Monday, May 30, 2016

UCG Struggle With Women Writers, Is It Even Part Of The Law That Women Remain Silent?

Church of God News had a blog entry the other day quoting my posting about UCG's battle over women writers in their publications.  This is all in response to the over-delicate and over-sensitive men who just CANNOT  get over the myth that women must remain silent and subservient to them.  After all, God's mightiest holy apostle laid down the law that there is a power structure in the church with women at the bottom, just above their children and animals.

Herbert Armstrong
Paid Ministry
Non-paid Ministry
Retired Ministry
Rest of creation

This is what Church of God News posted:

Rex Sexton began the session (3mins.) by reading from a “public form letter that is sent out when people write to UCG here and ask about women writing.” He read from the form letter, quoting v.34: “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law of God says.” 
The Freudian slip of adding the phrase “of God” to this verse reveals the subconscious mind set of church leaders - who know that this statement of the role of women in church (or rather lack of it) cannot be found in the law of God. 
In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul begins to address “the things of which you wrote to me.” The first of these is (v.1-2): “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.” 
Paul expresses his ideal view in v.7-8: “I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am.” 
How can it be good for them, if a “law of God” hampers their learning, as they do not have husbands to teach them at home? (14:35) 
The ISV also adds to the literal text of 14:34: “The women must keep silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak out, but must place themselves in submission, as the oral law also says.” 
The translators of the ISV realized that the law referred to here is an oral law of Judaism, which the Orthodox Jews continue to observe today. Only men may speak in the churches (synagogues), only men may sing. Women were segregated and must remain silent. Women were expected to marry when young, and their husbands (who had received religious instruction as boys - which girls did not) were expected to teach their wives at home - if they want to learn something. 
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is another of “the things of which you wrote to me.”
In v.36 he gives a disdainful response to their “law” with this rhetorical question:
“Did God's word originate with you? Are you the only people it has reached?”

UCG's men are so conditioned by HWA, Meredith and others postulating on the role of women that their responses are automatic.  They think it is true because the Apostle said it.  Never have these men really studied into the background of Paul, why he wrote what the did in the way he did.

Assumptions have always been the foundational model for Church of God beliefs.  Due the cherry-picking and proof-texting that the church uses, doctrines and church teachings have been decided by men who are without much theological education and who are incapable of sound research methods.

It's time for women to start teaching the men because so far the men have done an extremely poor job.


DennisCDiehl said...

They won't, but the sooner they figure out it doesn't matter what never married, unmarriageable, self beating, deeply conficted and self hating Paul said or thought, the sooner they can move on.

Anonymous said...

A much more accurate rendering of I Corinthians 14:34-35 is found in the Literal King James Version:

"Let your women hold their peace in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak out; but to submit themselves, even as the law says. And if they wish to question anything, let them question their husbands at home; for it is impolite for women to be speaking out in the church."

a friend

Anonymous said...

I'm a woman and I much prefer article's written by men than women. I find the women writers to be somewhat smug,patronising in how they write. My opinion maybe out there and out of sync. Wonen writers are much better on blogs posted on social media where other women can all discuss together.

Connie Schmidt said...

Lets be honest here... the "defacto rule" is that men better be "silent too", and not have too much of a contrary opinion on church issues and be "PC" or they too will be shown the door.

Anonymous said...

Rex Sexton had one of the most off-putting personalities I had the displeasure of encountering in person in the old WCG, that someone thought he would be suited to a role in communications suggests they are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Ralph said...

Interesting, no?

"Ecc_5:2 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few."


Hedgehog said...

I have "toyed around" with the idea of joining one or another Buddhist groups, most of which are quite non-authoritarian but I could never really commit to it despite finding Buddhist philosophy appealing in many ways. However, as I have read quite a lot about the Armstrong groups and observed how a few relatives were affected by Armstrongism, I have decided that NEVER will I let any religious group take over my thinking or my behavior. I have even read of a couple of Buddhist sanghas that went so far as to become cult-like. I will meditate as I want because it calms me. I will not bow, chant in a language I don't understand, sit in an uncomfortable lotus position and do innumerable prostrations that hurt my knees. I may occasionally visit a group and sit (on a chair) with them and will read the helpful literature. I may even visit a Christian church sometime --- although it's unlikely unless it's a wedding or funeral. Thanks to all of you,both currentand past members of Armstrongism, for helping me to clarify how utterly repulsed I am by rigid, authoritarisn, sexist religions. Gloria Olson, Topeka Kansas

Anonymous said...

