Jimmy Carter slams religious sexism

FORMER US President Jimmy Carter says male-dominated religions contribute to the oppression and abuse of women by twisting sacred texts to portray females as inferior to men “in the eyes of God.”

The 89-year-old Carter makes that argument in his new book, “A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence and Power.”

The former president faulted his former denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Roman Catholic church for denying women the same opportunities as men to serve as pastors and priests.

Carter said some married men who belong to those churches conclude that their wives are inferior and treat them accordingly.

He stressed that there was no room in Jesus’ message for sexism:

“There’s no evidence at all that Jesus Christ did anything except to exalt women. Never has a single word or action been alleged to him that would deprive women from their equal or superior rights.”

Advertisements

49 thoughts on “Jimmy Carter slams religious sexism

  1. It’s nice that he feels it’s time to speak out, and is not afraid to. Good for him. And he’s right. In God’s eyes we are all equal. He gives His spiritual gifting without reservation, and even ordains women with or without the male oriented church leadership’s approval. I should know, God sovereignly ordained me (with many witnesses). And before you say God must be nuts (like I did), this is the Scripture He gave me to shut me up: 🙂

    1 Corinthians 1:26-31

    26 For [simply] consider your own call, brethren; not many [of you were considered to be] wise according to human estimates and standards, not many influential and powerful, not many of high and noble birth.

    27 [No] for God selected (deliberately chose) what in the world is foolish to put the wise to shame, and what the world calls weak to put the strong to shame.

    28 And God also selected (deliberately chose) what in the world is lowborn and insignificant and branded and treated with contempt, even the things that are nothing, that He might depose and bring to nothing the things that are,

    29 So that no mortal man should [have pretense for glorying and] boast in the presence of God.

    Like

  2. The Bible does say that there is a hierarchy whereby the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church. A point that many self professed Christians find sexist. But may explain why many Christian denominations/sects etc. are so rebellious against Christ.

    Like

    • Did you read the part about what the men are supposed to do? It says a woman should respect her husband, and the husband should respect the wife. (English word translated “submit” would be better translated “live in harmony with”).
      It never says all women are supposed to be submissive to all men. Or that women shouldn’t be pastors or priests.

      Like

      • Also, as far as children obeying their parents –
        “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.”

        Surprising how we spot read!

        Like

      • Perhaps time to recheck your sources?
        From the very beginning it was apparent that women couldn’t be trusted to behave and needed supervision and domination:

        Genesis 3:16
        To the woman He (God, no less) said,
        “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
        with painful labor you will give birth to children.
        Your desire will be for your husband,
        and he will rule over you.”

        That the Creator designed them to be so plainly shows that He intended they be subjugated even before The Fall, which He Himself ordained.

        It’s a thread manifested throughout the Bible.
        Modern attitudes come and go, but The Word is forever.

        Dispute that at your own peril!

        Like

      • Also surprising is that we attribute the words of Paul the Politician to the God of Creation.
        Or that some people feel free to “better translate” bits of What Is Written to suit their contemporary politics. Refer again to what God says ‘in the Beginning’: women were specifically designed to be ‘helpmeets’ and wives, and to relieve men’s boredom. (Genesis 1&2)

        To add that they “shouldn’t be pastors or priests.” would be as much a superfluity as saying they shouldn’t jump off the roof and flap their arms and try to fly off into the sunset, since they’re not designed for that, either.

        Like

    • Perhaps you should read 1 Cor. 11:1:16 which deals with the hierarchy in the church. The explanation below reflects the conclusions one arrives at if s/he lets the Scriptures interpret and/or speak for themselves.

