I found this article interesting considering this discussion.. Specifically this part:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200..._zk_PW_MWM 0F
Does the New Testament really justify the church's shabby treatment of women? On the surface, it would appear so, at least if we listen to St. Paul:
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. I Timothy 2:11-12
Although this verse seems to give a clear explanation of the role of women in the church, things aren't always what they seem when it comes to interpreting the Bible. The first rule of good biblical interpretation is always to examine the historical context in which a passage was written. If we don't know why the verse was written then, we stand little chance of understanding what it means now.
A first-century perspective
Paul's letters were written in the first century to an audience of Jews, Romans and Greeks. Again, this was not the 21st century. It was the first.
First-century life was much like it had been in the previous millennium. That is to say that in most ancient civilizations, women had no rights. Under Hebrew law, a woman was a thing to be bought, sold or coveted like a piece of property or a neighbor's goat. Old Testament laws against rape and adultery gave no recourse to the woman who was violated. Any fines that were levied against the perpetrator were paid to the woman's father or husband who, for all practical purposes, owned his daughter or wife. Marriages were business transactions, with a young woman being the commodity over which men bargained. Whether she brought 50 cattle or 500, all women were chattel. The only thing folks haggled over was the price.
Things were little better in Greece and Rome. Under Roman law, a woman had no rights. As a child, she was her father's; as an adult, her husband's. Both had the power of life and death over her. Little wonder the Apostle Paul instructed women as he did, since most self-respecting Jews and Romans of the first century wouldn't have allowed a woman to teach them anything. She would have enjoyed about the same reception as a slave or a child. Had a woman done otherwise than submit to her husband, she could have been killed. In fact, it is remarkable that Paul gave women the recognition that he did. By first-century standards, he was a liberal.
In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul makes provision for women to prophesy (i.e. preach) in the church. In Romans, he sends greetings to his friend Phoebe, a deacon. And, throughout his missionary journeys, he worked collegially with many women, some of whom the New Testament mentions by name (such as Euodia and Priscilla). Most notable is his reference in Romans, chapter 16 to "Junia" as an apostle of note. Conservative scribes could never let this pass, so some early manuscripts were changed to read "Junias" or "Julius," both male names.
Today's Greek New Testament (the language in which the New Testament was written) as well as more recent English translations, such as the New Revised Standard Version, correct the problem and acknowledge Junia as having been called by Paul as an apostle.
This unusual level of respect within the church for women didn't originate with Paul. Jesus had publicly associated with women - even outcast women such as prostitutes and Samaritans - at a time when few rabbis would be caught speaking to any woman outside of his own family. No, the Apostle Paul did not give the church license to dominate women. Paul's ultimate hope for both men and women was that there would be no distinctions within the church. As he put it in his letter to the Church at Galatia, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Now that's radical stuff.
How to justify past sins
This is not the first time the church has had to escape the clutches of biblical injunctions that have no place in today's world. St. Paul ordered slaves to submit to their masters and masters to be good to their slaves. He never even hinted that a better option for masters would be to free their slaves. Even the most literalistic interpreters of Scripture now concede that for one person to enslave another is sin. Yet, during the 19th century, Southerners, of whom I am one, used the Bible to justify their sin. Two centuries and a bloody civil war later, we should know better.
So, I ask the male leaders of our religious institutions: Will we do the same? The secular world is ready to confer upon women the loftiest mantles of leadership. Will God's own people stand in the way? When church leaders quote texts written in the first century to people living in the 21st century, do we not sound like my Southern forebears who tried to stop the abolitionist movement (and later the civil rights movement) by quoting the Bible?
The irony here is palpable. An institution that prides itself on being the conscience of society has become a barrier to half of its members reaching their full potential. It's even worse than that. What many churches are doing would be illegal were it not for the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause shielding church from state. Perhaps the saddest thing is that by subordinating women in this fashion, churches are cutting themselves off from a huge talent pool. In a world run amok, can we really afford it?
Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a minister, lawyer and author of10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).
---------------------
Me:
I do really believe thats a huge problem with many people and their interpretations of any "holy book." Especially on the topics of women. As those books were written in a time so backwards with regards to women's rights, many texts really have no place in today's world. Kinda amazing how people cling to an outdated past when it fits their agenda, but convienently forget the parts that dont.
