Thursday, January 24, 2013

Gender Roles from the Bakery

So the Pentagon is opening up more combat roles in the military for women.

Yay! More opportunity for our precious daughters to get shot up and maimed! Progress and stuff!

So glad we got to the point where, as a nation, it's no longer un-cool to send your wife or daughter downstairs to check on the scary noise at night.  For a moment there, I thought I might actually have to protect the women in my life.  THANK YOU, PROGRESS!

My life will be so much more satisfying now that I can guiltlessly choose the path of impotent, bubble-wrapped mediocrity.  Or maybe it'll just be easier... not sure about the whole satisfying thing.

Gender roles?  Can I buy those at the bakery?

It's not like I ever wanted my sons to learn what it meant to love sacrificially; to lay down their lives for their sisters and their wives; to be men who were prepared to come to the aid of the weak and the oppressed.

I mean, goodness, can you imagine how oppressed my poor daughters would be if their brothers opened doors for them all the time?  The chauvinism.  

And if I ever come across a girl being attacked in a dark alley, well, I certainly wouldn't want to interfere with her opportunity to show her equality!  Though I gotta say, I hope she went to the same school of womanhood as Black Widow and Catwoman and all those other movie stars.  

And if she doesn't make it out of the alley alive, no reason for me to lose sleep! Natural selection has worked its will once again!

But I do have one more request.  While we're progressing, and being equal, do you think we could make registration for the draft mandatory for girls, too?  Just being fair 'n stuff.


Anonymous said...

Lol!!! Good one.

RE Parker said...

Those are not American uniforms in that picture...

However, the point is well taken. This all reminds me of what I heard the other day on "The View" (no, I do not watch it, but when it just happens to be what Granddaddy has on, I can't help it!)The women were moaning and groaning about guys not being's like: "Duh! You can't have it both ways! Either you get treated like WOMEN...or you get treated like EVERYBODY else!! You're the ones who have gripped about being treated differently...You can't be 'equal' [how they view it] and treated like a lady at the same time!"

Shelby Thomas said...


I'm so thankful for the godly men in my generation.

Great post!

Susanne Moore said...

Oi...when people try to stray from their God-given roles...

Hehehe, yeah RE Parker, I was gonna say, there ain't no letting your hair down in the US military for women. :)

Gods Country Boy said...

Love the Satire. Makes a great culture-savvy point.
Honestly, it is such fun being a guy - being the hero and saving the ladies. I don't know how those "impotent bubble-wrapped medicocre" men, or just so in mere title, actually survive.
Cause what guy wouldn't want to deck out in camo and sneak after a deer or a villian holding a lady hostage, with bow or rifle, or even a mere bowie knife? How does a good ole dose of manly adventure sound?

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Heehee, thanks for the accuracy check, RE. :-D

(I kinda wondered about that, but I liked the picture, so... yeah.)

David- let's do it! I'll pack a lunch and some extra ammo. ;-)

Although, in all seriousness, I think there are lots of men who would shrink from the thought of doing something dirty and dangerous like those things which you mentioned.

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Oh, and to RE's point about "The View"- YES. If I do open the door for her, I'm accused of misogyny. If I don't, I'm a boor. Decisions, decisions.

ElizabethLiberty said...

Hey Gabriel! I really enjoy your insightful posts. I've nominated you for the Liebster award. Have fun! ;)

Austin Harrison said...

The Sarcasm is strong with this one.

Great points and put in humorous manner. Nice Job sir. :)

Jemimah said...

RE Parker - Maybe if those women started being women, then the guys they know would be real men. =)

Anonymous said...

I've been lurking around your blog for a little while, but I finally decided to comment because based on this, and other things I have read here (both recent, and in the archives) I am forced to conflict with your view. NO, I do not believe that what the Pentagon did is right. And yes, I do believe that men have stopped being men; that they need to step up.

But I struggle with the way you portray women: "....weak, and oppressed" ? That doesn't fit my personal description. Yes, I may be weaker physically, and yes it's nice to be protected sometimes, but I believe that what many people call "Biblical gender roles" i.e. their view of male headship (which I do believe exists, just not in the proportions that many people do) are their own innaccurate perceptions of the Bible.

