there are some policies and views he has that conservative Christians do not accept..."
That's fine if that's what you originally meant. The way you phrased it, however, implied that you felt Obama is not a True Xian. All you had to do was clarify.
I wasn't trying to make any determination regarding President Obama's relationship with the Lord. If he knows Him, he's a Christian in the truest since of the word even if his doctrines or worldview is different from other Christians. I can't judge if a person truly knows the Lord or not, only God sees the heart, and I cannot and will not say that President Obama isn't a Christian.
Anon said "Well, that happens when you make statements that are erroneous, unsupported, dishonest, etc."
This just sounded like an attack versus an argument to me. I'm sorry if I misjudged your attitude. I do not wish you to leave, I just hope for you to speak less harshly. You can question or disagree as much as you like. When you say I or others make "dishonest" statements that is an attack on my character and it insinuates that I am being purposely deceitful.
"This just sounded like an attack versus an argument to me."
You DO make erroneous, unsupported, dishonest, etc. remarks, and I continually point them out to you while you continue to ignore them and continue to make erroneous, unsupported, dishonest remarks. In fact, it is your continued insistence on making these same comments over and over, even after being corrected, that makes you see you as dishonest. For instance, when you continually make the liar, lunatic, lord argument even though I and other have repeatedly pointed out that there are other options, this makes you dishonest. If you feel I am being disrespectful towards you for calling you out on your BS, then I submit that you are more disrespectful towards me for spewing it. I was not, however, at all disrespectful of the other anon, which you more than implied.
"But it's hard to celebrate fully when that sin is replaced with the murder of innocents and the blatant, brazen display of homosexuality done in God's name."
Yeah how dare any loving people brazenly show themselves to the world and use the name of god to do it? Whatever happened to the good 'ol days when people only used the name of god to induce rape, slavery and genocide?
Anon the athiest -- I'm very intersted in the other options of the liar/lunatic/Lord argument.
spiderhead -- I obviously do not think the things you mentioned should be done either -- whether in God's name or not.
Mike aka MonolithTMA -- there are tons of news reports quoting Obama's promise to sign the Freedom of Choice act (lift the ban from partial-birth abortion). I guess you haven't been following him as closely as you thought.
Click here if you want to see it from the horses' mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I&feature=related
To whomever cares -- the word/label Christian is very misused and very misunderstood. To be a true follower of Christ, as orginally intended, is to be a person who follows Christ as God, and upholds the Bible as God-breathed.
The Bible states that homosexuality is a perversion against God and forbidden as it errodes a man and a woman uniting as one in the image of God (who posesses both male and female qualities).
The Bible also clearly teaches that a person is a human being at conception, and that murder is wrong.
Anyone can claim to be a Christian, but the Bible says we will know who are the real ones from those who claim to be by thier actions.
If Obama or any other person is a real Christian, but disregards these scriptures, no, that does not negate thier salvation, but they are clearly one of those of the elect who are decieved -- which Jesus warned would happen in the last days.
Yep, I found it and remember reading about it.
"The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." -- Barack Obama
The Freedom of Choice Act is about a lot more than repealing the ban on partial birth abortions. It amazed me when I was a Christian (Pro Life for most of the time), and it still amazes me that Pro Lifers put some much energy into something that can't be proven. You can't prove, you can't know, that life begins at conception, even if you quote some Bible verses out of context to support it. Knitted in the womb, and lept in the womb, etc. etc. etc. You can't jail people for an uncertainty.
The "Pro Life" movement wants to criminalize the acts of traumatized, desperate women and the doctors who try to help them.
I would always want to err on the side of life no matter what.
Me too, hence not locking up the ones who are indisputably alive.
"To whomever cares -- the word/label Christian is very misused and very misunderstood. To be a true follower of Christ, as orginally intended, is to be a person who follows Christ as God, and upholds the Bible as God-breathed."
Yeah I was raised in a crazy evangelical church and I'm well aware of all that.
Here's the dilemma. You're saying yourself that to be a christian is to follow christ. No one needs to follow christ, just christians if that be your choice, so let the homosexual to as they please. It doesn't affect you in the slightest.
Here's another point for you. How many non religious people did jesus ever piss off? Strange because I can't seem to remember any. The only people I ever remember hating him were the religious judgmental folks.
Remember the woman at the well? Jesus didn't pass any judgment on her and forbade the people from passing judgment on her as well. He did say go and sin no more, but guess what, if she is a human being she did sin again and again and again until the day she died. The point being live and let live and stop worrying what everyone else is doing in their own lives.
Mike, I don't follow you.