      “I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Christ, in his mediatorial character and glorified humanity, is at the head of mankind. He is not only first of the kind, but Lord and Sovereign. He has a name above every name: though in this high office and authority he has a superior, God being his head. And as God is the head of Christ, and Christ the head of the whole human kind, so the man is the head of the tow sexes: not indeed with such dominion as Christ has over the kind or God has over the man Christ Jesus; but a superiority and headship he has, and the woman should be in subjection and not assume or usurp the man’s place. This is the situation in which God has placed her; and for that reason she should have a mind suited to her rank, and not do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing places. Something like this the women of the church of Corinth seem to have been guilty of, who were under inspiration, and prayed and prophesied even in their assemblies, v. 5. It is indeed an apostolical canon, that the women should keep silence in the churches ch. 14:34 ; 1 Tim. 2:12 ), which some understand without limitation, as if a woman under inspiration also must keep silence, which seems very well to agree with the connection of the apostle’s discourse, ch. 14. Others with a limitation: though a woman might not from her own abilities pretend to teach, or so much as question and debate any thing in the church yet when under inspiration the case was altered, she had liberty to speak. Or, though she might not preach even by inspiration (because teaching is the business of a superior), yet she might pray or utter hymns by inspiration, even in the public assembly. She did not show any affectation of superiority over the man by such acts of public worship. It is plain the apostle does not in this place prohibit the thing, but reprehend the manner of doing it. And yet he might utterly disallow the thing and lay an unlimited restraint on the woman in another part of the epistle. These things are not contradictory. It is to his present purpose to reprehend the manner wherein the women prayed and prophesied in the church, without determining in this place whether they did well or ill in praying or prophesying. Note, The manner of doing a thing enters into the morality of it. We must not only be concerned to do good, but that the good we do be well done.III. The thing he reprehends is the woman’s praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man’s doing either covered, v. 4, v. 5. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,IV. The reasons on which he grounds his reprehension. 1. The man that prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonoureth his head, namely, Christ, the head of every man (v. 3), by appearing in a habit unsuitable to the rank in which God has placed him. Note, We should, even in our dress and habits, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman, on the other hand, who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head, namely, the man, v. 3. She appears in the dress of her superior, and throws off the token of her subjection. She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut it close, which was the custom of the man in that age. This would be in a manner to declare that she was desirous of changing sexes, a manifest affectation of that superiority which God had conferred on the other sex. And this was probably the fault of these prophetesses in the church of Corinth. It was doing a thing which, in that age of the world, betokened superiority, and therefore a tacit claim of what did not belong to them but the other sex. Note, The sexes should not affect to change places. The order in which divine wisdom has placed persons and things is best and fittest: to endeavour to amend it is to destroy all order, and introduce confusion. The woman should keep to the rank God has chosen for her, and not dishonour her head; for this, in the result, is to dishonour God. If she was made out of the man, and for the man, and made to be the glory of the man, she should do nothing, especially in public, that looks like a wish of having this order inverted. 2. Another reason against this conduct is that the man is the image and glory of God, the representative of that glorious dominion and headship which God has over the world. It is the man who is set at the head of this lower creation, and therein he bears the resemblance of God. The woman, on the other hand, is the glory of the man (v. 7): she is his representative. Not but she has dominion over the inferior creatures, as she is a partaker of human nature, and so far is God’s representative too, but it is at second-hand. She is the image of God, inasmuch as she is the image of the man: For the man was not made out of the woman, but the woman out of the man, v. 8. The man was first made, and made head of the creation here below, and therein the image of the divine dominion; and the woman was made out of the man, and shone with a reflection of his glory, being made superior to the other creatures here below, but in subjection to her husband, and deriving that honour from him out of whom she was made. 3. The woman was made for the man, to be his help-meet, and not the man for the woman. She was naturally, therefore, made subject to him, because made for him, for his use, and help, and comfort. And she who was intended to be always in subjection to the man should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, that looks like an affectation of equality. 4. She ought to have power on her head, because of the angels. Power, that is, a veil, the token, not of her having the power or superiority, but being under the power of her husband, subjected to him, and inferior to the other sex. Rebekah, when she met Isaac, and was delivering herself into his possession, put on her veil, in token of her subjection, Gen. 24:65 . Thus would the apostle have the women appear In Christian assemblies, even though they spoke there by inspiration, because of the angels, that is, say some, because of the evil angels. The woman was first in the transgression, being deceived by the devil (1 Tim. 2:14 ), which increased her subjection to man, Gen. 3:16 . Now, believe evil angels will be sure to mix in all Christian assemblies, therefore should women wear the token of their shamefacedness and subjection, which in that age and country, was a veil. Others say because of the good angels. Jews and Christians have had an opinion that these ministering spirits are many of them present in their assemblies. Their presence should restrain Christians from all indecencies in the worship of God. Note, We should learn from all to behave in the public assemblies of divine worship so as to express a reverence for God, and a content and satisfaction with that rank in which he has placed us.V. He thinks fit to guard his argument with a caution lest the inference be carried too far (v. 11, v. 12): Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord. They were made for one another. It is not good for him to be alone (Gen. 2:18 ), and therefore was a woman made, and made for the man; and the man was intended to be a comfort, and help, and defence, to the woman, though not so directly and immediately made for her. They were made to be a mutual comfort and blessing, not one a slave and the other a tyrant. Both were to be one flesh (Gen. 2:24 ), and this for the propagation of a race of mankind. They are reciprocal instruments of each other’s production. As the woman was first formed out of the man, the man is ever since propagated by the woman (v. 12), all by the divine wisdom and power of the First Cause so ordaining it. The authority and subjection should be no greater than are suitable to two in such near relation and close union to each other. Note, As it is the will of God that the woman know her place, so it is his will also that the man abuse not his power.VI. He enforces his argument from the natural covering provided for the woman (v. 13-15): “Judge in yourselves —consult your own reason, hearken to what nature suggests—is it comely for a woman to pray to God uncovered? Should there not be a distinction kept up between the sexes in wearing their hair, since nature has made one? Is it not a distinction which nature has kept up among all civilized nations? The woman’s hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy.’’ Note, It should be our concern, especially in Christian and religious assemblies, to make no breach upon the rules of natural decency.VII. He sums up all by referring those who were contentious to the usages and customs of the churches, v. 16. Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.

