My First Article at Patheos Is Up.

by Little Miss Attila on July 14, 2010

It’s on St. Paul, and tackles that old war-horse that he was a bit of a sexist. Not true, but it takes a bit of reading to find the real thinker in The Apostle behind the advocate for female silence.

Hat tip to The Anchoress for 1) agreeing to publish it, and 2) helping me to beat it into shape.

{ 2 trackbacks }

…In All Godliness And Honesty « The Camp Of The Saints: July 16, 2010 at 6:51 am
Fishersville Mike: Thoughts on Paul (the apostle): July 20, 2010 at 5:00 am

{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }

retriever July 14, 2010 at 4:41 pm: I couldn’t post the comment at Patheos, not sure why…Here’s what I tried to post:

Wonderful post, Joy! I have always loved Paul. Tho I did have to struggle not to laugh when I had to read that passage (part of the lectionary) during evening prayers years ago, when I was in seminary. And wore a long braid and pearl earrings…

He beautifully spells out time and time again just how people are to follow Jesus’ charge to evangelize the nations, being wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

As a former persecutor of Christians, he was in a unique position to advise the early Church on behavior that would help not hinder its growth.

Will link tomorrow. You go girl!

Reply
Texan99 July 14, 2010 at 4:54 pm: I enjoyed that. I particularly wanted to read it, because I’ve always had trouble reading Paul. Not because I considered him anti-female, though that’s the usual rap against him, but because he expresses himself so abstractly. Each Sunday we get a reading from the Old Testament, one from the Gospels, and one from the Epistles, usually. The Old Testament stuff is so full of narrative and ancient wisdom about a struggling culture. The Gospel stories are so vivid, immediate, and concrete, especially the Dominical parables, which strike right to the heart. Then there’s usually Paul, who speaks about justification and lots of other -tion words that communicate practically nothing to me, like reading stereo instructions. But he’s not an authority I’m free to discount, so I keep trying even though he makes me want to pound my head against the pew in front of me.

Reply
Azmat Hussain July 14, 2010 at 6:58 pm: Paul was a muslim, well at least that is what he sounds like, asking women to dress modestly.

Reply
Darrell July 14, 2010 at 10:30 pm: Good catch, Azmat! And since Paul (Saul) was born some 600 years before Muhammad, perhaps he was the founder of Islam. I wouldn’t have to ponder long to decide that Paul’s ideas should take precedence over what came so much later. I shall credit you fully for your insight.

Reply
Darrell July 14, 2010 at 10:33 pm: Do you suppose one’s views may be slightly influenced by their belief that the world would end and Jesus would return in their lifetime?

Reply
John July 15, 2010 at 4:37 am: The whole notion of “sexism” in the Scriptures, or on the part of any author thereof, is incompatible with the belief that the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.

It doesn’t matter whether Paul was a misogynist of Nietzschean proportions or apologized for having a penis; if he was inspired of God, then the things in his epistles are God’s words and God’s ideas (except where the text expressly states otherwise).

If Paul’s epistles are the word of God, then the only choice for a Christian is to accept what is in them and to live what is in them, or to stop pretending to be a Christian.

Reply
ponce July 15, 2010 at 8:32 am: Congrats LMA.

Reply
Little Miss Attila July 15, 2010 at 2:31 pm: Thanks, Ponce.

John, I see that there’s something on the surface a little bit crude about looking for “sexism” in the scriptures (and the word “sexism” is pretty imprecise anyway). But reading Paul can be tough sledding, as Texan notes above, because of the apparent contradictions between those passages wherein he seems to advocate slavery, versus the “no slave nor free in Christ Jesus” business, and because of the “women should be silent” vs. “no male or female in Christ Jesus” passage.

Not to mention the paradoxes about sin, and the nature of the law. He can be difficult to understand. And we cannot obey when we do not understand.

Meanwhile, there are fundamentalist churches that will not permit a woman to enter unless she’s wearing a hat, and other churches that teach that women’s heads must be covered–but that a good head of hair is sufficient to do that. (And I’m not against headcoverings for women at all: I often wear a hat myself, and have considered wearing a Catholic-style scarf (or one of the ones designed for Orthodox Jewish ladies). But the more we make these superficial matters as hard-and-fast RULES, the more people who attend a church for the first time are going to get turned away, or stared at. They won’t be back.)

And when Billy Graham’s daughter teaches from a church podium, conservative evangelical ministers get up and TURN THEIR BACKS ON HER, because of their misunderstandings about Paul’s writing. That’s a wicked way to “witness.”

Ideas have consequences, and we cannot properly adhere to rules created by someone whose epistles we are mis-reading. We just cannot.

Now . . . whether I was able to get my meaning across within a 700-word limit–I’ll leave that to you to determine 😉

Reply
Azmat Hussain July 15, 2010 at 7:15 pm: Darrell, you just don’t get it do you, Islam has been around since the time of Adam, so Moses brought Islam, so did Abraham, so did Noah, so did jesus, Mohammed just re-iterated the same message, thats all. That is why all christians and jews are muslims first. Including you!

Reply
Little Miss Attila July 15, 2010 at 8:31 pm: Well, it was more fun being fellow “people of the cloth” when a significant fraction of Muslims weren’t trying to kill us.

Reply
Darrell July 15, 2010 at 11:48 pm: That’s what must have attracted you to the Left, Azmat., your penchant for revisionist history. I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You don’t. And it’s not because you told me you don’t believe in “that God stuff.” Jesus would forgive you for not capitalizing His Name. Lots of people reading won’t even hear the volumes it speaks. Words are more than tools, Azmat. So much more.

Reply
John July 16, 2010 at 3:51 am: Azmat, why was it needful for Mohammed to merely repeat what had been revealed earlier? If, as Muslims maintain, the record of prior revelations has been distorted, then either Mohammed has done something different to prevent distortion of his revelation, or his revelation, having now been around for longer than Jesus’ revelation was at the time of Mohammed, has surely been distorted.

But if Mohammed has done something different, then the revelation is not the same as the ones before.

One of these must be true. Either Mohammed’s revelation is no longer trustworthy, or it is not the original religion of God.

Reply
Azmat Hussain July 18, 2010 at 8:30 am: Reminder ! thats all John, records will always be interpreted and re-interpreted by all new generations. But you know how human beings are, you invite them for a party and they forget, so you send them a reminder.
I don’t think that Muslims would claim that records were distorted, rather it is human nature that in a religious hierarchy some folks will use power to force their point of view. That is the only place where Mohammed is different, he left no religious hierarchy, so I am free to interpret without someone telling me. I don’t think that Jesus would advance a continued religious hierarchy where the Pope has divine inspiration.
Yeh same message, even distorted by muslims today evidenced by fatwas, but the good part is I am not compelled to by into any fatwa, by definition.

Reply

My First Article at Patheos Is Up.

Search this site

Links and Things

Pages

Archives

New Posts

Site Admin