Verses 15-16 of chapter one seem to imply that those who oppose Paul's message are impure and corrupted. "They claim to know god, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good." That's Paul's Christian love speaking.
In chapter two, Paul tells Titus to teach according to sound doctrine, which of course, is Paul's doctrine. First Titus is told to teach the older men to be "temperate, worthy of respect (whose?), self-controlled, and sound in faith and endurance." I wonder how older guys liked being told how to live and behave by someone younger?
Verse 3 says, "Likewise teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers, or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good." I wonder how the older women felt about some young male foreigner trying to tell them how to behave and live. I wonder how their husbands felt about it.
Verse four goes on to tell the older women to "train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of god." This scripture is often drilled into the minds of devout christian women, even today. It's what makes many become stay at home mothers and housewives, even if they are not naturally inclined toward that occupation. Because it is in the bible, it is considered the words of god, but it is actually just the words of Paul or some other writer. The author is clearly concerned about the reputation of the church and seems to feel that young women should behave in a manner that coincides with his ideas of what is appropriate. It is probably consistent with the ideals of that time and culture. No gods needed.
Verse six tells Titus to encourage the young men be self-controlled. Just encourage? Young men are notoriously hard to command and often resistant to those who set themselves up as authorities. Paul tells Titus to lead them by example, not a bad tactic. He is to do what is good, show integrity, seriousness, and soundness of speech. This is again to protect the reputation of Paul 's followers in the eyes of his opposition.
Verse nine tells Titus to "teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in everything they will make the teaching about our god and savior attractive." Oh, the harm these verses have done! It is inexcusable. Why did Paul not tell christian masters to set an example and free their slaves? Why did he not suggest that free christians help christian slaves buy their freedom if they had nonchristian masters? I'll tell you why. He was not receiving any revelation from an almighty benevolent god. He was speaking from his own experience in culture and time. Plus his goal in these passages is clearly the preservation and boosting of the reputation of his followers, so the opposition would not be able to accuse them of anything unseemly.
The slave was told to obey his master in everything! What if the slave was ordered to have nothing more to do with the Paulites? What if the slave was ordered to slander or sabotage them? The slave was told his obedience would make christianity attractive. Your darn tootin' it would, to slave owners. It sure would give the slave owner leverage to be able to read that passage to his slaves. It might be worth the trouble to become a christian, at least in name, if you could take advantage of Paul's teachings on slavery.
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Saturday, September 1, 2018
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Titus part two
After telling Titus to appoint elders in every town in Crete, he proceeds to explain the qualifications of an elder. These qualifications are still referred to today, when appointing elders, especially in fundamentalist churches. However, the methods for appointing the elders often differ greatly. In churches of christ, elders are often chosen and voted for by the members of the congregation, under the oversight of the current elders. Depending on the strictness of the congregation, the voters may consist of only males, deacons, or current elders. The congregations I have attended generally open the process to every baptized member of the congregation.
Chapter 1, verse 6, tells us "an elder must be blameless, the husband of only one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Let's talk about the wife first. Even though this passage does not say the wife must be a believer, churches of christ require it. I don't know much about what other protestant churches require of their elders, but I imagine there are a lot of similarities. The elder is often chosen with great consideration put on the reputation of his wife. Also, the elder's wife often finds herself in a position of unspoken authority by virtue of her husband's standing in the community. She has her husband's ear, so she is often told things that might not reach him otherwise. She is looked up to by the other women of the congregation. She is also expected to be "blameless", a good example of wifehood and motherhood, and a kind of leader among the women of the congregation. She often finds herself required, or expected, to teach and organise other women. She is called upon to lead public prayers when women meet together. These are things not found in the scriptures, but they occur nevertheless.
The "husband of one wife" requirement means that congregations reject the appointment of a single man. Also, Churches of christ, and other protestant churches, do not usually accept divorcees or widowers as elders, even when remarried. There are a few exceptions. Some say one is one and no more. Others say one at a time is acceptable, depending on the individual circumstances.
As a reminder, I speak from over forty years experience in fundamentalist protestant christianity, specifically mainstream church of Christ. My husband was nominated to be an elder, two years ago. I told him to turn it down. His response was, "Are you telling me or asking me?" I said I was telling him. I refused to be an elder's wife. Without my cooperation, he could not be an elder. Plus, he was not qualified by their standards anyway, because I am an atheist.
The believing children requirement has been a tricky one, even harder for christians to distinctly define. How much belief? Just unqualified assent, or public confession of belief and baptism? Is this just for minor children residing in the home, or does it include adult children? Does it mean all the children of the candidate? Is one believing child enough, or must there be more than one because of the word children?
Then there is the requirement that an elder's children cannot be open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Again, is this about minor children, or all children? How wild? How disobedient? Disobedient to whom? This seems to be a regulation that naturally finds itself broken regularly. When children find themselves in the spotlight of scrutinization, they rarely measure up to anything close to perfection. It's too much to expect, and rebellion often occurs. In my experience, most church of christ elders' children are a mixed bag. An elder may have three children, one devout, one halfhearted, and one living a lifestyle totally unacceptable by church of christ standards. This doesn't seem to matter in today's church. When I was a teenager, churches of christ were generally more strict. I think conditions have relaxed somewhat out of necessity. Else, who would be qualified to lead?
