Women should keep silent in the assembly?

[Bree]

For what reason would a woman not have the same right as a man to speak in a religious assembly? Other than sheer sexism of course. I'm not speaking of women chatting and gossiping. No one should be rude--men cannot do this either. I'm speaking of the contribution to the learning and worship.

The most well known religious prohibition is from 1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak," and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

Be aware, of course, that this sort of thing doesn't just exist in Christianity, but other religions as well. Thus, I hope we get responses from multiple religions.

In Orthodox Judaism, for example, the tradition is not to have women rabbis. Now it is controversial there because some women are pushing the envelope and gaining semikha (ordination). That causes a lot of anxiety and hard feelings among those who are opposed. For example, I was reading just the other day about a woman who taught in a Jewish school in the UK. When she received her ordination, she was let go from her job.

BTW, this post is not meant to be a slam of any religion or sect. I think that all of them have made a lot of progress compared to how things were in the past.

Anyhow, this post was inspired by visiting a website outlining the beliefs of Messianic Israelism (I was hoping to better understand one of the writers in this forum). So while some may try to claim that this is a thing of the past, trust me, in some groups it is still very much alive.

Okay, let the discussion begin.

It comes down to the arrangement of God.

He has assigned certain roles to men that he has not assigned to women.

God has directed men to be the head of the family and in the 'assembly' to lead the assembly in worship. God has not assigned women that role so by taking that role they are really showing great disrespect for Gods authority.

To women he has assigned the role of teachers to their own children and to the younger women.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm not saying women should be prevented by society from pursuing careers. If that's what you really want to do.

It's interesting though as this discussion reminds me of an article I read many years ago written by a women who left her high ranking corporate career to live as a housewife with her children. She was emphatic in that it opened her eyes to the emptiness of her corporate life and all its meaningless achievements as she found herself much happier being able to spend every day with her children. As Christians we believe that we are judged by our love, service and virtue of which a devoted housewife gives in abundance. Our careers are counted as meaningless in the eyes of God. It will mean nothing the moment your heart stops beating.

I’m happy for her; as I’ve said before in the thread, I 100% support housewives that want to be housewives, it’s valid. I support househusbands that want to be househusbands, it’s valid.

But this whole idea that there’s a “perfect relationship” based on these artificial sex roles is what I have a problem with, and it’s because no two people and no two couples are the same; there is no magical role delegation that works well for everyone.

I’m a scientist, or at least a grad student finishing my MS soon and bridging to PhD. I derive a great deal of joy from my professional life; the housewife life will never be for me. People are different from each other and I just think it’s toxic and harmful to lay these expectations on people to follow the same roles based entirely on their sex.

 

[ChristineM]

For what reason would a woman not have the same right as a man to speak in a religious assembly? Other than sheer sexism of course. I'm not speaking of women chatting and gossiping. No one should be rude--men cannot do this either. I'm speaking of the contribution to the learning and worship.

The most well known religious prohibition is from 1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak," and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

Be aware, of course, that this sort of thing doesn't just exist in Christianity, but other religions as well. Thus, I hope we get responses from multiple religions.

In Orthodox Judaism, for example, the tradition is not to have women rabbis. Now it is controversial there because some women are pushing the envelope and gaining semikha (ordination). That causes a lot of anxiety and hard feelings among those who are opposed. For example, I was reading just the other day about a woman who taught in a Jewish school in the UK. When she received her ordination, she was let go from her job.

BTW, this post is not meant to be a slam of any religion or sect. I think that all of them have made a lot of progress compared to how things were in the past.

Anyhow, this post was inspired by visiting a website outlining the beliefs of Messianic Israelism (I was hoping to better understand one of the writers in this forum). So while some may try to claim that this is a thing of the past, trust me, in some groups it is still very much alive.

Okay, let the discussion begin.

Just one of several reasons why i am atheist.

 

[ChristineM]

It is the husband's job to lead the family.

