Is Christianity responsible for denying women's rights?

[Flail]

The political history of the United States includes relatively few women compared to the number of men. Women did not have the right to vote for the first 140 years of our existence as a country. No woman has ever held the office of President or Vice President and very few have served in high office. Women's history as leaders in Christianity is similarly deficient.

Often we hear criticisms of Islam for treating women as second class citizens. Is Christianity the same, having advanced further to combat religious discrimination against women by reason of simply getting an earlier start?

Question for debate: Is Christianity responsible for the shameful history of women's rights in America?

[McCulloch]

[font=Georgia]But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [/font]

This passage clearly outlines the author's view of the correct place for women. Women should look upon their man as having the same authority as a man should look to Christ for. Yes, in my opinion, this belittles women.

head doesnt mean authority. The Greek word being used means source or origin. In English a similar term is used to refer to the source of a river (headwaters). So the fact that its translated head doesnt imply authority. Plus, Paul could have used other Greek words that more clearly would have conveyed the meaning of authority.

Like when Paul, in the same chapter said, "[font=Georgia]Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. [/font]" [1 Corinthians 11:10] In context, this whole discussion about head is all about authority. Again, he writes to the Colossians, "[font=Georgia]For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; [/font]" [2:9-10]. Might I submit to SOP, that he is mistaken to say that Paul means source or origin and not authority in the use of the word head in these contexts?

Check out the use of the word head in this context (again Paul):

[font=Georgia]These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. [/font]

This describes Jesus' relationship as head to the church. And, according to Paul, man's relationship to women.

[font=Georgia]
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. [/font]

Just in case there is any mistake, the same idea is again repeated. Is Jesus merely the source of salvation for the Church, or is he the head of the church, requiring obedience?

[font=Georgia]For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the womans sake, but woman for the mans sake. [/font]

Again, the author shows his scorn for the contributions and value of women. Women, according to him, were created for man's sake. Women are chattel, servants and adjuncts, not individuals in their own right.

This passage sort of makes my point since it says man did not ORIGINATE from woman. Pauls referring to the Genesis story (regardless of whether one thinks the genesis story is authentically historical or not Paul certainly did and so hes using it as an illustration).

Women, according to this author were created as a suitable help for men, not for their own sake. Men are the image and glory of God, but women are the glory of man. Therefore, Paul concludes, women should be submissive to men, displayed symbolically in head-covering. Yes, he uses the creation myth as a justification for his misogyny, but it is really difficult to mask the original intent of this passage. But thanks for trying.

[font=Georgia]The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [/font]

It is improper for a woman to ask a question in church. A man, who by the nature of his sex, is able to ask meaningful questions, has to be the one who gets the proper explanation for what confuses the little woman and then he can explain it to her when they get home. Don't worry your pretty little head about theology dear, your husband will explain what you need to know when you get home. Yes, in my opinion, this is belittling.

This passage is dealing with disruption and disorder in the church services. Who else but recently emancipated women would have the temerity to yell out questions in the middle of a public service? Anyway, it certainly doesnt mean women couldnt speak at all in church since back in Cor.11 Paul assumes women are prophesying and praying in church.

More than one scholar has noted a difference between Jesus and the original apostles and Paul and his ilk. One place where this difference is particularly striking is in their attitude towards women. Yes, when Paul came along, women were enjoying an unprecedented degree of freedom. Paul did his best to reverse that.

[font=Georgia]Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. [/font]

The entire fall from grace, the whole sin situation, has been placed at the feet of women. The implications here are impressive. Women are more easily deceived and their gullibility is a dangerous thing. Men, who know better and are less easily led, need to control and instruct the women. How is it that anyone can read this as being anything other than a passage that belittles women?

The reference to the fall is more likely an attempt by Paul to counter claims made by false teachers in Ephesus who were trying to distort the Genesis account by saying Adam was the one deceived. So Paul here is simply trying to set the historical record straight. In addition, the part of being submissive and learning quietly applied just as equally to male students as it did to females. This type of quiet learning was typical of the rabbinic style of teaching. Just as significant is the fact that women were being taught at all. IF Christianity were the women oppressing religion that some think it is, why even bother teaching them? Ignorance is the surest way to keep them down.

Why would he even care about whether it was Adam or Eve who was deceived? The obvious answer is that he needed women's inherent gullibility to justify his putting women down. Where else in the New Testament is being submissive and learning quietly enjoined without reference to gender? From what I have seen, the rabbinic style of teaching does not involve quite learning from submissive students. Take a look at the story of the boy Jesus in Jerusalem.

Women being taught was an innovation brought in by Jesus, James and the original followers. It was an already established practice when Paul came into the picture. He did is best to reverse the evil of woman's emancipation.

[WinePusher]

I will gladly vote for a woman this cycle not be she's a woman, but because I am aligned with her when it comes to policy and ideology.