Spider. I agree. It isn't Christians job to police the world. Jesus didn't we shouldn't. That doesn't mean we don't have input to share about things that can help the world.
Karla, pro-lifers don't know when life begins, but they do know that the women having abortions and the doctors performing them are alive.
They want to lock up these women and doctors, who they know are alive, based on their guess that the fetus is alive too. Some ridiculously extreme "pro lifers" think that abortion doctors should die for their crimes, and yet they can't prove that life begins at conception. I'm sure you don;t advocate that.
So, if all abortions are illegal, and someone commits a murder (abortion) what should happen to them? If I kill a living child, I'm definitely going to do jail time if not get the death penalty, and the woman who was my accomplice will too.
What will we do with these murderers once abortion is legally declared to be murder?
Mike,
Please be careful with your terminology. Embryos are "alive" in the sense that they are living creatures. Sperm is "alive." What we are really concerned with is personhood. Is an embryo a person?
And, I too would like to know what penalties women should face for having abortions. This is something that anti-choice advocates generally avoid trying to answer. The usual tactic is to claim that the doctor should be punished while the poor, poor woman should not. I'm curious to see if anyone here will support that.
Thanks, Anon.
True, alive can refer to just about anything right down to the cellular level.
You are correct that the issue is whether the embryo is a person.
Now I have Every Sperm Is Sacred from Monty Python's Meaning of Life running through my head. ;-)
anon the theist:
"Anon the athiest -- I'm very intersted in the other options of the liar/lunatic/Lord argument."
One obvious option is simply that one could be mistaken. For example, suppose that I have an object that I think is gray. I believe very strongly that it is gray, I tell people it is gray, etc. In reality, however, the object turns out to be green and I'm unaware of that because I'm color-blind (I'm not really, but for the purposes of the example...) Well, let's look at the choices on tap. Am I lord? Nope, we can rule that one out. Am I a liar? I'm not intentionally misleading anyone since I really believe the object is gray instead of green. Am I a lunatic? Color-blindness is not a mental condition, it is a condition that is due to my eyes not being attuned to certain wavelengths, so I wouldn't call myself a lunatic either. I would simply be mistaken.
"To whomever cares -- the word/label Christian is very misused and very misunderstood. To be a true follower of Christ, as orginally intended, is to be a person who follows Christ as God, and upholds the Bible as God-breathed."
But, what does that mean to uphold the Bible as god-breathed? By whose interpretation?
"The Bible states that homosexuality is a perversion against God and forbidden as it errodes a man and a woman uniting as one in the image of God (who posesses both male and female qualities)."
Although I happen to agree with you that the Bible is very anti-gay, other Xians don't. So, how is one to tell your interpretation from their's?
"The Bible also clearly teaches that a person is a human being at conception, and that murder is wrong."
I disagree that it is clear, as have many theologians throughout the ages.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm
It's not so cut and dried as you imply, and once again we have to ask how we know that your interpretation is any better than anyone else's.
"Anyone can claim to be a Christian, but the Bible says we will know who are the real ones from those who claim to be by thier actions.
If Obama or any other person is a real Christian, but disregards these scriptures, no, that does not negate thier salvation, but they are clearly one of those of the elect who are decieved -- which Jesus warned would happen in the last days."
The problem is that you claim that Obama and others are disregarding scripture, but they claim that they aren't. Who is right? How do we determine that your interpretation is better than their interpretation? There is no objective means of coming to an interpretation of the Bible that I'm aware of. This is why I keep saying that your arguments are fallacious. You are using the No True Scotsman fallacy in saying that what you believe to be true is true and anyone who doesn't share your belief can not be Xian, while they can just as easily say the same about you using the exact same reasoning.
Mike, I have never heard anyone advocate penalizing or punishing mothers who have had abortions. There is great emotional trauma experienced by women who have had abortions. Despite what they believe about it, they experience that. I want to save them from that as much as I want to save the child from death. I was just having a conversation with someone about how we who are considered pro-life must understand that those who are pro-choice are so for reasons of compassion just as we are. That those who are pro-choice don't consider that they are harming a real child, but aiding a desperate mother. And those who are pro-choice think us pro-lifers are condemning of that mother and causing her more grief in her desperate situation. Some pro-lifers do give off condemnation. But that's not right at all. I have compassion for that mother that finds herself in such a situation where she is contemplating abortion. I feel for those who have made that choice for I know that it troubles them still. I also know that most if not all who have abortions sincerely don't believe they are ending a life. I don't condemn them for their ignorance. Crisis Pregnancy centers show women ultra sounds so that they can see their child with their own eyes and then they offer financial and emotional support to the mother to help them have the child either to raise or give up for adoption.
