Hmmmm, some fascinating discussions going on here. First, to Kylie's
comments (was it Kylie?) about Paul. . .It's difficult for me to engage
in conversations about biblical notions of "male" and "female" when the
language that is used to describe these writers ( i.e. Paul as a
"sexist pig") is so seemingly violent. This is as complicated a topic
than any topic I think I've ever come across. I am still struggling
(as a minority female who's been raised in a strong religious family)
to discover and understand what true liberation is in the context of
a relationship with my Creator. And I encourage all of you who are
interested in this discourse to struggle as well, but can we struggle
in a manner that's less abrasive to those topics/writers we're trying
to understand? Forgive me for sounding flippant. Friction is good
for change and is in fact necessary for further understanding to be
breached between people. But if you're willing to make the attacks,
be willing to follow through with good reasons to back up your
unwarranted proclamations.
As to the person who responded to Kylie, I appreciated your reflections
had a few questions that were on my mind regarding similar issues.
First, what are your thoughts regarding violence? Is it justifiable
in the context of outright oppression? Do you think Jesus ( as he
is identified with the poor in the third world) is perceived as a
revolutionary who would take up arms for the marginalized "poorest
of the poor?"
I am out of time but I covet any or all thoughts. . .
Peace,
Mary
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 1 16:37:19 1996
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 10:40:56 +1100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Glenys Eskdale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Relations between women and men
I am responding to a post which set out a Christian position of women's
rights and their position vis a vis men. Unfortunately I have lost the
reference. My understanding was that the writer was in favour of women
asserting their rights to equality or independence from men on the grounds
that men had not lived up to their God-given responsibilities to treat women
in the right way.
Was he implying that the right to equality is only given to those who are
treated badly? Was he implying that if men had treated women better, then
women would be better off being subservient?
My re-interpretation of those Pauline remarks so offensive to Kylie is that
he was looking at specific situations in a specific culture, because he also
state that God sees men and women, slave and free, Jew and Gentile (the main
inequality groups of the time) as equal in His sight, even though they were
not equal in the eyes of society. The remarks offensive to us can thus be
seen as being politically and socially pragmatic. Judge for yourselves
whether this is a cowardly position, but I find my feminist leanings
unimpaired by Paul's remarks.
My experiences in organized churches however leave me cold in this area.
What is the experience of other Christian women working through these and
similar social issues?
Glenys Eskdale