That is wonderful! Then if there is a suitable woman candidate then she will get votes from you and people like you.

Yup, that's what I said. Is it hard for you to believe? I do not vote according to gender, race and creed of an individual, I'm not deluded by the malady of Identity Politics.

If a woman was a presidential candidate, people like you would want her to win simply because she's a woman and people who are opposed to having a woman in office would want her to lose simply because she's a woman. You're essentially one in the same, you vote and form policy according to race, gender and creed without incorporating any other factors into your decision.

While I would really like to see a woman in the top political position, just to break the political barrier and to set presidential precedent, I, and I assume people like me, will not vote solely on that principle. For me this is not a mere hypothetical. I did not vote for Kim Campbell in 1993 even though I would have liked to end the male monopoly of Prime Ministers of Canada. But thank you for your presumption.

When you 'and people like you' unequivocally suggest that the Presidency is a women's right issue you welcome presumptions. You made this statement, 'The chance to be considered to run for the presidency is a right. One which you would like to deny to about half of the citizens eligible to vote in your country' which is demonstrably false. Women can and have run for the White House, however no woman has actually won the General Election. Those are the facts, and it's obvious you conclude from those facts that because America behind in the area of woman's rights because America has never put a woman in the White House. Well, that sentiments been refuted by yourself, who did not vote for a woman candidate not be ause she was a woman, but because of other factors.

[Flail]

I will gladly vote for a woman this cycle not be she's a woman, but because I am aligned with her when it comes to policy and ideology.

That is wonderful! Then if there is a suitable woman candidate then she will get votes from you and people like you.

Yup, that's what I said. Is it hard for you to believe? I do not vote according to gender, race and creed of an individual, I'm not deluded by the malady of Identity Politics.

If a woman was a presidential candidate, people like you would want her to win simply because she's a woman and people who are opposed to having a woman in office would want her to lose simply because she's a woman. You're essentially one in the same, you vote and form policy according to race, gender and creed without incorporating any other factors into your decision.

While I would really like to see a woman in the top political position, just to break the political barrier and to set presidential precedent, I, and I assume people like me, will not vote solely on that principle. For me this is not a mere hypothetical. I did not vote for Kim Campbell in 1993 even though I would have liked to end the male monopoly of Prime Ministers of Canada. But thank you for your presumption.

When you 'and people like you' unequivocally suggest that the Presidency is a women's right issue you welcome presumptions. You made this statement, 'The chance to be considered to run for the presidency is a right. One which you would like to deny to about half of the citizens eligible to vote in your country' which is demonstrably false. Women can and have run for the White House, however no woman has actually won the General Election. Those are the facts, and it's obvious you conclude from those facts that because America behind in the area of woman's rights because America has never put a woman in the White House. Well, that sentiments been refuted by yourself, who did not vote for a woman candidate not be ause she was a woman, but because of other factors.

Are you suggesting that ever since women gained the right to vote in 1920 and have had the right to run for high office, that factors other than gender have created their relative absence in of high office...in politics and in business? Are you claiming there have been and remain relatively few qualified women for such positions as a reason...other than gender discrimination? Are women inherently deficient in areas of intellect and reason etc ? Is that your claim? Is it likewise your claim that Obama was the first qualified black to run for high office?

[McCulloch]

No woman has actually won the General Election.

Why do you think that is?

1. In fifty-six general elections it just happened that the most qualified candidates were all men.
2. The US voters are prejudiced against women candidates, so any party intent on actually winning will not put forth a woman candidate.
3. Women are not suitable for the task of leading the nation.

[Flail]

No woman has actually won the General Election.

Why do you think that is?

1. In fifty-six general elections it just happened that the most qualified candidates were all men.
2. The US voters are prejudiced against women candidates, so any party intent on actually winning will not put forth a woman candidate.
3. Women are not suitable for the task of leading the nation.

I think it is B.

The further question and as to the OP question: Why are women considered by many unqualified for high office? Is there any empirical evidence? Is it stereotypical gender discrimination? Does religion, has religion, played a major part in creating such discriminatory attitudes?

[ThatGirlAgain]

No woman has actually won the General Election.

Why do you think that is?

1. In fifty-six general elections it just happened that the most qualified candidates were all men.
2. The US voters are prejudiced against women candidates, so any party intent on actually winning will not put forth a woman candidate.
3. Women are not suitable for the task of leading the nation.

I think it is B.

The further question and as to the OP question: Why are women considered by many unqualified for high office? Is there any empirical evidence? Is it stereotypical gender discrimination? Does religion, has religion, played a major part in creating such discriminatory attitudes?

A large scale organized religion tends to help preserve the existing social order, including the existence of the religion. In most societies past and present, women are second class. Religion therefore tends to keep women in second place. Simple evolutionary dynamics.