No it's not, marriage is a partnership, an equal partnership. If as you suggest the husband should take the lead then i would consider this to be a sham marriage without equality

 

[stvdv]

For what reason would a woman not have the same right as a man to speak in a religious assembly?

No reason

BTW, this post is not meant to be a slam of any religion or sect. I think that all of them have made a lot of progress compared to how things were in the past.

Good point

Anyhow, this post was inspired by visiting a website outlining the beliefs of Messianic Israelism (I was hoping to better understand one of the writers in this forum). So while some may try to claim that this is a thing of the past, trust me, in some groups it is still very much alive.

I trust you. If you would trust me then you would know the answer

The most well known religious prohibition is from 1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak," and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

Sai Baba declared "God is man, human (man and woman) is woman". See it in this Truth solves the whole misinterpretation, hence misunderstanding

 

[epronovost]

No, that is not what I said at all. I said that each have their assignments and are happy to fulfill them, knowing why God made that arrangement in the first place. It creates balance and an atmosphere where competition is not going to cause friction.

It is headship, not dictatorship as I already mentioned. It is exercised in love and is in no way, a position of power. Decisions are arrived at in the family through consultation. All in the family have talents and virtues.

Then get open your eyes. Being at the head of the house is explicitly a position of power. People don't "submit" to peers that's antinomic. Plus, the separate sphere ideology was demonstrated by history to monumentally grant more power, freedom and wealth to men than women. This level of denialism would be like thinking apartheid was allowed black and white people to live in peace and equality in South Africa.

 

[epronovost]

Good morning epronovost. Women can still live fulfilling lives, it's just that headship in the Bible teaches that a woman should be in subjection. The Bible also teaches that a man should be in subjection to the Messiah also (1 Corinthians 11:1-3). But I would like to point your attention to the many social justice warriors and feminists calling not simply for equal rights but the domineering of men by women and many of them won't be satisfied until men are succumbing to the wishes of the women. This is not Yahweh's way and is wrong.

The man was given the responsibility by Almighty Yahweh of leading and guiding the family. The woman was placed under his leadership, to be in subjection to the man just as Almighty Yahweh stands above the Messiah in position. The woman was created as the counterpart of man (neged - or opposite, #5048 in Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible), made in his image, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. Yahweh intended the man to be the protector of the woman who is called the weaker vessel, physically speaking (1 Peter 3:7).

Nowhere does the Bible teach a doctrine such as the modern-day women's lib, that is the customary theme of the female activists in contemporary society. The Bible teaches that all members of the creation of Yahweh should recognise their unique positions into which our Creator has placed them. If each one fulfils the role for which Almighty Yahweh made them, the delicate balance that was engineered into creation will be maintained and each individual will attain personal fulfilment.

I know what I was saying. I was saying that a society built under this rule was far worst on any possible metric than the one we have now and the one feminists still try to build. Let women and men be whatever they want and can be. Let all share the same power and authority until one decides to let go of those if they want to.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Women are natural communicators. there is no way to silence them.
They have always been the ones to pass on their societies knowledge and traditions to the next generation. Men tend to control knowledge it in secret or by creating a separate men only body to do so.

 

[Brian2]

Women chatting and interrupting? Preposterous!

This no doubt does not happen with the JWs and in other places these days but that interpretation comes from a consideration of the probably conditions in the early church.
Here are 2 sites you may be interested to read.
The first is from a Southern Baptist perspective and may be close to the JW position. It concentrates on 1Tim 2.
The second is a different perspective, less literal in interpretation but nonetheless still with good insights and analysis and trying to look at the context.

What Does It Mean That Women Should “Remain Quiet” in Church? (1 Timothy 2)

What to Say When Someone Says Women Should Be Silent in Church

 

[amorphous_constellation]

This is a general rule of thumb: as soon as some belief might be rephrased as something like "well you know women, that's just the way they are," there's a good chance that thing needs to be evaluated for misogyny.