I'm not looking for an argument, and I do respect your views, but I believe, as I said, that they are slightly off, and would love to discss them with you. As a side note, have you read these books: How I Changed my Mind About Women in Leadership, and When Women Were Priests? I am reading both of them currently, and have found them to be very enlightening regarding a true Biblical view of gender roles in the church, and in the world.

Brytni Jade said...

Great post Master Hudelson! But, let those women kill themselves... No real man would want them anyway :) I love sarcasm, our brother Paul used it, we take our example from him...

To Journalingajourney: The times when women in the Bible are priests or judges (like Deborah) is when Isreal is being judged. Check out these verses:"Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. The Lord standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people." Is 3:11-13

God did say there is a difference in men and women, that women are weaker than men, not lesser beings, but weaker 1Pt. 3:7 and called the men to be the protectors of them both physically, but more importantly, spiritually. Eve was deceived not Adam...
The Man Is a Protector
A. He goes to war to protect the nation, (though not during the first year of marriage)Doesn't say the wife (Deut 24:5).
B. He trains the servants or obtains other means of protecting his family from harm (Gen 14:14).
C. He reviews family influences and rejects any that undermine godly morals, which is far more important than wearing a uniform and going off to war with a distant enemy (Ps 101:3-8).
D. He will not allow sons or daughters to get emotionally involved with unbelievers or fools, for as the head of the family, he knows and hates evil men and women (Pr 2:10-20; I Cor 15:33).
E. As Abraham and other men, he will rule his family’s marriages (Gen 24:1-67; I Cor 7:36-38).
F. He makes schooling decisions for children to protect them from the world’s rot (Gal 4:1-2).
G. He protects his vulnerable wife from the evil influence of false teachers by forbidding her to listen to creeping teachers and spend much time on Bible study without him (II Tim 3:6-7).
Just a "couple" of things to think about :)
I think it is great to discuss these topics as it forces us to search the Scriptures! Let us pray with David, "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wonderful things out of thy law." Thank you for letting me comment! :)

Brytni Jade said...

P.s. I just realized that I said the times in the Bible where women are priests... women were never priests in the Bible... Deborah was a judge... women were not priests... Sorry :P my fingers get ahead of me sometimes :) The Bible is exciting... should have read over it before pressing "publish" Ha ha!

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Journalingajourney- thank you so much for stopping by- and not only that, but for taking the time to comment! I appreciate it.

When I said "weak and oppressed," it wasn't my intention for that to be understood as women, but as any and all weak and oppressed people- whether it's a woman or a kid being bullied on the playground or a blind person or an elderly gentleman.

That said, I would consider women to be the "weaker vessel," in multiple ways; this isn't a weakness based in inferiority, but rather just a facet of God's marvelous and creative design. Indeed, the weakness of the weaker vessel is complimentary to the stronger vessel- there are things that women, because of their "weaker" status, are better at.

I think it has something to do with how if Johnny wants to go hunting, he asks daddy, but if he scrapes his knee or has a fever, he wants mommy. :-D

I believe that what many people call "Biblical gender roles" i.e. their view of male headship (which I do believe exists, just not in the proportions that many people do) are their own innaccurate perceptions of the Bible.

I look forward to discussing more- please feel free to bring up other areas where we might disagree!

Brytni, thank you for your excellent thoughts and Scripture references! It's very refreshing to see a young woman arguing for these things instead of against them. I agree with almost everything you said, but a few things stood out that I'd like to clarify:

On point D, you said he "hates evil men and women." I believe that it is Biblical to hate "the doers of iniquity," as a class of people, but I don't see Scriptural justification for hating specific people; thus, while I might not want my son to hang out with Coolio McGangster, I don't hate Coolio- I love him and want to see him come to repentance. At the same time, I hate God-haters as a class. Does that make sense?

There were a couple of other things that stood out to me just throughout the post that I might say a little differently- for example, "rule his family's marriages," "forbidding her to listen to," etc.

I agree very strongly that the father must be very involved in these areas; I would just remind us that the Biblical picture of patriarchy is one of loving leadership, not domineering dictatorship; I know that's not what you're advocating, but I wouldn't want any bystanders to get the wrong impression.