With the continuing reduction in the influence of religion on social order, it becomes possible to discard past norms. What norms that actually do more good than harm will get discarded along the way remains to be seen. But this has been going on in the West for hundreds of years now. There have been growing pains to be sure. But personally I would rather live now than any other time in history.

Will a woman ever get elected President?

Will a Catholic ever get elected President? Oh...
Will a divorced person ever get elected President? Oh...
Will a black person ever get elected President? Oh...

[Flail]

No woman has actually won the General Election.

Why do you think that is?

1. In fifty-six general elections it just happened that the most qualified candidates were all men.
2. The US voters are prejudiced against women candidates, so any party intent on actually winning will not put forth a woman candidate.
3. Women are not suitable for the task of leading the nation.

I think it is B.

The further question and as to the OP question: Why are women considered by many unqualified for high office? Is there any empirical evidence? Is it stereotypical gender discrimination? Does religion, has religion, played a major part in creating such discriminatory attitudes?

A large scale organized religion tends to help preserve the existing social order, including the existence of the religion. In most societies past and present, women are second class. Religion therefore tends to keep women in second place. Simple evolutionary dynamics.

With the continuing reduction in the influence of religion on social order, it becomes possible to discard past norms. What norms that actually do more good than harm will get discarded along the way remains to be seen. But this has been going on in the West for hundreds of years now. There have been growing pains to be sure. But personally I would rather live now than any other time in history.

Will a woman ever get elected President?

Will a Catholic ever get elected President? Oh...
Will a divorced person ever get elected President? Oh...
Will a black person ever get elected President? Oh...

Agreed. Finally we have a black President rather than a white man. But this odd penis requirement seems to persist regardless of color or any other factor. Why? And Why the Penis requirement for Catholic Priests? Very Odd isn't it? Is there anything in particular about a man's physical strength that qualifies him for such intellectual pursuits....or does 'size' really matter?

[SOP]

[font=Georgia]But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [/font]

This passage clearly outlines the author's view of the correct place for women. Women should look upon their man as having the same authority as a man should look to Christ for. Yes, in my opinion, this belittles women.

head doesnt mean authority. The Greek word being used means source or origin. In English a similar term is used to refer to the source of a river (headwaters). So the fact that its translated head doesnt imply authority. Plus, Paul could have used other Greek words that more clearly would have conveyed the meaning of authority.

Like when Paul, in the same chapter said, "[font=Georgia]Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. [/font]" [1 Corinthians 11:10] In context, this whole discussion about head is all about authority. Again, he writes to the Colossians, "[font=Georgia]For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; [/font]" [2:9-10]. Might I submit to SOP, that he is mistaken to say that Paul means source or origin and not authority in the use of the word head in these contexts?

In 1 Cor. 11:10, the word for symbol or sign doesnt appear in the Greek. Certain translations have added the word with no justification (unless that justification happened to be ones prior commitment to male hierarchialism). So really the verse should read: the woman ought to have authority over her head [or possibly her own head].

I disagree that the context is about authority. It is more likely the context is about head coverings. Thus, the illustration Paul uses regarding head is appropriate (at least from his point of view, I guess). In fact, the only time the word authority appears in this passage, its the woman who has it (in verse 10 - again, the word symbol is added by translators).

In Col 2:9-10, the word head is probably referring to source or origin. [Source is the root notion of the word, but it also took on additional meanings such as head (of a body), top (stone in a building) {Exhaustive NIV Concordance p.3030}, and crown and consummation {Women in Ministry: Four Views (IVP), p. 193}. But authority doesn't appear to be one of those meanings].

Earlier in the letter, Paul writes that Christ is the creator of dominionsrulersauthorities (Col. 1:16), which would cover the all rule and authority in 2:9-10. (Also, compare Romans 13:1-2 where Paul says God has established the governing authorities. Again, God (and by extension, Christ) was the source or origin of this authority). Looking further in Col 1 to verse 18 (He is also the head of the body, the church), origin fits in well here since Paul would consider Jesus to be the founder of the church.

Also, in 1 Cor 11:3 which states that God is the head of Christ, this phrase cant be referring to authority, since all authority has already been given to Christ. Later in 1 Cor. 15:24-28, Paul states that Christ is going to give that authority back to the father. So if Paul is trying to draw some sort of parallel between 1)men and women, and 2)God and Christ by using the word head, we end up with a strange kind of contradiction, since authority cannot be applied to God and Christ in this verse. If authority cant be applied to God and Christ, it cant be applied to men and women.

Check out the use of the word head in this context (again Paul):

[font=Georgia]These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. [/font]

This describes Jesus' relationship as head to the church. And, according to Paul, man's relationship to women.

As stated earlier, since head doesnt have the meaning of authority, the word here probably means something like crown or capstone. Or even simply head in the anatomical sense, since the church is referred to as his body. Whatever the case, its probably not authority.

[font=Georgia]
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. [/font]

Just in case there is any mistake, the same idea is again repeated. Is Jesus merely the source of salvation for the Church, or is he the head of the church, requiring obedience?

