mikokiko
posted on Jun 26, 2008 - 12:51 AM
Let's not judge her circumstances. Please, if we wish her to return to the Church the only anecdote is Love, and we know this from our Lord and God Jesus Christ. If we weren't won over to Him by Love what were we won over by? So let His love abide in us.
Sometimes the worse thing to do when someone is really proud, is to tell them that they are proud, because then we only double her pride. I think the best approach is to first emphasize her individual distinctness from men in being a woman. Let her first (as long as she is looking outwardly, she will stay away from self-absorbance) be proud in womanhood, and by doing this you can direct this pride to a pride in Christ, a faith and confidence in Him.
When she realizes that God gave her own special identity, then she will in turn come to the realization that her equality with men is not that becomes just like them (as if they were better than her), but that she become the very thing that Christ equally values in her as He does with male manhood: her womanhood.
Let's be sure of one thing: St. Paul ignored the belief trends of his time. Around his time in the Roman Empire, the status of women was considered to be lower than that of slaves. Equality was a laughable manner to them. It was Socrates, the great famous Western philosopher who himself said: "Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior." It was such a prevalent belief in the Zeitgeist of the empire that for St. Paul to make a statement like: "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." (1 Corinthians 7:4) he must have been completely aware of what he was saying and how unpopular it would have been among the general population, he couldn't have been speaking from his own prejudice on this, or anything that we might look at as sexist today, he was fully conscious of what he wrote, because the Lord Himself inspired it. So let's not talk nonsense about St. Paul thinking women to be inferior to men, he thought no such thing, he believed in their distinction. The entire Christian faith was built up on ideas and morals that were so new in that day, that his teachings on the sexes had to be extremely consciously made (and inspired by the Lord Himself), for they ran up against a torrent of opposing popular beliefs. Let's be certain of one thing, he wasn't giving his own commands, from his own "unaware" prejudices.
Let her first know that above all St. Paul does indeed believe in the equality of the sexes: "...there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) That's not to say that St. Paul was blurring the identities of the sexes, for context will judge: he heavily emphasized on the importance of the preservation of male and female identity elsewhere in his epistles, but that they are all one and of equal worth to the God of the Universe Himself.
St. Paul teaches that that equality is not looked at as two separate entities being equal, but they being One in Christ. That is, the identities of manhood and womanhood are equal because one cannot do without the other. In fact they couldn't be distinct if their difference did not shine where the other's identity was dark. And so St. Paul says: "...neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God." (1 Corinthians 11:11-12)
Many of the people who helped preach alongside St. Paul were women like St. Phoebe, St. Lunia (who worked among the Apostles), St. Chloe who owned the house that was used as an early Church, Nympha, Lydia, St. Priscilla (and her husband Aquilla, who served the Church as a couple), Euodia and Syntyche, were called his co-workers, and Apphia.
Secondly, the entire fabric of Christianity was built on shocking beliefs. It is clearly evident from the ministry of our Lord on earth that He valued women immensely (as much as He did men). So much, that they were more frequently attended to than men (because they were more willing to hear). Let's first take a look at the historical background of first-century Palestine and put our Lord Jesus Christ at the forefront and compare the two.
In first-century Palestine women were not permitted to speak or be heard in public. It was a shame even for a husband to speak to his wife even in the marketplace, forget about men speaking to women. Their testimonies were not valid in court. And we see how greatly shocking it was for the disciples to see the Lord Jesus Himself speaking with the Samaritan Woman (who was let alone a Samaritan!) when St. John said "... they marveled that He talked with a woman..." (John 4:27) His entire ministry was to dedicated especially to women. The pharisees were disgusted when they saw the weeping woman wash Jesus feet and anointed it. Or when He did not rebuke the adulteress but gave her a feeling of worth and power (as He did with the Samaritan and many other women).
But the greatest honour Christ gave to women was that they were the prime witnesses of the greatest fact of history, and the one miraculous act to which the rest of the faith clings on: His Resurrection from the Dead. Their testimony was not allowed even in court, but they were the ones who testified to the disciples that the tomb was empty and that He had risen. The Prime Preacher of the Resurrection was St. Mary Magdalene.
And last, but most definitely not least, we have the honour bestowed on the Virgin St. Mary, the greatest and holiest of the entire creation. There was such a sharp contrast between the Roman Empire and the religion of Islam in whose scriptures state that Hell consists 99% of women. Clearly a teaching where the holiest of the creation was a woman would not sit well with them, to say the least.
So too say that the Bible teaches that women are inferior to men is an incredibly ignorant statement to make. However we must also (and not pretend like they didn't exist) deal with the verses that will likely be thought of as sexist by modern readers. For example: "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." (1 Corinthians 11:3-9)
First off let's get this out of the way: It is shameful for a man to have his hair covered, and it is shameful for a woman to have her hair uncovered. That is equality in distinction. That is NOT sexism. It is as much a shame for a man to cover his hair in Church as it is for a woman to uncover it.
Now as regards the man being the head of the woman as God is the head of Christ, the meaning of head here is ambiguous, but St. Paul I think clarifies it elsewhere when he says: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." (Colossians 3:18) That is just as Christ submitted Himself to the Father, so too is the woman in submission to the husband, but that does nothing to say that one is inferior to the other. Christ is declared to be subject to the Father, but in no way is He inferior as St. Paul says it in his epistle to the Philippians: "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:5-8)
Therefore Christ is equal but subject to the Father. He is equal in role and state, as both are equally Divine in their One Essence (Just as man and woman are ONE in Christ), but subject to the commands of God the Father. Likewise in the marital bond both the husband and the wife is that of sacrifice and submission. Sacrifice because the husband should love the wife just as Christ loved the Church and give Himself up for her (unlike where in Islam wife-beating is lawful and even commanded). So too should the man be understanding and give his thoughts to the woman, and listen to her, and the woman also be subject to the thoughts of the man.
Again it is a complimentary natural relationship where the man sacrifices and the woman submits. And to be sure, when God created woman He made her from the rib of Adam. From His side, not from His head, so that she would be superior to him, or from His feet, so that she would be inferior to him, but a partner and equal. As Christ is the very brightness of the Father, so too are woman the brightness of the man. So that one represents the other in value and worth. Christ is the Perfect Image of His Father, just like Him. And so too the woman, coming from the man, is just like him, and equal to him in stature.
But surely, even the Church Fathers wrote of women in respect and defeated the mygonystic attitudes of their counterparts (the pagans). Like the early Church Father St. Clement wrote saying: The wise woman, then, will first choose to persuade her husband to be her associate in what is conducive to happiness. And should that be found impracticable, let her by herself earnestly aim at virtue, gaining her husband’s consent in everything, so as never to do anything against his will, with exception of what is reckoned as contributing to virtue and salvation...For self-control is common to all human beings who have made choice of it. And we admit that the same nature exists in every race, and the same virtue. As far as respects human nature, the woman does not possess one nature, and the man exhibit another, but the same: so also with virtue.
Similar to what St. Peter saying that the woman would also win over the man by her faith.
Moreover we have many well known prophetesses and saints in the Church like Ester, Judith, Ruth, and an innumerable number of Saints like St. Verena, St. Demiana, St. Mary of Egypt, and countless others...
So in conclusion she has no real reason to think that she is not as important in our Church as any man is.
I hope I have not blabbered on for too long,
God Bless
Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 987