      Like

      • I’ve read Matthew Henry’s interesting 17th century commentary on Corinthians before davinci/Hassan…You probably didn’t need to cut and paste the whole thing.

        Paul was addressing an issue related to the Corinthian culture that was being allowed to disrupt the church. In those times covering the head was a sign of submission.

        In today’s culture, we no longer view a woman’s wearing of a head covering as a sign of submission. In most modern societies, head coverings are generally fashion accessories. A woman has the choice to wear a head covering if she sees it as a sign of her submission to the authority of her husband or God. But it is a personal choice and not something that should be used to judge spirituality.

        The real issue here is the heart attitude of obedience to God’s authority; not what someone is wearing or not wearing in church.

        You might also note that Paul ends his letter by saying if anyone disagrees with his appraisal of that situation, in the Corinthian church, then they should know that neither he (and his companions) nor the Church of God had such a custom.

        So there is clearly no ruling in the Bible that all women, at all times and everywhere, should cover their heads in church.

        To quote you quoting Matthew Henry, Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.

        Like

      • Bryan
        You might have read it but you ignored what the Bible and the above commentary actually say. Matthew Henry makes the point that:

        “And she who was intended to be always in subjection to the man should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, that looks like an affectation of equality.”

        The whole issue behind the head covering was it was taking a cultural item and it was used to make a statement. In this case as statement of equality which went against the order and rank that God had ordained in the family and in the church.

        To wrest the scripture to their own destruction, feminists have used the excuse that just because headcovering/length of hair are no longer used as an instrument of making a point then the order that God had ordained (ie Christ head of man, man head of woman) does not apply anymore.

        Thus what they are really saying is that Scriptural Authority is dictated by cultural norms.

        Like

      • Do all women in your church cover their heads? And how long is your hair? Is it regulation length? And what exactly is that? (Paul never specified so how do you judge?) Do you wear clothing woven of two kinds of material?

        Like

      • Davinci, do you prefer the attitude of Paul to women, or that of Jesus? Even in Paul’s letters there is no consistent attitude – I guess each letter written to address different issues. The Johannine attitude, however, is quite consistent.

        Quoting from http://www.directionjournal.org/19/2/jesus-and-women-in-gospel-of-john.html

        “Recently, the issue of “women in ministry” has had a high profile in many churches. There is agreement that women, like men, are called to minister within the church and to the world. The debate focuses on the nature of ministry and the forms of expression appropriate for women.

        John portrays women as active, innovative ministers of the Kingdom.

        The usual procedure is to anchor arguments concerning women in ministry in the Pauline epistles. Some hold Paul’s restrictions to be normative for today; others feel their relevance is limited because of their cultural and situational specificity. Those who believe the Bible restricts the public ministry of women appeal to texts such as 1 Timothy 2:11-12,14 and 1 Corinthians 14:34; those who favor the unrestricted ministry of women counter with Galatians 3:28, Romans 16:1-3,6,12, Philippians 4:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 11:5. Since there is so little consensus on the Pauline writings, perhaps we may turn to the Gospels for guidance.

        This article focuses on the Gospel of John to discover Jesus’ understanding of the ministry of women. Is it valid to expect a response on the subject of women in ministry from a document not primarily concerned with this question? {53} Nowhere in John does Jesus explicitly teach about the roles and nature of women. Rather, we are left with an implicit commentary by John, who portrays women as active, innovative ministers of the Kingdom. We are given only indirectly Jesus’ attitude toward women, as revealed by his words and actions: the Johannine Jesus affirms them in roles that were unusual and often unacceptable within that culture. Jesus’ approach to women was in such contrast to that of his culture that we can assume a deliberate modelling of a new way of relating to women (Schneiders, 36). Surely such modelling is as valid as explicit teaching.

        John’s story reveals a certain sensitivity and a deep respect for women which is evident in his selection and portrayal of incidents in Jesus’ life. The Johannine Jesus is not presented as seeking to modify the feminine role prevalent within Judaism; rather, Jesus seems to ignore it altogether as he calls women to public ministry and affirms them in the face of male opposition.”

        Like

      • Strewth. “There is agreement that women, like men, are called to minister within the church and to the world. ”
        God does not rule “by agreement”.