OF course Christians believe Jesus is both source and authority of the church. But if Im correct that head doesnt carry the meaning of authority, it makes sense to interpret head here as source. This fits in with what Paul would have viewed as humanitys origin account from Genesis, where the woman came from the man (Gen. 2:21-23). And appealing to the part about submission wont work either, because this is referring to a mutual submission, where both men and women submit to each other (Eph. 5:21).

[font=Georgia]For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the womans sake, but woman for the mans sake. [/font]

Again, the author shows his scorn for the contributions and value of women. Women, according to him, were created for man's sake. Women are chattel, servants and adjuncts, not individuals in their own right.

This passage sort of makes my point since it says man did not ORIGINATE from woman. Pauls referring to the Genesis story (regardless of whether one thinks the genesis story is authentically historical or not Paul certainly did and so hes using it as an illustration).

Women, according to this author were created as a suitable help for men, not for their own sake. Men are the image and glory of God, but women are the glory of man. Therefore, Paul concludes, women should be submissive to men, displayed symbolically in head-covering. Yes, he uses the creation myth as a justification for his misogyny, but it is really difficult to mask the original intent of this passage. But thanks for trying.

Paul would obviously know that Gen 1:27 clearly states that both men and women were created in Gods image. So whatever this passage means, its not a demeaning of women. It can just as easily be interpreted to mean that the man was so needy and helpless without a helpmate, that God made woman for him. Later in verse 11 paul talks of men and womens interdependence.

[font=Georgia]The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [/font]

It is improper for a woman to ask a question in church. A man, who by the nature of his sex, is able to ask meaningful questions, has to be the one who gets the proper explanation for what confuses the little woman and then he can explain it to her when they get home. Don't worry your pretty little head about theology dear, your husband will explain what you need to know when you get home. Yes, in my opinion, this is belittling.

This passage is dealing with disruption and disorder in the church services. Who else but recently emancipated women would have the temerity to yell out questions in the middle of a public service? Anyway, it certainly doesnt mean women couldnt speak at all in church since back in Cor.11 Paul assumes women are prophesying and praying in church.

More than one scholar has noted a difference between Jesus and the original apostles and Paul and his ilk. One place where this difference is particularly striking is in their attitude towards women. Yes, when Paul came along, women were enjoying an unprecedented degree of freedom. Paul did his best to reverse that.

The passage cited leaves out the previous verse, 33: for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Liberty to learn was not license to disrupt. And this is the whole point of this chapter, in the orderly speaking of tongues and generally proper behavior during services (such as not disrupting the service to loudly ask a question). Craig Keener writes about verse 35:
"Informed listeners customarily asked questions during lectures, but it was considered rude for the ignorant to do so. Although by modern standards literacy was generally low in antiquity (less so in the cities), women were far less trained in the Scriptures and public reasoning than men were. Paul does not expect these uneducated women to refrain from learning (indeed, that most of their culture had kept them from learning was the problem). Instead he provides the most progressive model of his day: their husbands are to respect their intellectual capabilities and give them private instruction. He wants them to stop interrupting the teaching period of the church service, however, because until they know more, they are distracting everyone and disrupting church order." (Bible Background Commentary: NT (IVP))

[font=Georgia]Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. [/font]

The entire fall from grace, the whole sin situation, has been placed at the feet of women. The implications here are impressive. Women are more easily deceived and their gullibility is a dangerous thing. Men, who know better and are less easily led, need to control and instruct the women. How is it that anyone can read this as being anything other than a passage that belittles women?

The reference to the fall is more likely an attempt by Paul to counter claims made by false teachers in Ephesus who were trying to distort the Genesis account by saying Adam was the one deceived. So Paul here is simply trying to set the historical record straight. In addition, the part of being submissive and learning quietly applied just as equally to male students as it did to females. This type of quiet learning was typical of the rabbinic style of teaching. Just as significant is the fact that women were being taught at all. IF Christianity were the women oppressing religion that some think it is, why even bother teaching them? Ignorance is the surest way to keep them down.

Why would he even care about whether it was Adam or Eve who was deceived? The obvious answer is that he needed women's inherent gullibility to justify his putting women down. Where else in the New Testament is being submissive and learning quietly enjoined without reference to gender? From what I have seen, the rabbinic style of teaching does not involve quite learning from submissive students. Take a look at the story of the boy Jesus in Jerusalem.
Women being taught was an innovation brought in by Jesus, James and the original followers. It was an already established practice when Paul came into the picture. He did is best to reverse the evil of woman's emancipation.