Chapter 1, verse 6, tells us "an elder must be blameless, the husband of only one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Let's talk about the wife first. Even though this passage does not say the wife must be a believer, churches of christ require it. I don't know much about what other protestant churches require of their elders, but I imagine there are a lot of similarities. The elder is often chosen with great consideration put on the reputation of his wife. Also, the elder's wife often finds herself in a position of unspoken authority by virtue of her husband's standing in the community. She has her husband's ear, so she is often told things that might not reach him otherwise. She is looked up to by the other women of the congregation. She is also expected to be "blameless", a good example of wifehood and motherhood, and a kind of leader among the women of the congregation. She often finds herself required, or expected, to teach and organise other women. She is called upon to lead public prayers when women meet together. These are things not found in the scriptures, but they occur nevertheless.
The "husband of one wife" requirement means that congregations reject the appointment of a single man. Also, Churches of christ, and other protestant churches, do not usually accept divorcees or widowers as elders, even when remarried. There are a few exceptions. Some say one is one and no more. Others say one at a time is acceptable, depending on the individual circumstances.
As a reminder, I speak from over forty years experience in fundamentalist protestant christianity, specifically mainstream church of Christ. My husband was nominated to be an elder, two years ago. I told him to turn it down. His response was, "Are you telling me or asking me?" I said I was telling him. I refused to be an elder's wife. Without my cooperation, he could not be an elder. Plus, he was not qualified by their standards anyway, because I am an atheist.
The believing children requirement has been a tricky one, even harder for christians to distinctly define. How much belief? Just unqualified assent, or public confession of belief and baptism? Is this just for minor children residing in the home, or does it include adult children? Does it mean all the children of the candidate? Is one believing child enough, or must there be more than one because of the word children?
Then there is the requirement that an elder's children cannot be open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Again, is this about minor children, or all children? How wild? How disobedient? Disobedient to whom? This seems to be a regulation that naturally finds itself broken regularly. When children find themselves in the spotlight of scrutinization, they rarely measure up to anything close to perfection. It's too much to expect, and rebellion often occurs. In my experience, most church of christ elders' children are a mixed bag. An elder may have three children, one devout, one halfhearted, and one living a lifestyle totally unacceptable by church of christ standards. This doesn't seem to matter in today's church. When I was a teenager, churches of christ were generally more strict. I think conditions have relaxed somewhat out of necessity. Else, who would be qualified to lead?
Saturday, March 10, 2018
About the church of Christ part three
How do the churches of Christ stack up when it comes to modern issues?
The churches of Christ are traditionally patriarchal and lean toward complementarianism, which is just a modern form of patriarchy. Very few congregations attempt to put women in any public roles. However, women are generally respected, as long as they don't try to "usurp" a man's authority. It's delicate dance of social conventions. Many women wield power through their husband's position, gossip, or complaining to the elders. Others gain respect through benevolence, teaching, and wisdom, but there is a limit to what is allowed. There are no women leading singing or prayers, public preaching, serving communion, or teaching mixed adult bible classes. All but the strictest congregations allow women to contribute to discussions in a bible class setting. Otherwise, women
are relegated to cooking, cleaning, children's bible classes, and childcare. However, they often have special female only functions where they fill all the roles available. These are usually called "ladies' days" and happen on rare Saturdays, when husbands can watch the kids. Women will often travel from regional congregations to attend another congregation's ladies' day.
I have never seen an openly gay couple in a church of Christ, and I can't imagine I ever will. I saw instances when two different teenagers, in different years, announced their non hetero leanings in social media. They did not stick around. Toleration of homosexuality is not taught, though violence and aggression toward anyone is not condoned. It is the love the sinner, hate the sin, kind of Christianity. I do know of members whose relatives are in same sex relationships. It is not discussed, and I'm not sure how many other people know. There was a highly publicized suicide of a gay young woman from a church of Christ, a few years back.
I rarely hear of divorce in the church any more. Divorce rates in the CoC are low. I think most struggling couples leave before their marriages reach that point. Divorced women are more likely to be found in Churches of Christ than divorced men. Divorced men usually lose all possible positions of privilege, leadership, and service. Living together before marriage, or pregnancy out of wedlock, is not condoned, but presently not condemned as nastily as in years past. These "sins" are more quickly forgiven than they used to be. A fair amount CoC Christians have as many problems with obesity issues as the general American public. I know there have been cases of physical abuse, mental abuse, addiction, alcoholism, mental health problems, and even a case of a preacher's wife murdering her husband. To be fair, these problems are found everywhere.
A lot of church members lead lives that they don't discuss with other members. They drink alcohol, they smoke, they cuss, they watch any movies they want, play violent video games, listen to any music they want, and read anything they want. Social media lets you see everybody's business now, so it's more obvious. There are also a few CoC members who are uber religious and straight-laced on social media. Their posts are often ignored, except by those of like mind. It doesn't seem to matter a whole lot any more, which is better than calling people out and shaming/shunning them for non criminal acts.
Churches of Christ usually practice political nuetrality from the pulpit, in my experience. The members have been allowed to follow their conscience with regard to voting. There always seemed to be a polite avoidance of divisive political discussions in the past. Today, however, social media has become a platform for the political grandstanding, even among members in the church. This has definitely caused some drama. There are those on both ends of the spectrum who think that their way of voting is the only godly way. Usually, those on the right are the ones to leave in a huff for more conservative congregations.