        Like

      • Ok Bryan I’ll answer the question about my hair length, garments I wear as follows:
        – I could be bald as a result of making a statement “Shave for a cure”.
        – I could grow a moustache as a way of making a statement that I support alleviation of prostate and testicular cancer.
        – I could wear a white ribbon and make a statement “Stop violence against women”.
        – I could wear pink and make a statement about supporting breast cancer research.
        – I could wear Jeans on Jeans for Genes day to make a visual statement about what Jeans for Genes stands for.

        If I was in the original apostolic church at Corinth, I would:
        – Pray and prophesy with a head covering to show my support for gender equality in spite of the order and ranking that God had ordained in the church.
        – My wife would be encouraged to pray and prophesy without a head covering to show that gender equality means that leadership is no longer a male characteristic.

        Or:
        – I and the rest of society could choose to ignore the shaving bit tomorrow because cultural norms change. This would not mean that funds are no longer needed for leukemia research.
        – I and the rest of society could choose to ignore growing moustaches specifically aimed as alleviating prostrate cancer tomorrow because cultural norms change. This does not mean that society can ignore the problems of prostrate cancer.
        – I and the rest of society could stop wearing white ribbon because cultural norms change. This does not mean that the whole violence against women issue has been resolved.
        – I and the rest of society could stop wearing Jeans for Genes tomorrow because cultural norms change. This does not mean that what Jeans for Genes stands for has been stopped as well

        In today’s Christian church:
        – I and my wife wouldn’t bother with a head covering or not, because it does not make a statement for gender equality in leadership. This does not mean that the issue of what God has ordained has been eliminated together with the means of making the point (attire).

        If my appearance did make a point either for or against God, then I would have to look at the issue again.

        Like

      • Strewth, your posting about contradictions between John and Paul show why ordination of women should not occur.

        The Bible says that all scripture is inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16). If there was contradiction between John and Paul, then scripture ceases to be inspired of God. You therefore come to a cross road when you come across the above text and still claim that there is contradiction between John and Paul. You either reject the authority of Scripture in favour of ordination of women, or reject ordination of women in favour of Scripture. Which means that when Scripture seems to contradict Scripture you need to look at other scriptures that might shed light on the matter.

        The reason why ordination of women is rejected is because authority of the Bible is set aside, in favour of political power. And thus the authority of God is set aside too.

        Those who advocate ordination of women are playing a dangerous game. It was the same game that Lucifer played in heaven (and lost); it was the same game that Eve played in the garden of Eden (and lost her position).

        It is interesting that Bryan couples matriarchial religions with the symbol of the serpent; it indicates the true inspiration behind this ordination of women question.

        Like

      • We know from the Bible itself that women served as Apostles (Romans 16:7), Ministers (or deaconesses, Romans 16:1), Prophets (Acts 2:18, 1 Cor. 11:5), and Missionaries (Acts 18:18-19). They were the first witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, and were present to receive the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

        Like

      • God of course is the same God He has always been, but do you believe He only ever spoke before the Bible was put together? Perhaps before the Old Testament was assembled? Do you not think He can have a new message for new times and conditions? Or is He just like a stuck needle on a record player, repeating the same thing over and over?

        If you want to take the Bible as literally His present day message, word for word from the past, fair enough – read the post here from MJ on March 28, 2014 at 06:18. You can’t get any more literal than that.

        Like

      • Thank God for strong, gifted women in the church. The problem in the church is not strong women, but rather weak men who feel threatened by strong women, and have tried various means, even by dubious exegesis to prohibit them from exercising their gifts and graces in the church.

        Like

      • ”God does not rule by ‘agreement’ ”
        No? I thought it was by agreement between the early church fathers that only certain books were to be included in the NT. Only some were God’s word, others not.

        The OT also was put together under agreement, too.

        If you allow for divine inspiration in these cases, why rule it out in other cases?

        Like

      • Hello again Strewth.
        Just for the record, even as a little kid I never thought the ‘Church hierarchy’ at Sunday School, or Nicaea or anywhere else had the moral right to make the decisions they made.
        Only physical force rendered them any credibility; and while force may establish what ‘is’, it has no bearing on what ‘should be’. I still have trouble with people, usually those with their own agenda, assuming they know God’s mind better than even God does.
        But they flourish, which probably says more about mankind than God.

        As I understand it the OT was more a record of history and events that may have helped shape it, correctly and faithfully recorded or not.
        I’ve never heard even a suggestion of any form of cannon law having been established in Judaism. In fact, as the old story goes, ‘Lock any three Jews into a room with a question and they’ll come out with five different opinions.’

        As somebody or other of note once pointed out: Divine inspiration comes to one person at a time. What he passes on is hearsay, often morphed into politics; and each step is further removed from the Divinity.