Learning quietly didnt mean the student couldnt talk and ask questions. Quoting Grenz and Kjesbo:
The women are to 'learn in silence.' Despite the negative connotations this phrase brings to our ears, in the first century "silence" (hesychia) was a positive attribute. It did not necessarily entail "not speaking," as is evident in Paul's use of the word earlier in the chapter (I Tim 2.2; compare 2 Thess 3.12). Rather, it implied respect or lack of disagreement (as in Acts 11.18; 21.14). As a result, the rabbis and the early church fathers deemed quietness appropriate for rabbinical students, wise persons and even leaders. Spencer summarizes the significance of the term for this verse: Consequently, when Paul commands that women learn in silence he is commanding them to be students who respect and affirm their teachers convictions. (Women in the Church (IVP), p. 128).
And this is what Jesus did in the temple: they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. (Luke 2:46).

Its difficult to view someone as a mysogynist who allowed women to help him in ministry by working at his side. Jesus wasnt a misogynist and neither was Paul. So theres no contradiction on this issue between the two.

Ill also note that the passages cited by McCulloch are among the most hotly disputed among Christian interpreters, but I think the interpretations Im offering are plausible ones.

[McCulloch]

[font=Georgia]But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [/font]

This passage clearly outlines the author's view of the correct place for women. Women should look upon their man as having the same authority as a man should look to Christ for. Yes, in my opinion, this belittles women.

head doesnt mean authority. The Greek word being used means source or origin. In English a similar term is used to refer to the source of a river (headwaters). So the fact that its translated head doesnt imply authority. Plus, Paul could have used other Greek words that more clearly would have conveyed the meaning of authority.

Like when Paul, in the same chapter said, "[font=Georgia]Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. [/font]" [1 Corinthians 11:10] In context, this whole discussion about head is all about authority. Again, he writes to the Colossians, "[font=Georgia]For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; [/font]" [2:9-10]. Might I submit to SOP, that he is mistaken to say that Paul means source or origin and not authority in the use of the word head in these contexts?

In 1 Cor. 11:10, the word for symbol or sign doesnt appear in the Greek. Certain translations have added the word with no justification (unless that justification happened to be ones prior commitment to male hierarchialism). So really the verse should read: the woman ought to have authority over her head [or possibly her own head].

I disagree that the context is about authority. It is more likely the context is about head coverings. Thus, the illustration Paul uses regarding head is appropriate (at least from his point of view, I guess). In fact, the only time the word authority appears in this passage, its the woman who has it (in verse 10 - again, the word symbol is added by translators).

In Col 2:9-10, the word head is probably referring to source or origin. [Source is the root notion of the word, but it also took on additional meanings such as head (of a body), top (stone in a building) {Exhaustive NIV Concordance p.3030}, and crown and consummation {Women in Ministry: Four Views (IVP), p. 193}. But authority doesn't appear to be one of those meanings].

Earlier in the letter, Paul writes that Christ is the creator of dominionsrulersauthorities (Col. 1:16), which would cover the all rule and authority in 2:9-10. (Also, compare Romans 13:1-2 where Paul says God has established the governing authorities. Again, God (and by extension, Christ) was the source or origin of this authority). Looking further in Col 1 to verse 18 (He is also the head of the body, the church), origin fits in well here since Paul would consider Jesus to be the founder of the church.

Also, in 1 Cor 11:3 which states that God is the head of Christ, this phrase cant be referring to authority, since all authority has already been given to Christ. Later in 1 Cor. 15:24-28, Paul states that Christ is going to give that authority back to the father. So if Paul is trying to draw some sort of parallel between 1)men and women, and 2)God and Christ by using the word head, we end up with a strange kind of contradiction, since authority cannot be applied to God and Christ in this verse. If authority cant be applied to God and Christ, it cant be applied to men and women.

Check out the use of the word head in this context (again Paul):

[font=Georgia]These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. [/font]

This describes Jesus' relationship as head to the church. And, according to Paul, man's relationship to women.

As stated earlier, since head doesnt have the meaning of authority, the word here probably means something like crown or capstone. Or even simply head in the anatomical sense, since the church is referred to as his body. Whatever the case, its probably not authority.

[font=Georgia]
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. [/font]

Just in case there is any mistake, the same idea is again repeated. Is Jesus merely the source of salvation for the Church, or is he the head of the church, requiring obedience?

OF course Christians believe Jesus is both source and authority of the church. But if Im correct that head doesnt carry the meaning of authority, it makes sense to interpret head here as source. This fits in with what Paul would have viewed as humanitys origin account from Genesis, where the woman came from the man (Gen. 2:21-23). And appealing to the part about submission wont work either, because this is referring to a mutual submission, where both men and women submit to each other (Eph. 5:21).

[font=Georgia]For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the womans sake, but woman for the mans sake. [/font]

Again, the author shows his scorn for the contributions and value of women. Women, according to him, were created for man's sake. Women are chattel, servants and adjuncts, not individuals in their own right.

This passage sort of makes my point since it says man did not ORIGINATE from woman. Pauls referring to the Genesis story (regardless of whether one thinks the genesis story is authentically historical or not Paul certainly did and so hes using it as an illustration).