Abortion is hardly ever discussed, but if it is, it will be in opposition. Anyone who has had one is not talking. In my experience, racism is not condoned at all. There are many racially diverse congregations. However, there are traditionally black churches of Christ, and ones that are majority white, often depending on location. Also, many white members use their social media to rant against BLM and immigration. There are very few rich or intellectual elites in the CoC, most are in university towns. A majority of the members are solidly middle class. Blue collar and white collar workers mingle freely. White collar workers are slightly more likely to end up as elders. There is a
large percentage of members in the US military. Most congregations do not have the resources to handle those with addictions, mental health issues, or extreme poverty. Most preachers are not trained professional counselors. People with real, tough problems tend to fade out of church participation.
In short, members have many of the same problems that are found throughout Christianity and in the
broader culture. They also have many of the admired qualities of other good human beings. However, the church of Christ culture is definitely an insulated bubble. Most members seem to like it that way. All this and much more has been my experience of churches of Christ over the last four decades.
The churches of Christ are traditionally patriarchal and lean toward complementarianism, which is just a modern form of patriarchy. Very few congregations attempt to put women in any public roles. However, women are generally respected, as long as they don't try to "usurp" a man's authority. It's delicate dance of social conventions. Many women wield power through their husband's position, gossip, or complaining to the elders. Others gain respect through benevolence, teaching, and wisdom, but there is a limit to what is allowed. There are no women leading singing or prayers, public preaching, serving communion, or teaching mixed adult bible classes. All but the strictest congregations allow women to contribute to discussions in a bible class setting. Otherwise, women
are relegated to cooking, cleaning, children's bible classes, and childcare. However, they often have special female only functions where they fill all the roles available. These are usually called "ladies' days" and happen on rare Saturdays, when husbands can watch the kids. Women will often travel from regional congregations to attend another congregation's ladies' day.
I have never seen an openly gay couple in a church of Christ, and I can't imagine I ever will. I saw instances when two different teenagers, in different years, announced their non hetero leanings in social media. They did not stick around. Toleration of homosexuality is not taught, though violence and aggression toward anyone is not condoned. It is the love the sinner, hate the sin, kind of Christianity. I do know of members whose relatives are in same sex relationships. It is not discussed, and I'm not sure how many other people know. There was a highly publicized suicide of a gay young woman from a church of Christ, a few years back.
I rarely hear of divorce in the church any more. Divorce rates in the CoC are low. I think most struggling couples leave before their marriages reach that point. Divorced women are more likely to be found in Churches of Christ than divorced men. Divorced men usually lose all possible positions of privilege, leadership, and service. Living together before marriage, or pregnancy out of wedlock, is not condoned, but presently not condemned as nastily as in years past. These "sins" are more quickly forgiven than they used to be. A fair amount CoC Christians have as many problems with obesity issues as the general American public. I know there have been cases of physical abuse, mental abuse, addiction, alcoholism, mental health problems, and even a case of a preacher's wife murdering her husband. To be fair, these problems are found everywhere.
A lot of church members lead lives that they don't discuss with other members. They drink alcohol, they smoke, they cuss, they watch any movies they want, play violent video games, listen to any music they want, and read anything they want. Social media lets you see everybody's business now, so it's more obvious. There are also a few CoC members who are uber religious and straight-laced on social media. Their posts are often ignored, except by those of like mind. It doesn't seem to matter a whole lot any more, which is better than calling people out and shaming/shunning them for non criminal acts.
Churches of Christ usually practice political nuetrality from the pulpit, in my experience. The members have been allowed to follow their conscience with regard to voting. There always seemed to be a polite avoidance of divisive political discussions in the past. Today, however, social media has become a platform for the political grandstanding, even among members in the church. This has definitely caused some drama. There are those on both ends of the spectrum who think that their way of voting is the only godly way. Usually, those on the right are the ones to leave in a huff for more conservative congregations.
Abortion is hardly ever discussed, but if it is, it will be in opposition. Anyone who has had one is not talking. In my experience, racism is not condoned at all. There are many racially diverse congregations. However, there are traditionally black churches of Christ, and ones that are majority white, often depending on location. Also, many white members use their social media to rant against BLM and immigration. There are very few rich or intellectual elites in the CoC, most are in university towns. A majority of the members are solidly middle class. Blue collar and white collar workers mingle freely. White collar workers are slightly more likely to end up as elders. There is a
large percentage of members in the US military. Most congregations do not have the resources to handle those with addictions, mental health issues, or extreme poverty. Most preachers are not trained professional counselors. People with real, tough problems tend to fade out of church participation.
In short, members have many of the same problems that are found throughout Christianity and in the
broader culture. They also have many of the admired qualities of other good human beings. However, the church of Christ culture is definitely an insulated bubble. Most members seem to like it that way. All this and much more has been my experience of churches of Christ over the last four decades.
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
Ephesians chapter 5, part 2
*We start at verse 21: "Submit to one another out of reverence to christ." What does that mean exactly? Constant submission to others is not healthy. It opens the avenue for abuse by those who are willing to use the command to submit to manipulate those around them. Paul is going to get specific.
*Verse 22: "Wives submit to your husbands as to the lord." In other words, pretend your husband is your personal savior. If you don't think that is what it means, just wait. Why should you act like your husband is your savior? "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is The Savior." Told you. Paul is going to continue in this vein with the analogy of the husband being like christ, the wife being like the church, christ being like the groom, the church being like the bride. It's kind of wierd, with sexual undertones in the relationship of christ to the church.