To me, it's a storm in a teacup. Church articles are non stop baby food. A browse through self help books at a bookstore, reveals how child like church material is. The only people church writings can help is complete newbies, and only then for about one to two years. Since it's only baby food, who cares about the gender. Come to think of it, I've never come across a woman that's interested in moral issues.

Anonymous said...

Ralf, there you go again, quoting scripture without telling us what point you are making. Or do you feel the scripture is somehow vaguely reverent, and we should work it out by doing the heavy lifting for you?

Ralph said...

on May 31, 2016 at 2:03 AM
Anonymous wrote:-

"....there you go again, quoting scripture without telling us what point you are making."

If you didn't find it interesting all you had to do was answer 'NO'.

"Or do you feel the scripture is somehow vaguely reverent,...."

After reading this part of your comment 'YES'. That is, if you mean "relevant".


Anonymous said...

For a minute there, I thought we were looking at a cartoon of Ron Weinland and his "silent witness" wife, Laura.

Anonymous said...

Isn't he somehow allegedly related to a high flying member of the Chicago mafia. He kinda brags about it here and there.

Anonymous said...

Your 100% correct about that.

Questeruk said...

Anonymous May 31, 2016 at 1:56 AM said...
"Come to think of it, I've never come across a woman that's interested in moral issues."

What an amazing sexist comment!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:56 AM: I know a woman with a PhD in medical ethics. Her coursework included classes at a leading divinity school. She could argue rings around you on moral issues.

Anonymous said...

"Come to think of it, I've never come across a woman that's interested in moral issues."

Well, when your only interaction with women is watching them on Youtube, I'm not really surprised...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 1:56 AM said... “Come to think of it, I've never come across a woman that's interested in moral issues.”

That is a very good point, but maybe they could write a gossip column for the UCG's rag.

Anonymous said...

I just have to wonder how long some people will take to realize that the Bible isn't a book they need to stand in awe of. I guess many of them will never be able to do it. Took me a long time. Nearly all of it is total fiction concocted to keep people superstitiously paying, praying and kissing ass. There was no seven day creation. There was no worldwide flood and no real Noah's Ark. Moses never existed. The conquest of Canaan never happened. A miracle working firebrand named Jesus that supposedly shook up ancient Judea can be found nowhere in historical accounts from that age. And, Paul is an almalgam of several people's spurious writings. Those are the things you discover when you are brave eno9ugh to delve into real history, archaeology, etc. Try it sometime. It's mighty liberating.

Ralph said...

on June 1, 2016 at 8:13 PM
Anonymous wrote (again?):-

"Try it sometime."

I did, and this is one of the things "I found HERE":-
Just one of many.

"It's mighty liberating."

It was and is. Liberating from naysayers such as yourself.


Byker Bob said...

Even Rush Limbaugh acknowledges that women are the moral compasses of society, and the ones who instill values into the next generation.

A sexist or misogynist is always going to find or manufacture reasons to hold women subservient. Of course, misogynists living in civilized nations today are not going to have many career opportunities, nor are they going to be "hot" on the dating scene!


Retired Prof said...

Ralph, all of us are naysayers. We just deny different things.

Ralph said...

on June 2, 2016 at 9:05 AM
Retired Prof wrote:-

"....all of us are naysayers. We just deny different things."

I guess you're right RP. I'll just have to think up another word or phrase that is more appropriate. Any suggestions?
How about "Lawless One(s)? - On second thoughts, not much good really.


Ralph said...

or 'Non True Blue'? LOL


Ralph said...

Ah, yes. That's the one, condensed to NTB. That can also mean 'Not To Be'. ie, Is now, but is Not To Be; in the distant future of course. LOL

ps. Please excuse my warped sense of humor.

Anonymous said...

"Ignorant Bastards of the lesser Laws I hold most dear."