The blog where I rant about things that should be obvious to everyone

As a man with a 4 year degree in computer science, and a mediocre job doing web development I'm not really qualified to comment on politics, religion, or anything else, but I'll be damned if that stops me.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Churchianity at its finest

Definition of churchianity: when a Christian body creates a set of beliefs or doctrines that do not come from the Bible, but rather from a desire to avoid conflict with modern culture.

I recently was sent a link to a local pastors endorsement of a feminist blog post.

It'd be best if you read the whole thing, but the crux of it is this: 
i don’t think much about the fact that i’m a woman.i just think of myself as a person.
This is of course is in the middle of an article that anyone with any sort of red pill knowledge could easily identify as being written by a woman based purely on tone and structure. The way that the article is void of abstract logic or evidence, but instead is a flowing narrative about how she feels about herself, and is personally outraged at any thought that is not in line with how she feels about herself, is a fine example of how men and women think differently.
But of course the fact that men and women clearly have very different thought patterns (which is not even part of Christian theology, it's well documented and easily observable to those who don't slavishly adhere to the worldly doctrine of equality) is aside from the point. She doesn't think of herself as a women. She thinks of herself as a person.
To further demonstrate this point that she's not a woman but a person, who does not filter her thoughts through her gender, she goes on to share this story.
i remember a man once saying to me:"zena, you’re really funny. no. really. you’re actually funny.”and what i think he meant was that i was smart. i think he meant that i could call events into question and have thoughtful, reasoned positions and even share them in an articulate, humorous way.shocking, i know.i was confused by his “compliment.” and then i remembered. oh right. i have boobs.
Conspicuously lacking from this post is any reference to the Bible. With good reason. The Word of God stands in direct opposition to her view.
1 Timothy 2:12-14: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
maybe that makes me odd. no, it probably does. it’s definitely made for some awkward moments.like that one where i openly questioned a pastor about his preaching technique.awkward.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
or the one where i spoke my mind in opposition to my husband at a church outing.awkward.
1 Peter 3:1-4Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
the point is, i didn’t stop to think about it because i consider myself a human being. a person with a mind and opinions that I can share if I so choose.radical.
But of course the entity of what the Bible has to say on gender roles doesn't actually matter, because she doesn't think of herself as a woman. She thinks of herself as a person.
Now I understand that some of the verses above might make some readers uncomfortable. In fact, trying to live and openly teach said verses could reasonably be expected to make you hated by a significant portion of our society. It's not at all in tune with the idea that all people groups, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, are pretty much equally suited for all things.

But if that is just too much, well you're free to stop thinking of men and women as men and women, and simply think of them as people. It might not be Biblical, but I bet it makes you a lot more comfortable.  

11 comments:

  1. support fundamentalists and creationists (even if you believe in evolution)

    a rigid interpretation of the bible is a natural defense against churchianity

    especially the story of creation

    nothing else puts the onus on the female quite like it

    and God knows females don't have enough onus on them these days!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your comment seems to have some things missing from it. I assume that by the first bit you are saying that anyone who wants to combat feminism should support fundamentalist creationists regardless of their own religious beliefs due to the fact that fundamental, christian creationism is an effect means.

      But I'm not following on putting the onus on women. The onus to what?

      Delete
  2. This is similar to the argument slave owners in America had. The Bible condones slavery and even has teachings on how slaves should obey their masters. I am assuming you don't slavery. It seems to me you are skipping any cultural and historical context. If you are following the Bible literally, please explain how we are to pick and choose which teachings to follow. Why not have slaves? Is it too uncomfortable for you? Or do you value a person's life as a child of God?
    6 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare[a] of their slaves

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So where American Slave owners at the time wrong? Would their arguments be right 2000 years ago? If so when did their arguments become wrong?

      Either the wrongness of slavery is purely cultural, the Bible's support of slavery is wrong, or you're belief that the Bible supports slavery as defined in pre Civil War America is wrong. Which one do you think it is?

      Delete
  3. Oh and that scripture is also from Timothy, 1 Timothy 6:1-2

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think your making my point with these questions. Is slavery that is mentioned in the Bible the same as pre Civil War slavery? Does the Bible support slavery? No how so I know this? I studied the context of which slavery is mentioned. My point is if I read the scriptures literally and did not know the historical and political background then I would believe the Bible deems slavery to be acceptable. The same goes with the passages you posted on women. I have studied the context and why Paul was trying to establish order in the church of Ephesus. Is there a difference between women's behavior in the church of Ephesus and the modern church? Yes. My point is if you are going to take passages literally you have to take all of them literally or you are doing exactly what you believe the post you mentioned is doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps it was a mistake to mention the difference in the institutions of slavery as that's aside from the point. So let's talk about the context in which slavery is mentioned in the Bible. From Wikipedia on slavery in the Roman Empire: "Rome forbade the harbouring of fugitive slaves, and professional slave-catchers were hired to hunt down runaways. Advertisements were posted with precise descriptions of escaped slaves, and offered rewards.[54] If caught, fugitives could be punished by being whipped, burnt with iron, or killed."

      Do you genuinely believe that the Bible supports this sort of treatment of people? Is whipping, burning, and killing slaves for running away truly supported by 1 Timothy 6:1-2? Or does 1 Timothy 6:1-2 at any time say that it's ok to capture and enslave people? I ask because you've obviously constructed a very weak straw man. The Bible does not endorse slavery outside of the Old Testament nation of Israel. 1 Timothy 1:10 lists enslaving other men as a grave sin. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 tells one how to act if one is a slave, which is clearly distinct from endorsing slavery.

      There is a reason I included 1 Timothy 2:13-14, and didn't just quote 1 Timothy 2:12. Verses 13 and 14 give the rationale behind verse 12. And the rational has nothing to do with culture and could not be more timeless: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” This is why Paul says "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." The fact that Adam came first established a natural order in which men are properly in authority over women. The fact that Eve was deceived and not Adam is why women should not teach.

      So can you answer the following question:
      Do you believe that a plain text reading of 1 Timothy 6:1-2 supports capturing free men and enslaving them, enslaving men as a form of debt payment, or burning, wiping or killing men who are slaves?

      Delete
  5. I already answered that question. I think we are at the point in the discussion where we agree to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must have missed it, unless you are saying that yes 1 Timothy 6:1-2 does support robbing another man of his freedom, or wiping him, or burning him, or killing him.

      My point is that it's not that 1 Timothy 6:1-2 seems to support these things, and then only when correctly viewed through the proper cultural and historical lens does it become clear that the Bible does not support these things. It's that the conclusions you've drawn from the text do not follow from a plain, literal reading anymore than they do from a reading through the lens of Roman Era slavery. It's like you're saying that "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" is a Biblical endorsement for slapping people.

      But if you want to agree to disagree that's fine. You're perfectly welcome believe that the best literal interpretation of "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered" is "go burn somebody".

      Delete
  6. Hello,

    This has been a topic that has irked me over the years. Most churches and those belonging to them choose to completely ignore what is said of women's conduct in church in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. If it is acknowledged, it is disregarded as a teaching pertaining only to that time (culture) long ago. If we can choose to disregard these instructions/commands for the church, then I suppose I can pick and choose what is true and what isn't anywhere in the Bible... how ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Royal, didn't know you were reading my blog, but it's good to hear you're thoughts. And I couldn't agree more. It's very hard to find a church that fearlessly follows God and is not afraid of at least parts of the Bible.

      Delete