I'm also curious as to point E: what exactly do you mean by "rule"?

Anonymous said...

@Brytni Jade

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Now, to answer it...

I agree that generally when women were in positions of leadership in the old testament it was when men weren't doing their job. However, in the new testament (specifically the church after the new covenant) there are many references to women in leadership without reference to men failing thier duties. For instance:

Philipians 4:2 lists Euodia and Syntyche, whom Paul is correcting at the time, and, later in the passage Paul mentions another one (who remains unnamed) whom he specifies as very dear to Him.

Romans 16:1 Pheobe is referred to as a minister in the church.

Romans 16:3 Pricilla is called a co-worker of Paul.

Romans 16:7 Junia is praised as "outstanding among the apostles

Acts 2:19 Mentions Philip's four unmarried daughters who prophecied.

Acts 16:5 records two shows two women (Prisca and Aquila supervising a house church.

And finally three other references to women presiding over house churches: Col 4:15;Acts16:15, and Rom. 16:1

I agree that there is a difference between men and women. I also agree that men are called to be protectors, and even leaders. I agree with all of your statements until E "he will rule his family's marriges"? Would you care to explain that further? I believe that a man is to be the 'head' of a marrige, but I also believe that a good man will pray, and discuss matters with his wife, and they will come to conclusions togather. What is your opinion on that? And while I'm discussing E. I would like to point out that all of your references up to that point have been out of the old testament. I do not in any way percieve the old testament to be inferior, however I believe that the new covenant changed things. As paul says there is no male or female in Christ.

I do have a bit more that I would like to address here regarding point G. But unfortunately I am being called away. I will try to get back on, and further comment tomorrow.

I will also try to respond to you tomorrow. Thank you for your willingness to talk. I look forward to discussing this issue with you when I find the time!

Brytni Jade said...

Journaling a Journey, I hope that this compilation of Scriptures form the New Testament will be helpful to you :) It has plenty to say about gender distinction/roles…

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” 1 Corinthians 11:3

“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:9

“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 anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34,35

Brytni Jade said...

Women according to the NEW TESTEMENT are not (& should not be) the leaders in churches.

Phebe, who is found in Romans 16 among other good women, did not hold an office in the church. They were all helpers and fulfilled their God given roles by being such. You said she is called a minister, yes she was a servant of the church. Not a minister as in the “pastor” way we use it today. Here is a definition of minister: “to give service, care, or aid; attend, as to wants or necessities. As, to minister to the needs of the hungry.”

Priscilla and Aquilla were a husband and wife, and the Scripture does not say that she was in an office of leadership. She is seen, with her husband teaching “The way more perfectly” to Apollos in Acts 18, but this is not in a role as a “priest”, pastor, etc. Women have a place in which they may teach… Titus 2:3-5; II Tim 1:5; 3:15

Philips 4 daughters who prophesied were prophetesses. That was when the sign gift of prophecy was still in place, which now, along with tongues, the gift of healing and knowledge have all passed away (1 Corinthians 14:8). Now (refer again to 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35) women are told to be silent in the church. There are no more prophets and prophetesses.

Question? How do you know the gender of Junia? Paul says my kinsMEN …There are no examples of women being apostles.

I am sorry, but I don’t know what you are getting at with your reference to Acts 16:5 :/ Please forgive my density…

“Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in HIS house.” Colossians 4:15… This reference was a man’s house maybe you meant a different one?

“And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.” Acts 16:15 Lydia gave them a place to live… it doesn't say she ruled over a church.

“I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:” Romans 16:1 Again, this does not at all say that Phebe was in a church office, simply that she was one of those virtuous women who served the brethren.

Brytni Jade said...

My opinion on the matter of a father ruling, yes, RULING, his family’s marriages does not matter. What matters is what the Bible has to say about it. So, let us check it out together :)

In my example of Abraham, that Patriarchal leader arranged a marriage for Isaac (notice Isaac is his SON! So a father’s headship is not just over his daughters). He would not allow him to marry the women of the land… However, as you would rather have an example from the New Testament I give you 1 Corinthians 7 A father can, for no given reason, keep his daughter single or ALLOW her to marry. It doesn't say that she has a choice in the matter.