Women, according to this author were created as a suitable help for men, not for their own sake. Men are the image and glory of God, but women are the glory of man. Therefore, Paul concludes, women should be submissive to men, displayed symbolically in head-covering. Yes, he uses the creation myth as a justification for his misogyny, but it is really difficult to mask the original intent of this passage. But thanks for trying.

Paul would obviously know that Gen 1:27 clearly states that both men and women were created in Gods image. So whatever this passage means, its not a demeaning of women. It can just as easily be interpreted to mean that the man was so needy and helpless without a helpmate, that God made woman for him. Later in verse 11 paul talks of men and womens interdependence.

[font=Georgia]The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [/font]

It is improper for a woman to ask a question in church. A man, who by the nature of his sex, is able to ask meaningful questions, has to be the one who gets the proper explanation for what confuses the little woman and then he can explain it to her when they get home. Don't worry your pretty little head about theology dear, your husband will explain what you need to know when you get home. Yes, in my opinion, this is belittling.

This passage is dealing with disruption and disorder in the church services. Who else but recently emancipated women would have the temerity to yell out questions in the middle of a public service? Anyway, it certainly doesnt mean women couldnt speak at all in church since back in Cor.11 Paul assumes women are prophesying and praying in church.

More than one scholar has noted a difference between Jesus and the original apostles and Paul and his ilk. One place where this difference is particularly striking is in their attitude towards women. Yes, when Paul came along, women were enjoying an unprecedented degree of freedom. Paul did his best to reverse that.

The passage cited leaves out the previous verse, 33: for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Liberty to learn was not license to disrupt. And this is the whole point of this chapter, in the orderly speaking of tongues and generally proper behavior during services (such as not disrupting the service to loudly ask a question). Craig Keener writes about verse 35:
"Informed listeners customarily asked questions during lectures, but it was considered rude for the ignorant to do so. Although by modern standards literacy was generally low in antiquity (less so in the cities), women were far less trained in the Scriptures and public reasoning than men were. Paul does not expect these uneducated women to refrain from learning (indeed, that most of their culture had kept them from learning was the problem). Instead he provides the most progressive model of his day: their husbands are to respect their intellectual capabilities and give them private instruction. He wants them to stop interrupting the teaching period of the church service, however, because until they know more, they are distracting everyone and disrupting church order." (Bible Background Commentary: NT (IVP))

[font=Georgia]Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. [/font]

The entire fall from grace, the whole sin situation, has been placed at the feet of women. The implications here are impressive. Women are more easily deceived and their gullibility is a dangerous thing. Men, who know better and are less easily led, need to control and instruct the women. How is it that anyone can read this as being anything other than a passage that belittles women?

The reference to the fall is more likely an attempt by Paul to counter claims made by false teachers in Ephesus who were trying to distort the Genesis account by saying Adam was the one deceived. So Paul here is simply trying to set the historical record straight. In addition, the part of being submissive and learning quietly applied just as equally to male students as it did to females. This type of quiet learning was typical of the rabbinic style of teaching. Just as significant is the fact that women were being taught at all. IF Christianity were the women oppressing religion that some think it is, why even bother teaching them? Ignorance is the surest way to keep them down.

Why would he even care about whether it was Adam or Eve who was deceived? The obvious answer is that he needed women's inherent gullibility to justify his putting women down. Where else in the New Testament is being submissive and learning quietly enjoined without reference to gender? From what I have seen, the rabbinic style of teaching does not involve quite learning from submissive students. Take a look at the story of the boy Jesus in Jerusalem.
Women being taught was an innovation brought in by Jesus, James and the original followers. It was an already established practice when Paul came into the picture. He did is best to reverse the evil of woman's emancipation.

Learning quietly didnt mean the student couldnt talk and ask questions. Quoting Grenz and Kjesbo:
The women are to 'learn in silence.' Despite the negative connotations this phrase brings to our ears, in the first century "silence" (hesychia) was a positive attribute. It did not necessarily entail "not speaking," as is evident in Paul's use of the word earlier in the chapter (I Tim 2.2; compare 2 Thess 3.12). Rather, it implied respect or lack of disagreement (as in Acts 11.18; 21.14). As a result, the rabbis and the early church fathers deemed quietness appropriate for rabbinical students, wise persons and even leaders. Spencer summarizes the significance of the term for this verse: Consequently, when Paul commands that women learn in silence he is commanding them to be students who respect and affirm their teachers convictions. (Women in the Church (IVP), p. 128).
And this is what Jesus did in the temple: they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. (Luke 2:46).

Its difficult to view someone as a mysogynist who allowed women to help him in ministry by working at his side. Jesus wasnt a misogynist and neither was Paul. So theres no contradiction on this issue between the two.

Ill also note that the passages cited by McCulloch are among the most hotly disputed among Christian interpreters, but I think the interpretations Im offering are plausible ones.