        Do you really think God set out to generate tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of differing versions of his Divine Intent? Let alone Commands?

        Like

      • Your huffing and puffing makes my point quite well.

        “We know from the Bible itself that women served as Apostles (Romans 16:7), Ministers (or deaconesses, Romans 16:1), Prophets (Acts 2:18, 1 Cor. 11:5), and Missionaries (Acts 18:18-19).”
        Perhaps; but that does nothing other than show that the institutional rot had set in already.
        The point is that the women weren’t appointed as Apostles by Jesus. Only men were. so already we see the ‘Church’ subsuming the clear decision and obvious intent of God.
        Your argument might well posit that because Eve sinned means it’s ok that we all sin afterwards.
        Perhaps you people should start your own church just so that you can codify your ‘Inspirations’. (By agreement, of course!)

        ps As for who “were the first witnesses of Christ’s resurrection” those widely-varying and garbled stories do suggest that one or more women may well have been the first to see him, given the mangled and contradictory renditions of those reports. Taken in toto the whole chain of reported circumstances sound like the minutes taken at a feminist Consciousness-Raising, Identity-Finding gabfest.

        But they wouldn’t even have known Jesus had risen except that those Men in White told them so.
        And even after all that nobody actually believed it, or recognized Him until they’d been clued in.

        Like

      • This thread is so long I don’t know if I’m posting in the right place or not. Re agreement in putting together the OT.-

        “The books included in the Old Testament (the Old Testament canon) varies markedly between Christian denominations; Protestants accept only the books of the official Jewish Hebrew Bible canon as their Old Testament but divide it into 39 books, while Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Ethiopian churches accept a considerably larger collection of writings in their Old Testament canon.[2]

        The Old Testament was compiled and edited by various men[3] over a period of centuries, with many scholars concluding that the Hebrew canon was solidified by about the 3rd century BC.[4][5]”

        Like

  3. How many “”religions”” have there been that are fully created and run by females ??
    Why are there not equal numbers of religions set up by both genders ??

    What implications and deduction would come by looking at those two questions ??
    Bryan what could possibly be wrong with asking those questions ?
    And the follow up question as well !!!

    Like

    • The concept of a matriarchal religions was introduced in 1861 when Johann Jakob Bachofen published Mother Right: An Investigation of the Religious and Juridical Character of Matriarchy in the Ancient World. He postulated that the historical patriarchates were a comparatively recent development, having replaced an earlier state of primeval matriarchy, and postulated a “chthonic-maternal” prehistoric religion. Bachofen presents a model where matriarchal society and chthonic mystery cults are the second of four stages of the historical development of religion. The first stage he called “Hetaerism”, characterized as a paleolithic hunter-and-gatherer society practicing a polyamorous and communistic lifestyle. The second stage is the Neolithic, a matriarchal lunar stage of agriculture with an early form of Demeter the dominant deity. This was followed by a “Dionysian” stage of emerging patriarchy, finally succeeded by the “Apollonian” stage of patriarchy and the appearance of civilization in classical antiquity. The idea that this time period was a golden age that was displaced with the advent of patriarchy was first described by Friedrich Engels in his The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State.
      In the early 1900s, historian Jane Ellen Harrison put forward the theory that the Olympian pantheon replaced an earlier worship of earth goddesses.
      Robert Graves postulated a prehistoric matriarchal religion in the 1950s, in his The Greek Myths and The White Goddess, and gave a detailed depiction of a future society with a matriarchal religion in his novel Seven Days in New Crete.
      The ideas of Bachofen and Graves were taken up in the 1970s by second-wave feminists, such as author Merlin Stone, who took the Paleolithic Venus figurines as evidence of prehistorical matriarchal religion. She presents matriarchal religions as involving a “cult of serpents” as a major symbol of spiritual wisdom, fertility, life, strength.
      Additionally, anthropologist Marija Gimbutas introduced the field of feminist archaeology in the 1970s. Her books The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1974), The Language of the Goddess (1989), and The Civilization of the Goddess (1991) became standard works for the theory that a patriarchic or “androcratic” culture originated in the Bronze Age, replacing a Neolithic Goddess-centered worldview.These theories were presented as scholarly hypotheses, albeit from an ideological viewpoint, in the 1970s, but they also influenced feminist spirituality and especially feminist branches of Neo-paganism that also arose during the 1970s (see Dianic Wicca and Reclaiming (Neopaganism)), so that Matriarchal Religion is also a contemporary new religious movement within the larger field of neopaganism, generally known as the Goddess movement.

      You can also look at prominent womn in religions
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_as_theological_figures

      Like

      • Off the top of my head I think of such as Mother Ann Lee of the Shakers, Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science , and Nakayama Miki of Shrine of God the Parent.