More NEW TESTAMENT verses to consider on the woman’s role:
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” Colossians 3:18

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” Ephesians 5:22-24 If you want to claim that your husband must love you like Christ loves the church, look how He tells you to submit to your husband as unto Him! How do you submit to the LORD?

“To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” Titus 2:5 We don’t just submit we OBEY… What do you mean when you tell a child to obey you? Does this mean that a parent is a dictator? Or that they are following the God given role distinction of parent and child… In your view, because the child doesn’t have the same role as the parent he is inferior?

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 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” 1 Timothy 2:9-14 Here God even gives you the reason that women are subject to men.

Brytni Jade said...

“Likewise, 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. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” 1 Peter 3:1-6 Here we see that it is not by preaching at a husband, nagging etc. that a wife can win the husband, but by her daily living in accordance with God’s Word! Also, here God inspired a reference to the Old Testament and holds Sarah’s deep reverence toward and for her husband up as our example. And, by the way, when we see Sarah calling Abraham Lord in the O.T. (Gen. 18) it is not out loud to his face, it is in her heart! What a good woman!

In conclusion, there is only one excuse for disobedience to a husband or father, only one, no other… it is found in Acts 5:29. If your husband/father is telling you to sin (WARNING! Highly unlikely, especially if you marry in the LORD) then you must obey God rather than men.

YES! You are absolutely right… “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.” Galatians 3:28 There is no sexual, racial, etc. difference in Jesus Christ eternally, legally, vitally, practically, or finally; there is only a difference in office and relationship while here on earth. God has taught plainly in His Word in both testaments that there are role distinctions. When we rebel against them we get in the predicament our country is in today. Many of our forefathers predicted this!

Daniel Webster: "I have read it through many times. I now make a practice of going through it once a year. It is a book of all others for lawyers as well as divines. I pity the man who cannot find in it a rich supply of thought and rules of conduct. If there is anything in my thoughts or style to commend, the credit is due to my parents for instilling in me an early love of the Scriptures. If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity."

Please forgive my lengthy reply...the comment box has a 4096 character limit. so I had to break it up :) I only hope to help. Again, thank you for allowing me to comment! I will try, Gabriel, to answer your questions tomorrow... Thanks again!

Brytni Jade said...

*Clarification!* A father can and may, (and I think it is safe to say probably will) ask his daughter (or son) if he wants to marry someone or not, but I think the emphasis for us should be that if he says NO about a prospect, then we should not marry them. However, a father has the God given right to, if he wants, arrange a match for his child... :) So I am not saying that you cannot have a say in the matter of a spouse, just that God's Word says your father doesn't have to consult your opinion. :)

Brytni Jade said...

Okay Gabriel… Sorry for filling your comment box to the hilt with my comments! Please endure me, and allow me a brief space to answer your couple of questions. It is very gracious of you to allow someone who differs with you to comment… Thank you! 
First, we do see an example of men and women hated specifically in the Bible. I will simply quote a few verses with very little comment.
“The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.” Psalm 5:5 God hates the wicked.
“The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.” Psalm 11:5 God hates the wicked.
“Why boastest thou thyself in mischief, O mighty man? the goodness of God endureth continually. The tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully. Thou lovest evil more than good; and lying rather than to speak righteousness. Selah. Thou lovest all devouring words, O thou deceitful tongue. God shall likewise destroy thee for ever, he shall take thee away, and pluck thee out of thy dwelling place, and root thee out of the land of the living. Selah. The righteous also shall see, and fear, and shall laugh at him: Lo, this is the man that made not God his strength; but trusted in the abundance of his riches, and strengthened himself in his wickedness. But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God: I trust in the mercy of God for ever and ever. I will praise thee for ever, because thou hast done it: and I will wait on thy name; for it is good before thy saints.” Psalm 52 David hated Doeg and wrote invectively against him.
“Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.” Psalm 139:21, 22 David hated wicked men and women specifically.
“And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.” Malachi 1:3 God hated Esau specifically.
“And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” Romans 9:10-14 Esau was specifically named and hated.
God hated Pharaoh; he was only raised up for the purpose of being destroyed. (Romans 9:17; Exodus 9:16)
To conclude this point, if any said person was elect and was ever regenerated and converted (repented) then of course you would love them! For example, let us say I lived when Adolf Hitler was alive. I would hate him, for he was wicked, hated the LORD and lived in opposition to Him… Hope this makes my position more clear. I do understand where you are coming from.