So then, what is your view on symbolic archetypes derived more directly from the symbolic or natural world? People variously use the phrase 'Mother earth.' I think it's an ancient phrase or thought, and though it likely came up in the lingo of western pop culture only in the 60's, it seems ancient, it seems like it was dormant. It is not a Christian phrase. It is in the culture now, but we don't really have a mainline pop analysis for what it means ; it is there, but the culture does not take it that seriously. We don't really know what would happen if it did, in our modern context. Same goes, with this idea of ascribing gender to the sun and moon. Anyone can see that neither object can end up overpowering the other. Every human who lived, and could see, watched and observed that this was true. Why can't a clean, rational, and spiritual anthropomorphic lesson be drawn out of that? Is the harmony of sun and moon that hard to emulate

 

[Brickjectivity]

For what reason would a woman not have the same right as a man to speak in a religious assembly? Other than sheer sexism of course. I'm not speaking of women chatting and gossiping. No one should be rude--men cannot do this either. I'm speaking of the contribution to the learning and worship.

The most well known religious prohibition is from 1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak," and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

Be aware, of course, that this sort of thing doesn't just exist in Christianity, but other religions as well. Thus, I hope we get responses from multiple religions.

In Orthodox Judaism, for example, the tradition is not to have women rabbis. Now it is controversial there because some women are pushing the envelope and gaining semikha (ordination). That causes a lot of anxiety and hard feelings among those who are opposed. For example, I was reading just the other day about a woman who taught in a Jewish school in the UK. When she received her ordination, she was let go from her job.

BTW, this post is not meant to be a slam of any religion or sect. I think that all of them have made a lot of progress compared to how things were in the past.

Anyhow, this post was inspired by visiting a website outlining the beliefs of Messianic Israelism (I was hoping to better understand one of the writers in this forum). So while some may try to claim that this is a thing of the past, trust me, in some groups it is still very much alive.

Okay, let the discussion begin.

As you can see, the thread has quickly derailed into conversations about feminism; because it was started in the wrong area. You're never going to make sense of a scripture verse this way.

 

[Samael_Khan]

That’s great for people that choose this and have the right personality; but it seems harmful to me to expect that to work for everyone. Not all men are alike, not all women are alike, and it certainly isn’t the case that we can just assume roles for people based on their sex. That leads to grief because people don’t fit cookie cutter molds like that.

Thing is, these religions think that people are prone to acting a certain way, as they view people in a stereotypical manner. That is why there are people who think that all women think the same way, therefore what their book says should work for all women. Similarly there are people who think that all homosexual people can be changed from their homosexuality. This line of thinking is wilful ignorance at its finest. The same people might say that everybody who doesn't follow their beliefs are wilfully alienating themselves from God. They lack a nuanced understanding of certain things which isn't a very intelligent thing to do.

They ignore evidence that is contrary to their position because they cannot accept that their religion is wrong in a certain matter. And they use the logical fallacy of the No True Scotsman to say that all those claiming contrary to their religions stereotype are not being honest.

Plus they will use protective stupidity to not understand the logical conclusion of any argument you make that makes sense when it contradicts their beliefs.

And yes, the way they think is harmful. And often they harm themselves as well by denying who they really are.

 

[Shakeel]

So, let me just concoct a scenario here.

Say we have a happy heterosexual couple Jim and Jill.

Jim is a competent adult man. Let’s say he’s an engineer, or a programmer, or works on HVAC, or whatever. His skills are in fixing things, clever mechanical solutions, and cooking.

Jill is a competent adult woman. Let’s say she’s an MBA and manages a firm. She has strong decision making skills, people management, financial decision making, etc.

There’s nothing un-masculine about Jim, he’s a masculine guy. And there’s nothing un-feminine about Jill, she’s a feminine woman.

Yet because of her skill set, Jill makes the family’s financial decisions, their vacation planning, delegating things that need to be done in the house, etc.