[Flail]

[font=Georgia]But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [/font]

This passage clearly outlines the author's view of the correct place for women. Women should look upon their man as having the same authority as a man should look to Christ for. Yes, in my opinion, this belittles women.

head doesnt mean authority. The Greek word being used means source or origin. In English a similar term is used to refer to the source of a river (headwaters). So the fact that its translated head doesnt imply authority. Plus, Paul could have used other Greek words that more clearly would have conveyed the meaning of authority.

Like when Paul, in the same chapter said, "[font=Georgia]Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. [/font]" [1 Corinthians 11:10] In context, this whole discussion about head is all about authority. Again, he writes to the Colossians, "[font=Georgia]For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; [/font]" [2:9-10]. Might I submit to SOP, that he is mistaken to say that Paul means source or origin and not authority in the use of the word head in these contexts?

In 1 Cor. 11:10, the word for symbol or sign doesnt appear in the Greek. Certain translations have added the word with no justification (unless that justification happened to be ones prior commitment to male hierarchialism). So really the verse should read: the woman ought to have authority over her head [or possibly her own head].

I disagree that the context is about authority. It is more likely the context is about head coverings. Thus, the illustration Paul uses regarding head is appropriate (at least from his point of view, I guess). In fact, the only time the word authority appears in this passage, its the woman who has it (in verse 10 - again, the word symbol is added by translators).

In Col 2:9-10, the word head is probably referring to source or origin. [Source is the root notion of the word, but it also took on additional meanings such as head (of a body), top (stone in a building) {Exhaustive NIV Concordance p.3030}, and crown and consummation {Women in Ministry: Four Views (IVP), p. 193}. But authority doesn't appear to be one of those meanings].

Earlier in the letter, Paul writes that Christ is the creator of dominionsrulersauthorities (Col. 1:16), which would cover the all rule and authority in 2:9-10. (Also, compare Romans 13:1-2 where Paul says God has established the governing authorities. Again, God (and by extension, Christ) was the source or origin of this authority). Looking further in Col 1 to verse 18 (He is also the head of the body, the church), origin fits in well here since Paul would consider Jesus to be the founder of the church.

Also, in 1 Cor 11:3 which states that God is the head of Christ, this phrase cant be referring to authority, since all authority has already been given to Christ. Later in 1 Cor. 15:24-28, Paul states that Christ is going to give that authority back to the father. So if Paul is trying to draw some sort of parallel between 1)men and women, and 2)God and Christ by using the word head, we end up with a strange kind of contradiction, since authority cannot be applied to God and Christ in this verse. If authority cant be applied to God and Christ, it cant be applied to men and women.

Check out the use of the word head in this context (again Paul):

[font=Georgia]These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. [/font]

This describes Jesus' relationship as head to the church. And, according to Paul, man's relationship to women.

As stated earlier, since head doesnt have the meaning of authority, the word here probably means something like crown or capstone. Or even simply head in the anatomical sense, since the church is referred to as his body. Whatever the case, its probably not authority.

[font=Georgia]
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. [/font]

Just in case there is any mistake, the same idea is again repeated. Is Jesus merely the source of salvation for the Church, or is he the head of the church, requiring obedience?

OF course Christians believe Jesus is both source and authority of the church. But if Im correct that head doesnt carry the meaning of authority, it makes sense to interpret head here as source. This fits in with what Paul would have viewed as humanitys origin account from Genesis, where the woman came from the man (Gen. 2:21-23). And appealing to the part about submission wont work either, because this is referring to a mutual submission, where both men and women submit to each other (Eph. 5:21).

[font=Georgia]For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the womans sake, but woman for the mans sake. [/font]

Again, the author shows his scorn for the contributions and value of women. Women, according to him, were created for man's sake. Women are chattel, servants and adjuncts, not individuals in their own right.

This passage sort of makes my point since it says man did not ORIGINATE from woman. Pauls referring to the Genesis story (regardless of whether one thinks the genesis story is authentically historical or not Paul certainly did and so hes using it as an illustration).

Women, according to this author were created as a suitable help for men, not for their own sake. Men are the image and glory of God, but women are the glory of man. Therefore, Paul concludes, women should be submissive to men, displayed symbolically in head-covering. Yes, he uses the creation myth as a justification for his misogyny, but it is really difficult to mask the original intent of this passage. But thanks for trying.

Paul would obviously know that Gen 1:27 clearly states that both men and women were created in Gods image. So whatever this passage means, its not a demeaning of women. It can just as easily be interpreted to mean that the man was so needy and helpless without a helpmate, that God made woman for him. Later in verse 11 paul talks of men and womens interdependence.

[font=Georgia]The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [/font]

It is improper for a woman to ask a question in church. A man, who by the nature of his sex, is able to ask meaningful questions, has to be the one who gets the proper explanation for what confuses the little woman and then he can explain it to her when they get home. Don't worry your pretty little head about theology dear, your husband will explain what you need to know when you get home. Yes, in my opinion, this is belittling.