        Like

  4. After reading through the fairly plain misogyny on some of the comments here that show no in-depth study into the original Hebrew and some very poor exegesis at that, I’ll just say this. The Hebrew word used in Genesis to describe woman is ‘ezer’. That word is used again in the OT, but it’s only used in reference to God Himself. ‘Ezer’ does indeed mean ‘helper’, but ‘helper’ does not in any way imply inferiority. When David employs the word ‘ezer’ to beseech God in the Psalms is he calling Him inferior? Absolutely not. Women are in no way inferior to men just because we are ‘ezer’. We are collaborators and partners. We are ‘ezer’ meaning that we bring something to the world that the world and men cannot live without. That is what it is to be ‘ezer’. We are made in the image of God just as men are. God is not male. God is not female. But, we are both genders made in His image. And the church is both a population of sons and a bride–both male and female. To proclaim that women are to be subjugated as well as silenced due to our sinful nature as some of these commenters have implied is actually not Christlike because Jesus did not behave like that at all. It’s a perpetuation of poor theology originating with Augustine and his belief in the sin nature of Eve. Also, it’s very important to know your history, context, and etymology. Some of the texts quoted here are so taken out of historical context that it’s ludicrous. This is Buffet Christianity run amok used to perpetuate misogyny and oppression. Honestly, no wonder so many people find Christians repellent.

    Like

    • I really have tried to resist the temptation to answer this post, but, since Eve is my mother, I can’t.

      The doctrinaire accusation of “misogyny” is the standard response of the non-thinking feminist as much as is the ignoring of the issue and redefining the argument away out on some tangential arm of the universe. .

      For example, the supercilious claim as re. “no in-depth study into the original Hebrew” upon which much of the illogical piffle is based.

      In the first place I’d defy MJ (or anybody else) to pinpoint what “original Hebrew” is, when it became Hebrew and when it became ‘non-original’ Hebrew, keeping in mind that there were no ‘Hebrews’ until thousands of years after the events referred to.

      In the second place, I’d defy MJ to produce a single scrap of evidence that God, speaking to Adam and Eve, spoke in Hebrew, any more than he does when he speaks to Monica.

      God speaks outside of dusty, definable languages; but he makes his meaning abundantly clear, and has done so since the beginning of the world. ‘Exegesis’ is only relevant to those who don’t know how to listen.

      And what He ‘says’, from Genesis through to Revelation (14:4) confirm the subjective position of women.

      The rest of MJ’s entire argument is based on similar fallacies and assumptions founded on dogma-based perspectives

      Only some insecure person (eg. most women) with a particular sort of political axe to grind would naturally jump to the incorrect conclusion that ‘subjective’ means ‘inferior’.
      Man (specifically), since Adam, owes not only his position and role but his very existence to the position and role of women, which indeed “bring something to the world that the world and men cannot live without”, and which applies to virtually all creatures. How can such an obligation be seen as ‘inferior’ by any but unthinking fanatics?

      But that in no way confers a realistic claim to being ” collaborators and partners”.
      We know what happened when Adam (foolishly!) “collaborated” with Eve; and the
      ‘partnership’ issue is absolutely settled by The Word generally, and the two above-mentioned references (Genesis to Revelation) in particular.
      There is no ‘partnership’.

      Women’s (females’ across the board) purpose and role was defined early and permanently as child-bearers: it’s what they’re fitted out for anatomically, physiologically, emotionally and spiritually; and they have no other ‘claim to fame’, nor need one if they fulfil that one properly. (again given the proviso that there are always exceptions for various reasons)

      I could elaborate, but the remaining averments are too illogical to bother with.
      eg. That Jesus didn’t (arguably) describe women as having lesser status than men, is no reason to assume He thought they had a status equal to or greater than that of men. The company He chose, the lessons He taught and the authoritiy He assigned all make the same point: women didn’t rate at those higher levels.

      Would some feminist-liberal (‘fiberal’?) like MJ actually accuse Him of misogyny too?

      Like

      • Oh boy, Joshua, the only thing I can point you to after reading your diatribe is 1 Corinthians 13. Your words are so hateful towards women. It’s pretty clear to me based upon your response that you don’t actually know the person of Jesus because if you did, then you would be known by this–your love for me. Someone that you have described as a ‘fiberal’. You have engaged in shaming, condemning, name-calling, and even devaluing. That’s entirely human behavior. I don’t really fault a mere man for that. But, if you identify yourself as a Christian, then that means that you would be saying that you are like Jesus. And, frankly, Joshua there is nothing in what you’ve written here that is remotely like Jesus. Certainly nothing that resembles love. Of course, you might be tempted to say that it’s loving to correct fiberals when they’re wrong. But, according to 1 Corinthians 13:2 you can’t have it both ways: And if I have prophetic powers ([b]the gift of interpreting the divine will and purpose), and understand all the secret truths and mysteries and possess all knowledge, and if I have [sufficient] faith so that I can remove mountains, but have not love (God’s love in me) I am nothing (a useless nobody).