Brytni Jade said...

Second, a father/husband has the power to disannul a wife’s or daughter’s vows to the LORD, don’t you think he can tell her who she may or may not listen to or who she may or may not marry? Numbers 30:3-8 Most men are way too lackadaisical these days. It is not being a dictator to say you may not listen to Benny Hen, he is a false teacher… it is proper authority and protection. Or, You may not marry Jonny Rain Cloud, he believes that x,y or z contrary to our doctrine. Many girls get “stuck” with a fool (like Nabal) because a girl doesn’t have the wisdom of her father, and likewise, boys get stuck with the odious woman because they lack the keen insight of their father. Dad’s and husbands aren’t being hateful old ogres when they command their children after them( Gen 18:19)… They are being the patriarchal rulers, teachers, pillars, protector, manager, judge and priest he is called to be.
There are, as I am sure you know, many verses about children’s obedience to their fathers and mothers laws in Scripture. It’s all over the book of Proverbs. I already gave the example of Abraham commanding who Isaac could and could not marry, but there is also Isaac and Rebecca telling Jacob he had to choose one of his mother’s relatives for a bride. This was not because they hated Jacob and wanted him to be unhappy and they liked to lord their headship over him, it was because they loved and cared for their son’s future.
In conclusion, as I said before, most of us have nothing to fear when it comes to an arranged marriage being made for us. However, we should examine our hearts and flush our own feelings or thoughts surrendering them to the LORD and replacing them with Scripture. I’d like to thank you once more for allowing me to comment! It is a privilege. And now I pray with David “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” Psalm 119:18 (replacing mine with our and I with we) it is only by the LORD that we can behold truth. Thank you!

journalingajourney said...

First off, I'd like to reply to both of you, and apologize for not responding yesterday as promised. Sometimes one has to put the real ended up being super busy Thursday. I also want to say here in light of that that since I had to put off responding to Gabe last time I'd like to respond to him first, and then hopefully have time to get to replying to at least half of waht Brytni Jade said in this comment. It will depend on how I do timewise. That said, let me begin:

Thank you for allowing me to question! I can appriciate a person who is open to opposition, and willing to discuss what he believes.

Before I forget, I would like to address something in your new post (which I confess I have not read all of yet, though I plan to). You mentioned that the word for man in the Bible liturally means warrior. I found this very interesting in light of some study that I have done recently regarding the issue of a true view of Biblical womanhood, namely the meaning of the word 'helpmeet' which is referred to in the very popular book Created to Be His Helpmeet in reference to Genesis 2:18. Helpmeet, in it's original laguage kenegdo ezer liturally translated means equal helper, and is often used to refer to God as Israel's helper most often in a millitary sense. For instance, a scripture may say 'strong helper', 'shield', or 'sentry', etc.

I wondered if you did not mean, only women in that context, but wanted to be sure. Thank you for clarifying that. The one thing that you have referenced to in this comment that I blatantly disagree with is this sentance:

" Indeed, the weakness of the weaker vessel is complimentary to the stronger vessel- there are things that women, because of their "weaker" status, are better at."

I will agree that women are often better as conforters than men, and that there are some things that men are better at. However, I belive that ther are exceptions to the rule. And, I disagree that a women's 'weakness' nececcary makes a marrige. I have heard it said that 'Weak men want weak women.", and tend to agree with that statement (but,let it be clear I am not calling you weak perse. I respect your point of view, though I strongly disagree with it.) Also, I want to point out on this topic that only 50% of American women are married, so where does that leave the other half? Alone in their weakness? It would be interesting to know the exact translation of the word 'weak' as it is used in context.

As far as other areas where we might disagree, I have read your post about college, and though I am not sure if I will persue higher education myself, I tend to disagree with your viewpoint as Baily does. But, back on topic... regarding women, I wonder what yout think of what Brytni Jade said about arranged marriges by the father, and also your opinions on dating, and courtship?