This passage is dealing with disruption and disorder in the church services. Who else but recently emancipated women would have the temerity to yell out questions in the middle of a public service? Anyway, it certainly doesnt mean women couldnt speak at all in church since back in Cor.11 Paul assumes women are prophesying and praying in church.

More than one scholar has noted a difference between Jesus and the original apostles and Paul and his ilk. One place where this difference is particularly striking is in their attitude towards women. Yes, when Paul came along, women were enjoying an unprecedented degree of freedom. Paul did his best to reverse that.

The passage cited leaves out the previous verse, 33: for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Liberty to learn was not license to disrupt. And this is the whole point of this chapter, in the orderly speaking of tongues and generally proper behavior during services (such as not disrupting the service to loudly ask a question). Craig Keener writes about verse 35:
"Informed listeners customarily asked questions during lectures, but it was considered rude for the ignorant to do so. Although by modern standards literacy was generally low in antiquity (less so in the cities), women were far less trained in the Scriptures and public reasoning than men were. Paul does not expect these uneducated women to refrain from learning (indeed, that most of their culture had kept them from learning was the problem). Instead he provides the most progressive model of his day: their husbands are to respect their intellectual capabilities and give them private instruction. He wants them to stop interrupting the teaching period of the church service, however, because until they know more, they are distracting everyone and disrupting church order." (Bible Background Commentary: NT (IVP))

[font=Georgia]Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. [/font]

The entire fall from grace, the whole sin situation, has been placed at the feet of women. The implications here are impressive. Women are more easily deceived and their gullibility is a dangerous thing. Men, who know better and are less easily led, need to control and instruct the women. How is it that anyone can read this as being anything other than a passage that belittles women?

The reference to the fall is more likely an attempt by Paul to counter claims made by false teachers in Ephesus who were trying to distort the Genesis account by saying Adam was the one deceived. So Paul here is simply trying to set the historical record straight. In addition, the part of being submissive and learning quietly applied just as equally to male students as it did to females. This type of quiet learning was typical of the rabbinic style of teaching. Just as significant is the fact that women were being taught at all. IF Christianity were the women oppressing religion that some think it is, why even bother teaching them? Ignorance is the surest way to keep them down.

Why would he even care about whether it was Adam or Eve who was deceived? The obvious answer is that he needed women's inherent gullibility to justify his putting women down. Where else in the New Testament is being submissive and learning quietly enjoined without reference to gender? From what I have seen, the rabbinic style of teaching does not involve quite learning from submissive students. Take a look at the story of the boy Jesus in Jerusalem.
Women being taught was an innovation brought in by Jesus, James and the original followers. It was an already established practice when Paul came into the picture. He did is best to reverse the evil of woman's emancipation.

Learning quietly didnt mean the student couldnt talk and ask questions. Quoting Grenz and Kjesbo:
The women are to 'learn in silence.' Despite the negative connotations this phrase brings to our ears, in the first century "silence" (hesychia) was a positive attribute. It did not necessarily entail "not speaking," as is evident in Paul's use of the word earlier in the chapter (I Tim 2.2; compare 2 Thess 3.12). Rather, it implied respect or lack of disagreement (as in Acts 11.18; 21.14). As a result, the rabbis and the early church fathers deemed quietness appropriate for rabbinical students, wise persons and even leaders. Spencer summarizes the significance of the term for this verse: Consequently, when Paul commands that women learn in silence he is commanding them to be students who respect and affirm their teachers convictions. (Women in the Church (IVP), p. 128).
And this is what Jesus did in the temple: they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. (Luke 2:46).

Its difficult to view someone as a mysogynist who allowed women to help him in ministry by working at his side. Jesus wasnt a misogynist and neither was Paul. So theres no contradiction on this issue between the two.

Ill also note that the passages cited by McCulloch are among the most hotly disputed among Christian interpreters, but I think the interpretations Im offering are plausible ones.

So...if a source for discrimination is not Biblical...either OT or NT or both ( Christian, Islam) what is the source? Why does it persist in such areas as politics and business etc...in light of empirical evidence that women are as capable as men in qualities of intellect, decision making and leadership etc. Why are many Islamic women not permitted to drive a car and treated as second class citizens? In the US, why do women make less money for the same job? Why have we had relatively few women elected to high office? Why zero women as President or Vice President? Why no women Priests and relatively few women preachers? Why did it take the US 140 years to grant women the right to vote?

Perhaps your subjective spin on the verses quoted by McCulloch aligns with the intent of original authors...as with all things Biblical that is impossible to discern....but do you agree that it is at least possible that some men within Christianity and Islam have taken those passages and interpreted them anti-woman, and have then taken logical progressions from their presumptions and inculcated their belief systems with indoctrinations that either directly or indirectly have led to gender discrimination?