The Persecution of Women in the Church

[Newman]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Newman, you'll find that most of my objections had to do with the direction the thread went, which was predictable, and not to the original post, or even the topic in general.

I do tire of what I view as male-bashing. I don't have a bunch of abusive men in my life. I've met a few. But I don't blame the entire gender for a few jerks. Or the entire church for a few jerks.

MissBrattified- I too have been blessed with extraordinary men in my life, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some biases that have hurt some women and certainly there is a poster that is predictably going to say so.

I am only surprised that Chancellor hasn't arrived yet to complete the swing of the pendelum the full 180 in the opposite direction.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Newman

CH-

1. The early church fathers (not to be confused with the early church leaders who walked with Christ and laid the foundation for the church) were indeed heavily influenced by Helenistic thought. Greek philophers viewed woman with great disdain; as a lesser human and/or a great distraction.

2. However as an aside, I would note that Augustine was raised by a godly mother. He wrote of her “As an infant I had drunk in the name of [Christ] my Savior...along with my mother’s milk. I had cherished that name piously, and treasured it always in the depths of my heart. Hence no masterpiece in which that name failed to appear; however learned, polished, and truthful it might be, could bear me away entirely.”

Notwithstanding, he became a huge playboy and thus viewed women as temptations that he could not resist and pursued other philosophies. However, Christ won out in the long run and so he wrote that these things could not bear him away entirely (from the love of Christ he learned from his mother).

3. I haven't really ever considered before if its possible to be a great man without a great mother or grandmother behind him (although it would obviously be easier). I wonder what history shows us?

Watch out! I expect Chauncellor will have something to say on this thread!

Great post ....

where is Chan??????

[Dora]

Originally Posted by Felicity

The initial post of this thread is what caught my attention and why I decided to respond.

I would like to know how women are being "persecuted" in the church today as I know it, have lived it, have experienced it and have pastored it --- "it" referring to the church.

Because a woman has been told she can't wear red or a hair bow or jewelry or makeup ..... this is supposed to constitute "persecution"? What a laugh!!

I know women and men today who are being persecuted for their faith in real terms. They're thrown into jails and prisons, suffer beatings, repeated raping, starvation and even death because of their faith. This is what I think of when I think of "persecution". I certainly never considered my pastor teaching me that I shouldn't cut my hair or wear shorts or pants as "persecution". I wouldn't consider the fact that woman isn't accepted for "ordination" as persecution either.

The fact is ....... God has set certain things in order. One of those things is order in regards to headship, and it was God Himself who established in the very beginning that the order is ....

God

Man

Woman

I didn't set it up. Neither did Adam. God did. And the principles of headship and order are seen throughout scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

Does this mean that women can't lead? No. Because we see example in scripture of women leading but always under God and under man.

I have no problem overall with male authority. I prefer male leadership. Does every man lead perfectly? No. Are there men who take advantage? Definitely. Are there poor male role models and is there poor male leadership? Absolutely.

But this was God's plan from the beginning - male authority and headship. Just because men violate their role and take advantage doesn't negate God's commands or His plan. We need to stick with the principles that have been established in God's Word when it comes to this issue and all others too, of course.

And in my own personal experience overall, the male leadership I've had in my own life personally -- and in the church too -- has been positive, affirming, encouraging, assuring and as God mandated it to be.

Felicity,

I don't think you read my post with the understanding also.

I was clearly stating that after considering all the crud that goes on in other denominations, whining about an ultracon UPC preacher's stipulation that women not wear red tights or hair bows sorta looks petty.

Did you not get that from my post?

You must have something against me. I'm hurt!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Newman

Ok I think if you read the last 4-10 pages of the pants thread, you may get some idea of why a historical reference thread may have been brought into play.

(Or it may have been totally unrelated, but it fit in with what I had been posting and showed that women being viewed as temptation was a very old idea originally promulgated by the forerunners of the Catholic Church.).