        There’s not a damn drop of love in anything you’ve said here. You are only interested in one thing. Being right and condemning anyone or any woman who would dare defy you. That’s not love. That’s not respecting the divine image that we all carry within us. Joshua, that is pharisaic.

        I might be a fiberal, but I know my Bible. And I know Jesus. And I know how Jesus dealt with Pharisees.

        Joshua, either commit your life to killing people with your words and hard heart or commit your life to learning to love Jesus. But you can’t do both.

        Like

      • Certainly not the sort of hysterical, irrational of response one would expect, nor receive, from a man, MJ. So certainly no ‘equality’ in responses to perceived provocations exists.

        But typically female (“no fury like a woman scorned”); it’s one of their most endearing attributes. In this case it also shows that they have trouble distinguishing between love and hate. Quite like usually well-mannered children throwing tantrums. Is it any wonder I’m so fond of them?(women) And believe it or not, more than several of them are quite fond of me, too.

        But neither a “diatribe” nor even a tad “hateful”. That might better describe your attack-the-man effort which also lacks logic; would you feel put-upon by being called ‘snakey’ – if you were a snake?
        Reason suggests that it’s not possible to ‘devalue’ something without first establishing what its value is. I thought doing so was the point of the debate

        And in the most amusingly feminine way this, another illogical tangent,
        (But, if you identify yourself as a Christian, then that means that you would be saying that you are like Jesus.”) makes no sense at all. Christians know Christians are sinners; are you suggesting that Jesus was one too?

        1…” Of course, you might be tempted to say that it’s loving to correct fiberals when they’re wrong.”…. another unfounded assumption. There’s no pleasure in correcting “fiberals”: there’s a glut of them and they’re such easy targets. Like fishing in a dam with a stick of gelignite.
        2….” I am nothing (a useless nobody). “….Two clauses which don’t have the same meaning. Why do you ‘equate’ them? Another in-depth original Hebrew insight?
        3….”There’s not a damn drop of love in anything you’ve said here.”…. Seek and Ye shall find.
        4…..”the divine image that we all carry within us.”…….A stickler for ‘original Hebrew’ might realize the error of this claim. There are those who would point to Genesis 2:7, in which man was created a ‘living soul’ by the breath of God; and they might also point out that Eve wasn’t. Man was made of God; woman was made of man. Had Adam been a feminist he might’ve proclaimed, in re. Eve: “It’s my body and I can do with it as I please.” Significantly, God did say so. (Gen.3:16)

        However, a little ray of sunshine: If impure females are to be banned from Heaven (Implied by Revelation 4:14) then I rather think I’ll also refuse to go.
        Think of it! You and I might eventually get to spend Eternity together! Would that be ‘Hell’?

        I may have an abysmal lack of ‘original Hebrew’ but I’ve never seen a rule that says Hell can’t be fun.
        See you there!
        (If you’re still tainted by feminism, it’ll be strictly BYO!)

        Like

      • Joshua, are you interested only in scoring debating points? You avoid facts that counter your arguments, and introduce red herrings. I get the feeling you’re not sincere, just here to try and catch people out whatever they believe. I wish I knew your real thoughts, as some of your writing really interests me. If only it weren’t so often contradictory.

        Like

      • Sprung! Bugger! (Does this mean the censorship starts again?)
        Still, on the upside, it does mean that I can cease assiduously working at inserting capital-letters where they have no business being! PTL!

        If indeed I like to wind up christians ‘in particular’ it may be because some of them ask for it. And even more particularly if there’s another, equally arrogant, agenda in play.

        Ironically, the more ‘earthy’, less ‘loving’ religions ~ judaism and islam ~ generally don’t present themselves as similarly-inviting targets.

        I like to think that my “stirring” plays a role in the furtherance of exploratory debate.
        And also that ‘not believing half the things I say’ (or not saying half the things I believe!) has no bearing on the value of the debate.

        Not having a personal axe to grind could be seen as a distinct plus.

        Like

      • That’s all well and good Dabs, so long as it doesn’t backfire on you. Sometimes I could just slap you silly! I concede though, that it wouldn’t do you any good. The damage is already done. Notice I kept your secret, eh? And people thought I was just being plain rude to Joshua, I bet. 🙂

        Like

      • Also Rian,

        Did you know that cat skin gloves were highly prized across Medieval Europe, and that tanners often used human urine and faeces, which they would collect from households in buckets each day, to soften the leather?