Both make decent income and share the load of raising the kids; they take turns. Jim cooks delicious meals, Jill cleans after since cooking isn’t her best skill.

What’s wrong with this perfectly healthy and plausible picture? What about Jim makes him by default a “head,” when this family doesn’t seem like it needs one?

Why is Jill working when they have children? About time to learn how to cook? Most religious conservative women don't want their husband to cook for them. It's embarrassing. During the time she raises her children she has plenty of time to learn how to cook. Preferring to go to work and to manage finances and make decisions on the home herself does make her masculine. You see if these characteristics are on a man it makes him a potential husband. Not so much a potential wife.

 

[Shakeel]

Or, and hear me out, couples can make decisions as equal partners; or based on whatever meshing of personalities best suits them; rather than making assumptions based on their sex or gender.

No, one of them always leads.

What, pray tell, are these "certain characteristics" that women have? Are there no exceptions? Do you think all women have "certain characteristics" by virtue of being women?

Women are more emotional, have less of certain practical skills, are weaker, more sensitive, less authoritative, more nurturing to their children, they have an essential role in nurturing their children which should not be given away to someone else, they are better at house work and should not be out like men. For instance.

Basically, yes, all have them, but the minor exceptions don't matter. Even in the cases that they exist it's usually the fault of their upbringing.

 

[ChristineM]

Why is Jill working when they have children? About time to learn how to cook? Most religious conservative women don't want their husband to cook for them. It's embarrassing. During the time she raises her children she has plenty of time to learn how to cook. Preferring to go to work and to manage finances and make decisions on the home herself does make her masculine. You see if these characteristics are on a man it makes him a potential husband. Not so much a potential wife.

 

[ChristineM]

No, one of them always leads.

Wrong

 

[Samael_Khan]

No, one of them always leads.

Women are more emotional, have less of certain practical skills, are weaker, more sensitive, less authoritative, more nurturing to their children, they have an essential role in nurturing their children which should not be given away to someone else, they are better at house work and should not be out like men. For instance.

Basically, yes, all have them, but the minor exceptions don't matter. Even in the cases that they exist it's usually the fault of their upbringing.

Can you provide factual and statistical evidence for this? I agree on certain points and I don't on others. For instance housework is an extremely practical thing, therefore what evidence is there that women are better than men when men are supposed to be the more practical sex?

In management positions it also seems that women are better than men because that nurturing aspect of theirs would make them better at managing people. If men do not have this nurturing aspect then their way of managing people can cause problems, which I have seen in the workplace. Therefore I would propose that women are essential to the workplace because they are better at managing people, seeing to their needs and maintaining the peace than men are, as their emotions allow them to empathise with others better than men.

As for whether women should be out like men or not, there should be a balance between the collective and the individual, and women shouldn't be shackled like slaves. Their individuality and their individual will should not be stifled by societies rules and if it does they should by principle counter that thinking.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Preferring to go to work and to manage finances and make decisions on the home herself does make her masculine. You see if these characteristics are on a man it makes him a potential husband. Not so much a potential wife.

I would actually like a woman like that. It means that she isn't reliant on me for support which makes my life easier. Plus there will be less problems should the marriage not work out. I also like a woman who has an interesting passion as there is nothing more irritating and unattractive than a mindless and aimless woman who has no drive. I wouldn't say that those things make a woman masculine. Certain mannerisms and biological features make a woman masculine.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why is Jill working when they have children? About time to learn how to cook? Most religious conservative women don't want their husband to cook for them. It's embarrassing. During the time she raises her children she has plenty of time to learn how to cook. Preferring to go to work and to manage finances and make decisions on the home herself does make her masculine. You see if these characteristics are on a man it makes him a potential husband. Not so much a potential wife.

The Dark Ages are over -- did nobody let you know?

 

[epronovost]

The Dark Ages are over -- did nobody let you know?

He longs for them. It's not the same thing.