I must repeat I don't heap condemnation on those who have had abortions or the doctors who preform them or the politicians and judges who enact it. I know they honestly think they are showing compassion. I just think that there is a better way and that it will take a lot more than making abortion illegal to help these women and children. Unwanted children is a bigger problem than abortion. Many are born and live unwanted and neglected. We need a return of support for healthy families where children can grow up well nurtured in love. It's a big job and legislation won't change hearts.
I hope I can do my part to support all in need no matter their choices and circumstances.
So abortion is not murder with all the punishments attached?
"Mike, I have never heard anyone advocate penalizing or punishing mothers who have had abortions."
That's because the people who advocate such are not logically consistent.
Abortion regulations are just tools that people use to control the reproductive cycle of women, which in turn is born from the patriachical control of women. The reason that most people want to let women off the hook for 'murdering their unborn child' is because of the tendency to look down on women. Women are still considered the weaker sex by many and in this time of great emotional need, 'can anyone doubt that she didn't know what she was doing? That she didn't mean to murder anyone and that we should take pity on the poor, poor woman who was probably tricked into it by that nasty, atheist doctor?' It's all about control and subjugation of women, including not punishing them for making their own choices, because people can't bring themselves to believe that women CAN make their own choices.
"Crisis Pregnancy centers..."
CPC's are nothing but Xian fronts that try to shame and harrangue women into giving birth to children that they don't want. They usually don't have professional doctors on hand to actually minister care and they usually don't mention abortion as a viable option, or they lie and give inaccurate information about it.
"It's a big job and legislation won't change hearts."
Then, you don't support criminalizing/outlawing abortion?
Mike, ending the life of a child at the embryo stage is no different to me than after the child is born. However, if abortion is no longer legal doctors won't be able to preform them and no one gets punished for it.
Women who have abortions runs the risk of never having children again due to complications of the abortion. Also they have incredible psychological trauma. Why advocate a choice after a child has been conceived? The child is a result of a choice already made.
Would it not be better to have a culture that values life both the child and the mother and comes along side and supports a woman in a desperate situation where she is unable or unwilling to care for her child?
Anonymous, I'm not going to answer your comment because whatever mentality you are arguing against, I don't maintain nor does anyone I have ever known or heard of.
Karla,
"However, if abortion is no longer legal doctors won't be able to preform them and no one gets punished for it."
For a student of history, one would think that you would know better. Abortions don't stop simply because they are outlawed...they simply get dicier and more dangerous.
"Why advocate a choice after a child has been conceived? The child is a result of a choice already made."
Not all women who have sex are choosing to have children. Also, I find this sort of thought to be punitive - as if you are seeking to punish women for engaging in sex. It's even more appalling when we factor in the push for abstinence only education that many anti-choice people advocate. So, not only do you seek to withhold information, but you seek to punish the woman after the fact as well.
"Would it not be better to have a culture that values life both the child and the mother and comes along side and supports a woman in a desperate situation where she is unable or unwilling to care for her child?"
It would be better to have a society that is free and open with information to limit the number of abortions that are performed, yes. Abortion is sometimes the best choice in a bag of bad choices. We should be seeking to educate people, empower women, and offer better choices for contraception, including morning-after pills, etc. Abortion, however, should remain as a possibility for when other planning methods fail.
"Anonymous, I'm not going to answer your comment because whatever mentality you are arguing against, I don't maintain nor does anyone I have ever known or heard of."
Which one? The misogynistic treatment of women? No one comes out and says it, but it's pretty evident, and your attitude of punishment for choices already made (how dare that woman have sex) speaks volumes.
"However, if abortion is no longer legal doctors won't be able to preform them and no one gets punished for it."
Forgive my sarcasm, but yeah, that's worked great for the drug problem in this country. Since drugs are illegal, no one does them.
A child is never ever a punishment no matter the circumstances. Each child is a special gift. Each mother is a special bearer of life no matter what led up to it.
Making abortion illegal will not end the root of the problem. At the same time I can't support it being legal. But much work needs doing to help the stability of the family. It's a multi-faceted situation.
If something is illegal, there must be a punishment, whether it is a fine or community service or jail time or death, there must be a punishment.
I think a woman or a child who was raped and doesn't want to have the baby and then has an illegal abortion has already been punished enough.
"A child is never ever a punishment no matter the circumstances."
Rape? Incest? How about an unwanted child that a woman was forced to carry to term? Forced pregnancy is a punishment and a method of controlling women.
"Making abortion illegal will not end the root of the problem. At the same time I can't support it being legal. But much work needs doing to help the stability of the family. It's a multi-faceted situation."
