Bible Literalist Church

quote:

---

I'm not trying to start an argument about this verse, I just want to find a church that has silent women.

---

Why? Are you having a problem with talkative ones?I would suggest joining a monastery.

quote:

---

A Christian wife should submit to her husband in all things.

---

It is well to remember, however, that this is mutual submission.Ephesians 5:21-24
21: Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
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 the head 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.The first thing to note is that the Greek alla which begins verse 24 is a strong disconnective, perhaps more like "nevertheless" than "therefore." There is no semantic or figurative connection between the husband as head, and the exhorted submission, that is to say the woman does not submit because the man is her head. Remember that there is no sense of "authority" in the use fo the Greek "head."In other words, there is really nothing to be made of this that would suggest that women should submit to their husbands in any way that is less than reciprocal to the husbands' required submission to them.In fact, the really interesting thing about this passage in a first century social context is the very strong emphasis placed upon male submission and the duties of husbands to their wives. In fact the Gospels and Epistles rip apart the 1st centrury social and personal relationships of men and women.As for the principle topic, of women keeping silent in the church, remember that this is set firmly in the context of speaking in tongues, but also that they are not being forbidden to teach, but forbidden to chat! Greek, as you can imagine of a culture with thousands of years of tradition of complex public discourse, has many words for speaking. The word used in this context is lalew which has the clear connotation of informal speech.Women in Jewish society were typically not allowed to be taught. As one 1st century source has it (Mishnah, Sotah: 3,4) Whoever teaches his daughter the Torah is like one who teaches her obscenity. They would therefore be less well educated in the issues raised during the service. It seems pretty clear to me that Paul's direction in Corinthians passage is that women who have questions about the teaching should wait until they get to ask their husbands, rather than embarrassing them by asking them about it in Church.By the second century, Tertullian, says of Christian men and women: Together they pray, together they prostrate themselves, together they perform their fasts; mutually teaching, mutually exhorting, mutually sustaining. Equal they are both found in the church of GodFinally, let me point out that the sentence below is just wishful thinking:

quote:

---

Something you just don't seem to get about the Christian church schraf, is that no-one is in a prestigious position.

---

Anyone who has lived in a small community knows very well that the minister (or priest or pastor) is in a very prestigious position indeed. Maybe not theologically, but in the community and social lives of Christians it is surely undeniable?

quote:

---

Note the church has never been perfect or Paul would have never written any letters.

---

Ain't that the truth! And then Peter says of Paul's letters "in which are some things hard to be understood" and round we go again!

Hey what are you saying? That I am "unlearned" or "unstable" ? Mind you, I've been accused of both in my time - frequently with some justification.For those of you who don't get the context, the full verse is 2 Peter 3:16, speaking of Paul, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.

You've got a real problem with women? Sure sounds like it.The tyranny of the most selfish is exactly what women have had to put up throughout history.Anyway, even if I knew of such a bunch of losers (and they are not hard to find in Scotland) I probably woudln't tell you. The sooner they wither on their twisted vine, the better by me.

quote:

---

have no problem with women ...

---

Strange, then, how the only issue you mention is to do with women keeping quiet in church.I presume, as this is the only issue you mention, that you have managed to find churches which do believe in executing people for idolatry (all those American Indians and Hindus are for the chop), blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior etc. And of course they celebrate the Jubilee by returning land to original owners, and bind debtors into slavery, and can beat such slaves almost to death so long as they recover in a suitable time. Or sell their daughters into slavery.Quite why such churches, which you have presumably already found to meet your requirements in all other respects - after all, you only mention one issue - why they are so lax about women teaching or preaching, I am not at all sure. Funny, fickle people, some of these fundamentalists![This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-23-2003]

As a Biblical literalist, how do you resolve the paintings and figurative art on your web site (some of which are admirable, I must say) with the second commandment?To remind those who are a bit shaky on the commandments, this is found in Deuteronomy 5:8 - "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth" (my italics)I'm not getting at you, btw. I was raised in a community of very strict Biblical literalists and I'm quite used to their ways, so I was quite flabbergasted, given your avowed literalism, to see paintings of people on your web site. I would be very interested in your response[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-24-2003]

quote:

---

My defence of my actions stems from my reading of the KJV without their added words (to help with the flow.) ... I would not be as comfortable with this if the representational aspects of the tabernacle and temple didn't exist.