*I find it interesting to note that there are no Old Testament scriptures that are addressed to women about how they should submit to their spouses. There are many scriptures in some of the books of prophecy that equate the relationship of god to Israel as one of husband and wife, but I don't recall submission being an issue, just adultery. That analogy was used to describe Israel's supposed unfaithfulness to Yahweh when it followed after other gods. Not that a command for submission was necessary. What options did a wife have, when she was literally owned by her husband? I wonder if first century women in the Roman empire had more freedom? Perhaps that was why Paul felt the necessity to say "Now as the church submits to christ, so also should wives submit to their husbands in everything." (Verse 24) In Everything. That doesn't leave any wiggle room, does it?
*I have looked up this section in the Greek interlinear version and "submission" in these verses of Ephesians clearly means to obey or be subject to, as a person would be subject to a ruler or deity.
*Verse 25: Husbands are not told to submit to their wives, but to love them as christ loved the church. It is christ's loving self sacrifice that made the church holy, so he could give himself a radiant, unwrinkled, and unblemished church. By inference wives are also made holy by a husband's love. What were they before they were wives, before their husbands "loved" them? Unholy? Verse 28: "In this way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies, feeding and caring for them, as christ does the church." This appears to be an oblique reference to the story of Adam and Eve, where Eve is created from Adam's rib and he calls her " bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh." However, the man is the head, the part with all the brains and all the control over the body.
*The body analogy is carried further to say that not only is the wife part of the husband's body, the church is part of the christ's body. Now we have proof the author was thinking of Genesis and the creation story when he quotes "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24) Not only are male and female one body because of the way women were supposedly created, but they are also united in sexual union as husband and wife. How does this apply to the church? Paul says that is a profound mystery. (He doesn't know.) Then he says this whole analogy was a an object lesson about Christ and the church, but all husbands should still love their wives as they love themselves, and women should respect their husbands. (Verse 33)
*See that word "respect" in that last verse? A quick look up of that word in the greek shows that its root is phobeo- a verb that mean to frighten or terrify. It is from where we get our word phobia. Almost every verse in the new testament that has a word with that root is translated as some form of fear or fright, except this one. Here the translators decided "respect" would be a better fit. Why do you suppose that is?
*Verse 22: "Wives submit to your husbands as to the lord." In other words, pretend your husband is your personal savior. If you don't think that is what it means, just wait. Why should you act like your husband is your savior? "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is The Savior." Told you. Paul is going to continue in this vein with the analogy of the husband being like christ, the wife being like the church, christ being like the groom, the church being like the bride. It's kind of wierd, with sexual undertones in the relationship of christ to the church.
*I find it interesting to note that there are no Old Testament scriptures that are addressed to women about how they should submit to their spouses. There are many scriptures in some of the books of prophecy that equate the relationship of god to Israel as one of husband and wife, but I don't recall submission being an issue, just adultery. That analogy was used to describe Israel's supposed unfaithfulness to Yahweh when it followed after other gods. Not that a command for submission was necessary. What options did a wife have, when she was literally owned by her husband? I wonder if first century women in the Roman empire had more freedom? Perhaps that was why Paul felt the necessity to say "Now as the church submits to christ, so also should wives submit to their husbands in everything." (Verse 24) In Everything. That doesn't leave any wiggle room, does it?
*I have looked up this section in the Greek interlinear version and "submission" in these verses of Ephesians clearly means to obey or be subject to, as a person would be subject to a ruler or deity.
*Verse 25: Husbands are not told to submit to their wives, but to love them as christ loved the church. It is christ's loving self sacrifice that made the church holy, so he could give himself a radiant, unwrinkled, and unblemished church. By inference wives are also made holy by a husband's love. What were they before they were wives, before their husbands "loved" them? Unholy? Verse 28: "In this way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies, feeding and caring for them, as christ does the church." This appears to be an oblique reference to the story of Adam and Eve, where Eve is created from Adam's rib and he calls her " bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh." However, the man is the head, the part with all the brains and all the control over the body.
*The body analogy is carried further to say that not only is the wife part of the husband's body, the church is part of the christ's body. Now we have proof the author was thinking of Genesis and the creation story when he quotes "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24) Not only are male and female one body because of the way women were supposedly created, but they are also united in sexual union as husband and wife. How does this apply to the church? Paul says that is a profound mystery. (He doesn't know.) Then he says this whole analogy was a an object lesson about Christ and the church, but all husbands should still love their wives as they love themselves, and women should respect their husbands. (Verse 33)
*See that word "respect" in that last verse? A quick look up of that word in the greek shows that its root is phobeo- a verb that mean to frighten or terrify. It is from where we get our word phobia. Almost every verse in the new testament that has a word with that root is translated as some form of fear or fright, except this one. Here the translators decided "respect" would be a better fit. Why do you suppose that is?
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
Proverbs 31, part 3 and wrap up
We left off at verse 24:
*The wife of noble character "makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes." This lady is a one woman factory. She obviously doesn't have toddlers. When does she eat and sleep?
*"She is clothed with strength and dignity (I'm picturing the statue of liberty); she can laugh at the days to come." This lady is not worried about the future, she's prepared.
*"She speaks with wisdom and faithful instruction is on her tongue." I wonder if less perfect people get a little tired of her.
*"She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness." We get it, she's a busy lady. I know I'm getting tired just reading about this paragon of virtue.