        Imagine that. If we lived in Medieval times in Europe, our beloved pussy cats would end up as a fashion statement on some stranger’s hands! 😯

        Like

  5. Men and women were created equal but have different strengths to help them in their different roles. The world is getting screwed up now because children are being raised by strangers while both parents are working.

    Like

    • Equal but different, yes. Though there is now seen to be a blurring of degrees of difference. Some men not ultra masculine are no longer reluctaant to admit to their feminine attributes. Some women not ultra feminine makeuseof their masculine attributes.

      About the children, sad but true.

      Like

      • “There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus— Galatians 3:28” …Paul the Politician ( wooing the female/slave/Gentile vote.)

        More to the point:
        “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

        …..God: Gen.1:26 (obviously speaking for the Record, since there was no-one else around to impress…but obviously portending the Creation of Eve.)

        Your Eternal Soul may depend on who you choose to believe.

        Like

      • Does ‘equal but different’ mean that apples and lemons are equal if they weigh the same?

        Like

    • Perhaps you’ll recognize the silliness of that proposition, “created equal” if you give some thought to what ‘equal’ actually means, Dom.
      After which you might let us all in on the reason God bothered to create two ‘equalities’.
      Ever heard the phrase ‘Different horses for different courses’?

      Like

      • Posted my reply in the wrong slot.
        That may have been at God’s direction, in order to encourage the more succinct response to “There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female.”

        There are still Jews and Gentiles, males and females (thank God!) and, if recent news reports are to be believed, slavery is flourishing as never before.

        I could suggest that such comments prove absolutely that Paul was not speaking from Divine Inspiration; nor for God.

        Like

      • Now, now Joshua White,

        Re: Galatians 3:28. Are you deliberately being obtuse—or does it just come naturally?

        Like

      • Equal education opportunity does not mean providing the same education for every child but providing the opportunities through which every child according to ability. In the American constitution it is written that all men are created equal, and this is an American commentary –
        “In mathematics, the term “equal” is used when things are “equal in value,” and being equal in value is what was intended with those daring strokes of 1776. It meant that the man sweeping the floor and the merchant running the business were of equal value – equal in the eyes of the law, equal in their value as humans, equal in their right and opportunity to pursue their happiness. This radical-for-its-time idea had essentially never before been implemented, and the “grand experiment” that followed has wrought massive struggles and remarkable successes. Some of those struggles have found us grappling with (what we thought at the time were) big questions. Are black men equal, too? What about women? Of course they are. “Men” means all of mankind, not just the ones who are actual [white] men. Clarifying this point took a lot out of us, but we reached a just conclusion: that each of us is equal in our value as a being.”

        Like

      • Well, if the Americans say so then it must be correct. Right?
        And altruism is a wonderful ambition, even if it’s fundamentally flawed.

        I won’t go into detail, but the fact is that ‘equal’ is a purely subjective concept, and does not exist as an identifiable entity.
        As a social (including mathematical) construct anything can only, ever, be ‘equal’ by agreement. (And sometimes enforced decree.)

        Clearly, ‘value’ depends upon one’s own perspective and always, always, depends upon circumstance.
        For example: if your child was drowning would you see a li’l ol’ lady who can’t swim and only goes in up to the knees (exposed by her skirt tucked into her knickers) as having the same ‘value’ as a fit 20-year-old lifeguard?

        Of course the merchant running the business is obviously of greater value (to the business) than the floor-sweeper; that’s why he gets more money – another (agreed) measure of ‘value’ – which also varies according to events and circumstance.
        Would a starving kid in Calcutta prefer a Ukranian 1000- hryvnia note
        or an American Big Mac? (yes, with fries, of course!)

        And since no two people have the same catalogued sense of ‘happiness’ (another subjective non-entity) how can their “pursuit” of it be ‘equal’.
        Can the pursuit of ‘happiness’ for the Pope be measured in terms of ‘equality’ with the pursuit of happiness of an alQaida suicide bomber?

        But there may be scope for considering whether they’re ‘equally’ psychotic.
        As I say, obtusely, perhaps: ‘equality’ doesn’t, and can’t, actually exist anywhere in Creation. (least of all in male-female relationships – of any species)

        Nice thought though. Fantasies are important, and subjective, too!

        Like

      • When,when?

        I can only presume God created me “obtuse”. (And in His own image?)
        Just as He created some Eurasian nut-gnawing rodents with furry ‘fundamentals’, if you get my drift.
        I’m sure He has His reasons.

        Meanwhile I’ll continue to read what is written (especially if it’s confirmed elsewhere) rather than what I wish were written.
        (Except, of course, for fulminating feminist folderol.)

        Like

    • At least the strangers in question have some kind of education and training as to how to care for a child. Most parents don’t.

      Your kids are home-schooled to I take it Dom. How do you kind that working out ?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s