Again, thank you for being open to the challenge that I've presented. And, though it may take me some time to reply please rest assured that I will in time, and also that I will prayerfully consider your viewpoint.

Anonymous said...

@Brytni Jade
I regret that I do not have more time to spend addressing your ideas in this comment. But, hopefully I use the time I do wisely. I do plan to respond to more of your points at a later time (possibly tomorrow). If you wish to wait, and address my response as a whole please feel free to do so. Also, thank you for your time, and responses.

Now, regarding point G which I failed to address earlier. You call the woman 'vulnerable'. I wonder if you consider yourself to be that? In spite of physical weaknesess I have no doubt that male and female intellect (though different) are equal. I would like to point out that this verse does not say that all women are weak but rather that there are "...weak women..." which I do believe to be true.

Regarding your next comment box...
The first verse you mention says not only that the head of every women is man, but that the head of every man is Christ. Thus, I think this verse warrents an in deapth study of how Jesus treated women. Some breif examples:

A. In the Mary and Martha story Mary's sitting at Jesus feet was entirely counter cultural. Women would not have been allowed to question and participate in what was considered a man's conversation. Mary's stance would have been thought highly irregular.

B.Also, when the woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus he did not judge her, but rather showed the men that they were no better than her (for they were sinful), and thus had no right to exercise authority over her, a.k.a. stone her.

I would love to linger, and further on this list, but if I did that I would risk only replying to two points of yours, and I would at least like to finish addressing this parcticular comment box!

About the next verse 1 Cor. 11:9, I do not see how this proves your point. Man was lonely, and he needed an equal companionwhom he could talk to, relate to, and love. Let me clarify: I am not trying to say that there are no such thing as gender roles; men and women are unique, rather I am trying to say that we are equal in all of the ways that count.

As to the last verse, may I question weather or not you practice this personally? Are you entirely silent in church, in essence a missing supressed member of the body of Christ who is unable to impart her spiritual gifts to scripture interpretation, and other areas of essence in the body of Christ?

I think it is important to not here also that all of the passages you reference in this comment are from Corinthians.We do not know the historical context within which Paul was admonishing these people, and thus, I believe cannot rightly make these verses an overarching practice without examining the rest of scripture to see if it agrees. I am not trying to insinuate that the Bible is fallable, or disagrees with itself here; only that we do not fully know the context within which Paul was writing to this churhc.

Unfortuantely I don't have time to debate your other six comment boxes at the moment, but I shall try to reply to those as soon as possible. As a closing thought let me bring out a point that I discovered recently, and found to be valuble. I will try to be breif. It is this: that Christians in the early nineteenth century used the Bible to back up their belief in slavery as right, and actually, if one knows his Bible well it is not difficult to see how they could do that by focusing on certain verses, or phrases rather than the Bible's themes such as reaching the oppressed as a whole.I think that is interesting to consider in comparasine to our current discussion, and other topics as well. Once again, let me say thank you for your time, effort, and consideration here. I respect you and your view, though I disagree with it, and I look forward to dabating again.

Anonymous said...

*Whoops, something went very wrong with those first few sentances. I must have accidentally changed them in copy and paste. They were supposed to read:

First off, I'd like to reply to both of you, and apologize for not responding yesterday as promised. Sometimes one has to put the real world above the virtual one. I ended up being super busy Thursday.

Brytni Jade said...

I just have a couple of minutes... and want to say very quickly, that the word "helpmeet" is in fact not a real word. It is not found in the Bible anywhere. When God made Eve He said that she was a help -space- meet for Adam. That means that she was a helper that was appropriate, fit and suitable for Adam. I don't take a popular book's opinion as truth, just the Bible :) Which, it might help to tell you, I believe is the King James version... Thank you for your time too! I appreciate it! Hope that you were able to accomplish all that you needed on Thursday! :)

Gabriel Hudelson said...

OK, finally getting around to this!

Brytni, your position is very well clarified. However, in all the examples you listed, I see two things:

1. Man (spec. David) hating a general class of men (viz. evildoers)

2. God hating specific men (i.e. Esau, Pharaoh)

I absolutely agree that we should hate the wicked as a class of people, but I don't see Biblical justification for hating specific people. God can do that; we may not.