*"Her children arise and call her blessed." When do they ever see her or get to spend time with her? "Her husband also, and he praises her." Of course he does, he doesn't want to lose his meal ticket. See women of the world, this is all you have to do to get your husband to praise you. Earn it.
*"Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all." Not only that, you are a figment of some man's imagination. A woman certainly didn't write this passage.
*"Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears Yahweh is to be respected." What does that mean? Is the author saying that a god fearing woman will try to emulate this example of perfection? How does one show that one fears Yahweh? By working one's self to exhaustion? We are not told that this woman prays or performs any kind of religious rituals.
*"Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate." What reward has she earned? Not rest. Looks like praise is the reward. Not only praise, but praise at the city gate. Who is at the city gate? All those shiftless men who sitting around just talking religion and politics. Industrious women aren't hanging around the city gate. Who gets to hear and reap the social benefits of the public praise of this woman? Her husband.
I have read this passage sarcastically because I don't think it should be taken seriously. It is one man's description of an ideal wife, who doesn't exist. Supposedly it has traditionally been read by husbands to their wives at Sabbath meals. What a load of guilt to lay on a woman who might not measure up, as is likely.
We don't know exactly when this was written, or by whom. There is no mention of heaven, hell, angels, demons, satan, divine inspiration, original sin, or a messiah. There is only a passing mention of Yahweh. No where in the bible is there an equal passage about a noble husband. Most women probably wouldn't have been able to read it. Since men were in charge of public scripture reading, and were the ones who wrote the scriptures, it's not surprising. The Bible is conspicuously missing a woman's point of view.
*The wife of noble character "makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes." This lady is a one woman factory. She obviously doesn't have toddlers. When does she eat and sleep?
*"She is clothed with strength and dignity (I'm picturing the statue of liberty); she can laugh at the days to come." This lady is not worried about the future, she's prepared.
*"She speaks with wisdom and faithful instruction is on her tongue." I wonder if less perfect people get a little tired of her.
*"She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness." We get it, she's a busy lady. I know I'm getting tired just reading about this paragon of virtue.
*"Her children arise and call her blessed." When do they ever see her or get to spend time with her? "Her husband also, and he praises her." Of course he does, he doesn't want to lose his meal ticket. See women of the world, this is all you have to do to get your husband to praise you. Earn it.
*"Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all." Not only that, you are a figment of some man's imagination. A woman certainly didn't write this passage.
*"Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears Yahweh is to be respected." What does that mean? Is the author saying that a god fearing woman will try to emulate this example of perfection? How does one show that one fears Yahweh? By working one's self to exhaustion? We are not told that this woman prays or performs any kind of religious rituals.
*"Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate." What reward has she earned? Not rest. Looks like praise is the reward. Not only praise, but praise at the city gate. Who is at the city gate? All those shiftless men who sitting around just talking religion and politics. Industrious women aren't hanging around the city gate. Who gets to hear and reap the social benefits of the public praise of this woman? Her husband.
I have read this passage sarcastically because I don't think it should be taken seriously. It is one man's description of an ideal wife, who doesn't exist. Supposedly it has traditionally been read by husbands to their wives at Sabbath meals. What a load of guilt to lay on a woman who might not measure up, as is likely.
We don't know exactly when this was written, or by whom. There is no mention of heaven, hell, angels, demons, satan, divine inspiration, original sin, or a messiah. There is only a passing mention of Yahweh. No where in the bible is there an equal passage about a noble husband. Most women probably wouldn't have been able to read it. Since men were in charge of public scripture reading, and were the ones who wrote the scriptures, it's not surprising. The Bible is conspicuously missing a woman's point of view.
Sunday, June 18, 2017
Proverbs 31, part 2
We left off at verse 16.
*A wife of noble characer "considers a field and buys it",without asking her husband! "Out of her earnings (she's a working woman) she plants a vinyard." This lady invests in the future. This lady manages her own finances and property. Imagine that.
*"She sets about her work vigorously, her arms are strong for her tasks." This lady is admired for her physical strength! She is not required to be dainty and appear weak to appease her husband's ego.
*"She sees that her trading is profitable." This lady knows market rates and how to keep from getting swindled. She gets what her products are worth. "Her lamp does not go out at night." She works long hours.
*"In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers." She keeps busy and is not afraid to work.
*"She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hand to the needy." This lady is generous and compassionate to those less fortunate than herself.
*"When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet." She is prepared for the winter weather and makes sure her family is dressed warmly.
*"She makes coverings for her bed. She is clothed in fine linen and purple." This lady is industrious and wealthy.
*So, what does her husband do? "Her husband is respected at the city gate where he takes his seat among the elders of the land." In other words, he sits on his butt all day talking with other similarly lucky men who have overworked wives to run thier households and make their clothes. If she were to stop doing all that stuff she does so well, it wouldn't be so good for his reputation.
To be fair, a woman of that time most likely would not have considered her position to be unjust or oppressive. There were no modern sensibilities about equality, independence, overwork, and emotional labor. Plus, this is an *ideal* woman of the time. The likelihood of any one woman having all these attributes seems pretty slim. Even though the woman in Proverbs 31 is part of a patriarchal system, she has appears to have a considerable amount of freedom, compared to what the modern Christian fundamentalist patriarchy would give their wives. I don't see anything about deferring to her husband or asking his advice when she is capable of thinking for herself.