---

I think your post here and your previous posts on women in the church represents very nicely the "fundamental" flaw - pun intended.The plain sense of the authorized version in English contradicts the existence of representational art elsewhere in the Bible. So you have to go beyond the plain sense of the translated words to resolve the contradiction.There is no great problem with that, except for a literalist, because it requires the exercise of a great deal of human judgement to move from text to action, from scripture to scriptural living. Human judgement, of course, is entirely caught up with language, culture and psychology to the extent that these are now as much part of your chosen path as the text you chose to interpet.You may, of course, object that it did not require a "great deal" of judgement - which I would strenuously argue with - but even were I to agree, it would help your case but little: for now your problem is what degree of interpretation is appropriate for a literalist? But deciding that, is itself an act of judgement, subject to culture, psychology and language.The objection may be raised that this approach leads to pure relativism, but the objection is a simple error of logic. Of course, the approach can lead to pure relativism, but it need not. This "slippery slope" can be checked by - you've guyessed it - the same exercise of judgement. What, therefore, do we have to guide us, to check this slide? The Anglican approach has been "scripture, tradition and reason." The literalist approach appears to be "exercise every rhetorical, textual and linguistic gymnastic necessary to resolve the seeming problem."When it comes down to it, we can see the profound influence of language, culture and psychology in your posts:
your wish to follow 1 Tim 2:12 "to the letter";
your decision to interpret the second commandment by drilling into the hebrew and resolving it with other texts;
your description of mutual submission as "insanity", despite the clear meaning of Ephesians 5:21.You see, when it comes down to it you are not really a literalist. You are, no doubt, striving to live as you believe God wants you to live. But you are doing so with the exercise of your God-given judgement, which is, after all, what Christ commanded in Luke 12:57 "Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?"Now if you happen to want to join a church with your chosen attitude to women, that is your choice. but you're kidding yourself if you think this is anything but a choice. It comes from the heart and mind of David O and how he responds to the a selected text, not from any objectively verifiable, incontrovertible commandment.

quote:

---

I have chosen to accept the Bible as true and to judge all else by it.

---

I think that sums up the literalist postion perfectly. You have chosen and what you have chosen becomes the sole instrument of judgement. But it remains a choice grounded in your psychology and culture. It is as close to pure solipsism as one can get.Remember also, that you are judging truth by that which you yourself have chosen to hold as true, which is precisely the same position that you criticize. The mere fact that you have chosen an external reference makes no difference: you could have chosen the Bhagavad Gita, or the Qur'an, or your own opinion, but you chose the Bible.

quote:

---

The truth of the Bible doesn't rest upon anyone's understanding of it.

---

... but whether your understanding is any closer to the truth than anothers is a matter of judgement, but you judge all by the Bible, so you judge the truth of others understanding of your standard by a standard you have chosen. It's a house of cards, thinly disguising your own cultural, linguistic and psychological preferences as objective.

quote:

---

Every one accepts something as true unless they have gone crazy. Insane people are the only ones who really live without accepting something as true.

---

Danger of getting off the subject, but this strikes me as complete nonsense. Visit any hospital for the incurably mentally ill and you will find many people who cling to truth - whether a truth they have chosen, or a truth irresistably forced upon them - with all the desperation their souls can muster. It is as unbearable, as their truths are, to them, undeniable.(Edited to remove a duplicate sentence)[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-28-2003]

quote:

---

If I am wrong about the Bible, it doesn't affect the Bible at all.

---

Perhaps, but if the churchmen who selected the subset of Christian and Jewish writings that you call the Bible were wrong, then it does affect it. And men of good conscience and good faith have disagreed for centuries over these texts.And if the scribes who wrote the manuscripts that convey the texts were wrong, then that affects that set of texts you call the Bible. And men of good conscience and good faith have disagreed for centuries over these masnuscripts.And if the translators who worked on these manuscripts were wrong iut affects our knowledge of that set of texts that you call the Bible. And men of good conscience and good faith have disagreed for centuries over these translations.And if the orginal sources from which the scribes copied the texts, and their sources, were wrong it affects that set of texts you call the Bible. And if the translators who wrote the version you use were wrong, it affects that set of texts that you call the Bible. And men of good conscience and good faith have disagreed for centuries over how or when or how accurately such sources were or could have been transmitted.All this fallible human activity before you even get to your interpretation of a single word of what you call the Bible! All these men whose "senses may have failed them" and whose "reasoning may have been faulty because of limited knowledge."You are not putting your faith in the word of God, but in the hands of human beings. Of course is that is your choice and you have made it. It remains, however, your choice, based on yourreasoning, yoursenses and yourknowledge, and thus no measure whatsoever of the standard of truth that man should live by.