Okay...I read the article (quickly)...my comments:

1. The article was too short...sighted. And shallow.
2. I was more offended by the comment about women "moving to music" than anything else....LOL!!! But....the idea that men are staring at women on the platform and sexually fantasizing...and that women should carry even a small part of the blame for that...is stupid.

So...lemme go read the Pants thread and I'll be back.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I finally read the original post and it isn't about standards or submission. It's about treating women like second class citizens which isn't what the true church of Christ is all about.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28

So, Crazyhomie, how is the body of Christ treating half of its members as second class citizens? I'm not feeling this.

Good word, and we all look forward to the day when we will not experience anxiety nor any offensive spirit that walks this earth.
THough I can't speak for Crazyhomie, I would like to adress your last question, having been reared in Pentecostal roots, I often witnessed in our Hispanic churches, the "submission" to male authority by the veiling of women in our churches, only teaching positions that did not threaten men( to children, only), and forbidding them to preach other than an occaisonal testimonial. Their response to this was raising up their own women who worked within these boundries to do the work of church, sometimes accomplishing more than their male counterparts. My 80 year old mother being a gracious example of this. Times have changed, but they still require headcovering. Women still do not preach in these congregations (no matter what credentials they hold). As a man, I'm blessed we are not like the world today that highly regards power driven women who immasculate men, and then celibrates. God bless all our sanctified Grandmothers, Mothers and wives (if you are fortunate enough to have them).

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

Dearest Felicity,

P.S. The only reason you have found women to be disloyal is that you are a pretty and intelligent woman and you are competion. Women, as a rule. aren't loyal when there is one man for every ten or so women. Men are pretty loyal and as a rule do not infringe on another's territory - unless they are idiots:sshhh.

Rhoni- You are a scream!

[Dora]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

Dearest Felicity,

I have never thought you 'slow' in any way, shape, or form. I have thought you definitely irritatingly irrational when it comes to defending men. Of course, you have learned the secret that many of us women haven't...if you defend men they will come to your defense.

The Rhoni in me just can't forget that the men in her life have never been there for her and so she waits for a man to come along and prove that Godly men do truly exist. Do I hate men...no. Come to think about it I have a love/hate relationship with men. I hate to love them.

Your friend, Rhoni

P.S. The only reason you have found women to be disloyal is that you are a pretty and intelligent woman and you are competion. Women, as a rule. aren't loyal when there is one man for every ten or so women. Men are pretty loyal and as a rule do not infringe on another's territory - unless they are idiots:sshhh.

Ok...yes, Felicity, you are quite lovely and intelligent, but I'm afraid it's your defense of men who would have you surrounded by ushers and escorted to the altar to be prayed through as soon as you walked through the church doors because of the way you look today, that just annoys the snot out of me.

There I said it.

Take me to the cleaners, steam press my hide and hang me out to cure like beef jerky.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Okay...I read the article (quickly)...my comments:

1. The article was too short...sighted. And shallow.
2. I was more offended by the comment about women "moving to music" than anything else....LOL!!! But....the idea that men are staring at women on the platform and sexually fantasizing...and that women should carry even a small part of the blame for that...is stupid.

So...lemme go read the Pants thread and I'll be back.

So we agree.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Dora

Felicity,

I don't think you read my post with the understanding also.

I was clearly stating that after considering all the crud that goes on in other denominations, whining about an ultracon UPC preacher's stipulation that women not wear red tights or hair bows sorta looks petty.

Did you not get that from my post?

You must have something against me. I'm hurt!

I just went back and found your post and read it again. I didn't read with the understanding I guess. Just my problem of not slowing down enough and reading comprehensively. I have nothing whatever against you.

[Coonskinner]

[QUOTE=rgcraig;242402]Abuse and dominance is one thing.

Persecution is another.

I have never been persecuted.[/QUOTE

Add Renda to the common sense list with Miss B and Felicity.