To be continued...
*A wife of noble characer "considers a field and buys it",without asking her husband! "Out of her earnings (she's a working woman) she plants a vinyard." This lady invests in the future. This lady manages her own finances and property. Imagine that.
*"She sets about her work vigorously, her arms are strong for her tasks." This lady is admired for her physical strength! She is not required to be dainty and appear weak to appease her husband's ego.
*"She sees that her trading is profitable." This lady knows market rates and how to keep from getting swindled. She gets what her products are worth. "Her lamp does not go out at night." She works long hours.
*"In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers." She keeps busy and is not afraid to work.
*"She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hand to the needy." This lady is generous and compassionate to those less fortunate than herself.
*"When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet." She is prepared for the winter weather and makes sure her family is dressed warmly.
*"She makes coverings for her bed. She is clothed in fine linen and purple." This lady is industrious and wealthy.
*So, what does her husband do? "Her husband is respected at the city gate where he takes his seat among the elders of the land." In other words, he sits on his butt all day talking with other similarly lucky men who have overworked wives to run thier households and make their clothes. If she were to stop doing all that stuff she does so well, it wouldn't be so good for his reputation.
To be fair, a woman of that time most likely would not have considered her position to be unjust or oppressive. There were no modern sensibilities about equality, independence, overwork, and emotional labor. Plus, this is an *ideal* woman of the time. The likelihood of any one woman having all these attributes seems pretty slim. Even though the woman in Proverbs 31 is part of a patriarchal system, she has appears to have a considerable amount of freedom, compared to what the modern Christian fundamentalist patriarchy would give their wives. I don't see anything about deferring to her husband or asking his advice when she is capable of thinking for herself.
To be continued...
Saturday, June 10, 2017
Proverbs 31: 10- 31, part 1
Today we will look at the passage recommended as an example to Christian women everywhere, the Proverbs 31 woman, "the wife of noble character." (According to the NIV). I have no idea if the same emphasis is placed on this passage for Jewish women.
The passage is at the tail end of the book of Proverbs and is labelled as an epilogue. My study Bible tells me it is an acrostic poem, each verse beginning with a successive letter of the Hebrew Alphabet. Read more about it here. The actual author is unknown, but it is placed in the chapter with advice to King Lemuel from his mother.
The first sentence implies that such a woman is rare, therefore very valuable, worth far more than rubies. Because of her, her husband doesn't need anything. She only brings good to him, no harm, all the days if her life, because it's all about the man. There is no passage in the Bible about a husband of noble character.
1. She is a spinner and a weaver of wool and flax. I know exactly two people who do this today, but only with wool. One works for a historical site, the other does it as a hobby. Most people today rely on modern factory produced material. Would it be more virtuous to spin my own thread and weave my own cloth? Why? What would I accomplish, other than bragging rights? Unless you are really into fiber arts, you would be spending vast amounts of time doing something totally unnecessary.
2. She brings food from afar. Most people I know have to get in their cars and travel a few miles to a grocery store, it's just part of life. I imagine most women and men, except for those who have the means to hire someone to do it for them, have done whatever travelling it takes to feed themselves and their families. It's called survival. Sometimes it may be hard, but is it necessarily virtuous?
3. She gets up while it is still dark and provides fod for her family. Lots of people get up before dark. Many don't but still provide food for their families. Virtue is often ascribed to early risers. Is it the early rising or what is accomplshed in a day that is truly virtuous? When I visited the Robert Frost homestead in Derry, NH, I heard a story about Mr. Frost that I will not forget: All the farmers around him got up to milk their cows at 4 am. They milked them again at 4 pm. Mr. Frost was a night owl. He hated getting up at 4 in the morning. So, he milked his cows at 12 noon and 12 midnight. The locals thought he was crazy and lazy, even though he was accomplishing the same amount of work. I imagine 4 am milking made sense at one time, but the world has changed. There is still a stigma attached to staying up late and sleeping late. Unless there is good reason, there is no need to keep doing things a particular way, just because they have always been done that way.
To be continued
The passage is at the tail end of the book of Proverbs and is labelled as an epilogue. My study Bible tells me it is an acrostic poem, each verse beginning with a successive letter of the Hebrew Alphabet. Read more about it here. The actual author is unknown, but it is placed in the chapter with advice to King Lemuel from his mother.
The first sentence implies that such a woman is rare, therefore very valuable, worth far more than rubies. Because of her, her husband doesn't need anything. She only brings good to him, no harm, all the days if her life, because it's all about the man. There is no passage in the Bible about a husband of noble character.
1. She is a spinner and a weaver of wool and flax. I know exactly two people who do this today, but only with wool. One works for a historical site, the other does it as a hobby. Most people today rely on modern factory produced material. Would it be more virtuous to spin my own thread and weave my own cloth? Why? What would I accomplish, other than bragging rights? Unless you are really into fiber arts, you would be spending vast amounts of time doing something totally unnecessary.
2. She brings food from afar. Most people I know have to get in their cars and travel a few miles to a grocery store, it's just part of life. I imagine most women and men, except for those who have the means to hire someone to do it for them, have done whatever travelling it takes to feed themselves and their families. It's called survival. Sometimes it may be hard, but is it necessarily virtuous?