So, you DO want to make it illegal, but as I predicted you've shied away from actually presenting what the punishment should be for women who have abortions. Typical anti-choice tactics.
I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this and I never wanted to bring up such topics on this forum. Not really sure how it came to this. But regardless, in short I value life because God values life, every life -- the life of women, men, children, babies (in and out of the womb). I don't believe in condemning people for their sins, but showing them the love, mercy, and grace of God that brings forgiveness, compassion, and freedom from guilt. So I have no animosity towards any woman who has had an abortion. I feel for her and I would want to be there for her just as for the one who gives birth to their child. I think this is all I'm going to say about this topic. I see no reason to argue it further.
"But regardless, in short I value life because God values life, every life -- the life of women, men, children, babies (in and out of the womb)."
The way he valued the lives he drowned in the Noachian flood? The way he valued the Middianites or the Amalekites or the countless others that he ordered the Israelites to slaughter? Please. And, your own scripture doesn't seem to be clear on whether he values life inside the womb.
"I don't believe in condemning people for their sins, but showing them the love, mercy, and grace of God that brings forgiveness, compassion, and freedom from guilt."
Oh what a twisted web your mind must be. Based on this, why don't we simply allow murderers to roam free and do what they want? Additionally, there's lots of forgiveness from a god that judges us all as guilty from the moment we are born, and will torture us infinitely for it, unless he arbitrarily decides to show himself to us and transform our hearts so that he can decide to save us from him. Oh wait, that's not forgiveness or mercy or compassion.
"The way he valued the lives he drowned in the Noachian flood?"
Yes, I've pointed out in the past that statistically there had to be pregnant women who were drowned, so God killed embryos too.
I'll drop this topic now as you wish, Karla.
Here's another good question. Would a anti-choicer that values all life rush into a burning IVF clinic to save the frozen embryos? Would that same anti-choicer decide that IVF is wrong in the first place?
I understand this is an important topic, but I just don't see any reason to belabor it due to our vast presuppositional worldview differences.
I will try and hit on the continued questions I have been getting about God's actions recorded in the Old Testament through a future post. I haven't forgotten about the questions to that end and I am thinking about it to prepare an answer.
"I understand this is an important topic, but I just don't see any reason to belabor it due to our vast presuppositional worldview differences."
Yeah, no need to belabor misogyny.
I am a woman. You think I have something against my own gender?
The religion you believe in, and the one that you allow to shape your worldview is borne of having something against your sex, yes. You seem to be content to propagate it and enable it. So, to that extent, I think you do have something against your own sex.
I'm sorry Karla, but I totally agree with Anonymous on this one. Yes, you accept your subjugation and agree with the reasoning behind it, but so do women in some extreme Muslim societies. Of course, most Christian women have it around 300% better than strict Muslim women, but you get the idea.
Then again, here you are teaching men so you are a lot more liberal and legalistic then most. That's one of the reasons I like you and continue to read here.
Um thanks I think, Mike. lol. We don't have any problem in my church with women being in leadership and teaching in the church. I wish you would hear what I have to say and hear it apart from the stereotypes you maintain about Christians. What I am attesting to isn't abnormal in Christianity -- it isn't considered liberal, just normal. When I think of a liberal church I think of something different. I simply have not grown up around the Christians you both describe. Sure I have met such people, but it's been few and far between.
How do you rationalize away the verses about women not teaching men?
I wouldn't call it rationalization. But here is the way I look at it. Women in those days were not educated. Teaching women was new to this culture. So for women to be teaching straightaway would create false teachings because they were not yet taught. But Paul ask their husbands to teach them. I have read, I have not researched this back far enough to be more than speculation, that all students in those days were to learn submissively and quietly from their instructors so this wasn’t something particular to women it’s just a learning stance of a student in that culture. And women needed to be students and were not ready to teach men. We have to understand text in their cultural context and in the context of the work as a whole. You can see throughout Paul’s writings he speaks well of women and he speaks of women prophets (a prophet in the church is considered a leader in the church) so there were a few women who were learning and rising up into leadership. In Christ, it is written that there is neither slave nor free, Gentile nor Jew, male nor female, meaning all social status of culture does not apply to the who we really are in Christ. I do hope to study this topic more and study the cultural times more to better answer these questions. It just does not fit with the flavor of Scripture to treat women as second class. It is clear that women have different strengths and weaknesses then men we are designed differently, but that doesn’t mean there is different worth, value, or treatment. It just means there is a beauty in the diversity between genders that is not something to capitalize upon and treat one greater than the other, but to rejoice and love our differences. If anything I would say wives get the better deal Scripturally in marriage, but that’s another topic.
Post a Comment