For example, I hate evil tyrants. But if I were to meet Adolf Hitler, I hope that I would show him the love of Christ (and call him to repentance).

Make sense?

As far as your position on fathers ruling the home, arranged marriages, and so on, thank you so much for enunciating all that and for all the Scripture. You've given me a lot to think about. I'm definitely going to talk to my dad about this.

Journaling, I'm not sure what you meant by this: "I wondered if you did not mean, only women in that context, but wanted to be sure." Could you clarify?

"I have heard it said that 'Weak men want weak women.""

Yes, we definitely need to define "weak." :-D

I'm not advocating weak womanhood... Biblical womanhood is strong, vigorous, even warrior-like in its own way. Pr. 31 says she "makes her arms strong," and uses a word to describe her (kael, I think) which has the connotation of military strength, like you said.

So I'm not arguing for china-doll womanhood.

As far as my position on what Brytni Jade said about marriage, honestly, she's convincing me. I'm finding myself hard pressed to disagree. That said, I must clarify what I'm agreeing to; I can see Biblical precedent for the authority of the father to arrange and/or prevent marriages. Of course, the same Bible which calls the children to be so vulnerable to the authority that God has placed in their lives also calls that authority to do a lot for the children! So while I can see Biblical authority for "arranged marriage" given to the father, it shouldn't be what we in our feminized 21st century minds think of.

I'm not arguing that marriages should be arranged, either; just that the father has an authority over the household that we need to recognize.

As far as dating goes, I think dating (as commonly understood and practiced) is pretty much divorce-practice, and I don't see justification for it in Scripture. I think a more Biblical model is a young-man initiated pursuit of a girl through her father, thus respecting his protective authority over her. So yes, more like the "courtship" model.

Oh, and I wanted to respond to this:

"B.Also, when the woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus he did not judge her, but rather showed the men that they were no better than her (for they were sinful), and thus had no right to exercise authority over her, a.k.a. stone her."

Was that really about gender roles?

And this: "Are you entirely silent in church, in essence a missing supressed member of the body of Christ who is unable to impart her spiritual gifts to scripture interpretation, and other areas of essence in the body of Christ?"

Come now, sister, you know that no one is arguing for this!

"I will prayerfully consider your viewpoint."

I really appreciate that. :-)

Brytni, we'll have to discuss KJV-onlyism later. :-D

Brytni Jade said...

Thank you for your time and consideration...I do understand where you are coming from; I think that what we believe about Salvation has a lot to do with what we believe about hating the wicked...As to the KJV, I am assuming that you do not agree that it is the Word of God in English-exclusively :) I tell you, it is not easy to address such weighty matters in the forum of comments on a blog. So once again I want to heartily thank you for allowing me to take up so much space!

May the LORD help us all to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our LORD Jesus Christ. For it is by Him alone that we can come to any understanding.
In Gratitude,
Your Sister,

Bria Crawford said...

LOL, you have me rolling. This subject deserved sarcasm. But it is also very disheartening that fathers are willing to let their daughters out of their protection claiming that she is doing more good alongside her male comrades.

J D White said...

Great use of satire, Gabriel :)

Oh, and I've enjoyed reading the comments on this post - and I hope the conversation hasn't died...

SOme great stuff Gabriel Hudelson and Brytni Jade :)

Anne said...

Pretty sure my buddies in the Army would rip you a new one if they read your post. I get that you were being sarcastic, but the fact that you speak so belittingly of women and their supposed "weaknesses" is degrading and insulting. I'm sorry you are so insecure in your masculinity that you have to rage against the women that risk their lives to keep YOU safe. And we are perfectly fine with defending ourselves in dark alleys, thank you very much, in fact, stay out of it - you'd only get in the way anywhoo.

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Anne, I'm asking this because I'm genuinely curious and would like to hear your honest answer.

Let's say we were on the Titanic and there's one seat left on the lifeboat. Would you rather I give you the seat or fight you for it?

Jennifer said...

"Let's say we were on the Titanic and there's one seat left on the lifeboat. Would you rather I give you the seat or fight you for it?"

I suppose you'd ask me the same thing? Don't be silly; I'd just sit on your lap and we'd call it a day. Or maybe you'd sit on mine, since I'm ten years older, boy-o.