3. She gets up while it is still dark and provides fod for her family. Lots of people get up before dark. Many don't but still provide food for their families. Virtue is often ascribed to early risers. Is it the early rising or what is accomplshed in a day that is truly virtuous? When I visited the Robert Frost homestead in Derry, NH, I heard a story about Mr. Frost that I will not forget: All the farmers around him got up to milk their cows at 4 am. They milked them again at 4 pm. Mr. Frost was a night owl. He hated getting up at 4 in the morning. So, he milked his cows at 12 noon and 12 midnight. The locals thought he was crazy and lazy, even though he was accomplishing the same amount of work. I imagine 4 am milking made sense at one time, but the world has changed. There is still a stigma attached to staying up late and sleeping late. Unless there is good reason, there is no need to keep doing things a particular way, just because they have always been done that way.
To be continued
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Numbers chapter 36
After reading Numbers chapter 36:
*Now we have arrived at the end of the book of Numbers. What wisdom do we find imparted here?
The inheritance of Zelophehad's daughters is at stake again. Their relatives are concerned that if the daughters marry men from other tribes, those tribes will get the ancestral wealth and property that the women bring, and their tribe of origin would lose out. So the previous instructions about the daughters' inheritance are revised and clarified. What Yahweh meant to say all along was they got to keep their inheritance as long as they married within their family tribe. The same goes for every other
Israelite woman. No inheritance in Israel is to pass from one tribe to another. So Zelophehad's daughters married their cousins.
The end.
*Now we have arrived at the end of the book of Numbers. What wisdom do we find imparted here?
The inheritance of Zelophehad's daughters is at stake again. Their relatives are concerned that if the daughters marry men from other tribes, those tribes will get the ancestral wealth and property that the women bring, and their tribe of origin would lose out. So the previous instructions about the daughters' inheritance are revised and clarified. What Yahweh meant to say all along was they got to keep their inheritance as long as they married within their family tribe. The same goes for every other
Israelite woman. No inheritance in Israel is to pass from one tribe to another. So Zelophehad's daughters married their cousins.
The end.
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Numbers chapter 31
After reading chapter 31:
*After a brief intermission, laying down some religious and social rules, Yahweh tells Moses to take vengeance on the Midianites, who used to be Moabites, presumably for the crime of inviting them to other god's BBQs and showing the men a good time. So, 12,000 men, 1,000 from each tribe, were sent into battle, along with Phineas, the son of the high priest, the same guy who had run a spear through the Midianite woman and Israeli man. They fought against Midian and killed every man, including Balaam, the guy with the talking donkey.
*The Israelite army burned the Midianite towns and camps, after they plundered them. They took their spoils, including the women and children , back to the Israelite camp. Moses was upset, because it was the Midianite/Moabite women who had enticed the Israelite men. He ordered all the sexually active women killed. The reason given for this was that they were following Balaam's advice on how to turn the Israelites away from Yahweh. This is very strange because chapters 22-24 clearly show Balaam speaking on behalf of Yahweh and the Israelites, and blessing them. There is no mention of him giving any advice for turning the Israelites away from Yahweh.
*Moses also ordered the killing of all the boys, but gives no reason. Then, he says the Israelite army can save all the virgin girls for themselves, we can guess the reason. The fighting men who had killed, and the captive virgins, were to remain outside the camp for seven days, to be "purified." The thought of this makes my blood run cold. All metals, were to be passed through a fire and washed with holy water, for cleansing. Everything that couldn't be passed through a fire was just to be washed with the water of cleansing.
*Next, Yahweh told Moses to count all the people ( the girls) and the animals that were captured and divide up the spoils. Half for the fighting men, half for the rest of the community. From the soldier's share, one out of every 500, of the girls, cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys was to be given to the priests, um, the lord. From the community share, one out of every 50. We are given the numbers for each of the kinds of animals and the virgins, because this is the book of numbers after all. There were 32,000 females divvied up that day.
*After the distribution of the spoils, the commanders of the army told Moses that not a single fighting man had been lost. Incredible. They also had gold to give to the priests, um, the lord. Of course Moses and the priests accepted the gold on Yahweh's behalf, and the soldiers had some left over for themselves, naturally.
*After a brief intermission, laying down some religious and social rules, Yahweh tells Moses to take vengeance on the Midianites, who used to be Moabites, presumably for the crime of inviting them to other god's BBQs and showing the men a good time. So, 12,000 men, 1,000 from each tribe, were sent into battle, along with Phineas, the son of the high priest, the same guy who had run a spear through the Midianite woman and Israeli man. They fought against Midian and killed every man, including Balaam, the guy with the talking donkey.
*The Israelite army burned the Midianite towns and camps, after they plundered them. They took their spoils, including the women and children , back to the Israelite camp. Moses was upset, because it was the Midianite/Moabite women who had enticed the Israelite men. He ordered all the sexually active women killed. The reason given for this was that they were following Balaam's advice on how to turn the Israelites away from Yahweh. This is very strange because chapters 22-24 clearly show Balaam speaking on behalf of Yahweh and the Israelites, and blessing them. There is no mention of him giving any advice for turning the Israelites away from Yahweh.
*Moses also ordered the killing of all the boys, but gives no reason. Then, he says the Israelite army can save all the virgin girls for themselves, we can guess the reason. The fighting men who had killed, and the captive virgins, were to remain outside the camp for seven days, to be "purified." The thought of this makes my blood run cold. All metals, were to be passed through a fire and washed with holy water, for cleansing. Everything that couldn't be passed through a fire was just to be washed with the water of cleansing.
*Next, Yahweh told Moses to count all the people ( the girls) and the animals that were captured and divide up the spoils. Half for the fighting men, half for the rest of the community. From the soldier's share, one out of every 500, of the girls, cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys was to be given to the priests, um, the lord. From the community share, one out of every 50. We are given the numbers for each of the kinds of animals and the virgins, because this is the book of numbers after all. There were 32,000 females divvied up that day.
*After the distribution of the spoils, the commanders of the army told Moses that not a single fighting man had been lost. Incredible. They also had gold to give to the priests, um, the lord. Of course Moses and the priests accepted the gold on Yahweh's behalf, and the soldiers had some left over for themselves, naturally.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Numbers chapter 5
After reading chapter 5:
*Yahweh tells Moses that anyone, male or female, with a skin disease, a discharge, or who has come in contact with a dead body, must be sent outside the camp so they don't "defile" it. Supposedly, the Israelites did that.
*Next, Yahweh tells Moses that any one who has wronged another person, or God, must confess and make equal restitution plus a fifth. If there is no one to give the restitution to, it is to be given to the priest, along with a ram for atonement. Everything given to the priest belongs to the priest, another job benefit.
*Verses 11-29 is one of the most disturbing passages I have come upon so far. It is how to test to see if a wife is unfaithful, not because there reason to believe she is, but because the husband is feeling jealous.
-First the husband is to take the wife to the priest, along with an offering of barley flour for jealousy. Who wants to bet that the woman had no choice in this matter?
-The priest will make the woman stand before the lord. Presumably this means in front of the tabernacle.
-The priest will put holy water in a clay jar. There is no explanation of where he got the holy water and what makes it holy compared to regular water. Then, get this, he will scoop up dirt from the tabernacle floor and put it in the water.
-Then the priest will loosen the woman's hair, and make her hold the barley flour offering. (Humiliation?) While she is doing that, he says a magical oath over the pitcher of dirty water: If the woman has been faithful to her husband, may the bitter water not harm her; BUT if she has been unfaithful, may she be under a curse that causes her abdomen to swell and any child she is carrying to be miscarried. How's that for the sanctity of life in the womb?
-The woman is required to say, "Amen, so be it."
-The priest then writes the above curses on a scroll and washes the curses off the scroll into the water in the pitcher. One wonders what the ink was made from.
-Next, the priest takes the grain offering, waves it in front of the lord, and burns a handful of it. After that, he makes the woman drink the " bitter," cursed, dirty water. Again, do you think she had a choice?
-If the woman was not unfaithful, nothing would happen to her. She would be declared clean and would be able to have children. If she was unfaithful, her abdomen would swell, her womb would miscarry, and she would become a bitter curse. This would be proof of her guilt. Of course it would have nothing to do with the filthy poisoned water she was given. How many times do you think a woman would have been proven faithful using this method? (What happened to the woman after she was proved "guilty" of adultery?)
-No matter what the result, the husband would not be considered guilty of any wrong doing. One wonders what the test for an unfaithful husband was, or if there even was one.
*Yahweh tells Moses that anyone, male or female, with a skin disease, a discharge, or who has come in contact with a dead body, must be sent outside the camp so they don't "defile" it. Supposedly, the Israelites did that.
*Next, Yahweh tells Moses that any one who has wronged another person, or God, must confess and make equal restitution plus a fifth. If there is no one to give the restitution to, it is to be given to the priest, along with a ram for atonement. Everything given to the priest belongs to the priest, another job benefit.
*Verses 11-29 is one of the most disturbing passages I have come upon so far. It is how to test to see if a wife is unfaithful, not because there reason to believe she is, but because the husband is feeling jealous.
-First the husband is to take the wife to the priest, along with an offering of barley flour for jealousy. Who wants to bet that the woman had no choice in this matter?
-The priest will make the woman stand before the lord. Presumably this means in front of the tabernacle.
-The priest will put holy water in a clay jar. There is no explanation of where he got the holy water and what makes it holy compared to regular water. Then, get this, he will scoop up dirt from the tabernacle floor and put it in the water.
-Then the priest will loosen the woman's hair, and make her hold the barley flour offering. (Humiliation?) While she is doing that, he says a magical oath over the pitcher of dirty water: If the woman has been faithful to her husband, may the bitter water not harm her; BUT if she has been unfaithful, may she be under a curse that causes her abdomen to swell and any child she is carrying to be miscarried. How's that for the sanctity of life in the womb?
-The woman is required to say, "Amen, so be it."
-The priest then writes the above curses on a scroll and washes the curses off the scroll into the water in the pitcher. One wonders what the ink was made from.
-Next, the priest takes the grain offering, waves it in front of the lord, and burns a handful of it. After that, he makes the woman drink the " bitter," cursed, dirty water. Again, do you think she had a choice?
-If the woman was not unfaithful, nothing would happen to her. She would be declared clean and would be able to have children. If she was unfaithful, her abdomen would swell, her womb would miscarry, and she would become a bitter curse. This would be proof of her guilt. Of course it would have nothing to do with the filthy poisoned water she was given. How many times do you think a woman would have been proven faithful using this method? (What happened to the woman after she was proved "guilty" of adultery?)
-No matter what the result, the husband would not be considered guilty of any wrong doing. One wonders what the test for an unfaithful husband was, or if there even was one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)