Hi Norm the Norwig,
Why do you keep coming back to be abused like this? I see that you have still not progressed in the knowledge of Biblical exgesis and research, but continue to labor under the context twisitng lack of understanding that is so prevalent amongst the Watchtower Society. Here's some research for you to ponder:
The church at Corinth was the specific topic of Paul's letters. He was dealing with a SPECIFIC situation, as was the disfellowhip issue with the man who was committing incest. The Corinthians were undergoing some serious problems relating to abuses of the Lord's Supper, speaking in tongues, etc and the problem happened to be with a certain number of women who were leading the rest astray. Only a jdub would contend that women absolutely HAVE to wear a head covering to pray and that women cannot pray with men present. That is stupid and I have never seen this as a practice anywhere else!
There is a specific with regard to women not being pastors but much of Christianity rejects this as factual, some do, some don't. Women play a role in the church just as men do. Also, you continue to deny the equality through submission: Christ is submissive to the Father; the church and man are submissive to Christ, women are submissive to their husbands but ONLY IN CHRIST. It is not, nor has ever been a reason to disreguard women as spiritual equals of men. It is a rule of orderliness that is proven to work in CHRISTIAN HOUSEHOLDS, something you would know nothing about.
Paul is often maligned HEAVILY as being this quintessentially-Talmudic misogynist throwback, who set women's gains under Jesus back 2-3 centuries...but this is SO FAR from the truth...
Just to show how off this mis-conception is nowadays, let me quote from Rosemary Reuther (a very outspoken feminist theologian) who is drawing upon Elizabeth Fiorenza (a very outspoken feminist theologian). Neither of these could REMOTELY be called 'apologetically inclined' toward Paul(!):
"It is generally assumed that Paul is the author of a Christianity of female subordination. But more recent studies have shown that the historical Paul in fact continued most of the assumptions and practices of early charismatic, inclusive Christianity. Indeed, most of the New Testament evidence that women functioned as local leaders, as well as traveling evangelists, is to be found in the Pauline letters. Paul addresses almost an equal number of women along with men (sixteen women and eighteen men) in his greetings to Church leaders in Romans 16. He mentions two women, Euodia and Syntche, as having preached the gospel "with Barnabas and me" in Philippians 4:2-3. He addresses a woman name Junia by the title of "apostle," and constantly refers to the husband and wife team, Priscilla and Aquila, as "Church leaders," usually naming Priscilla first. He also speaks of the prominent woman Phoebe by the title of both "deacon" and "prostasis" or leader, of her community.
Paul received from the early Church both a practice of thus including women in the ministries of catechesis, prophecy, local Church leadership, and traveling evangelism (the role Paul calls that of "apostle"), and also a baptismal theology of male-female equivalence in Christ as reflected in the Galatians 3:28 reference. This formula was not original with Paul; he cites it from early Christian tradition. The Galatians baptismal text expresses the early Christian vision of the new humanity in Christ. It was consciously moulded to contrast with the traditions of rabbinic piety, adapted from Hellenistic philosophy, in which the Jewish male thanks God for having been born male and not female, free and not slave, and Jew rather than Gentile. By declaring that in Christ these divisions had been overcome and all these groups made "one," the early Christian stated the essence of his or her new identity as one where the equivalence of all humans in the image of God had been restored." (WS:WWR:212-213)
[Note--the 'recent studies' Reuther refers to are works by Fiorenza...]
The data we discover about Paul shows that in every way he was as "liberated" in his actual treatment and teaching re:women as was Jesus. But Paul actually goes beyond this--he (as a human) can label women as 'fellow-workers' with him--a 'peer' statement from the great Apostle to the Gentiles.
As Reuther/Fiorenza note above, Paul was VERY 'inclusive' in his views--women were leaders, were co-workers, were patrons, were deacons, were apostles, were emissaries, were official delegates, were prophets, were prayer warriors, were leaders of house churches. He "allowed"(!) women to pray and prophesy in church (e.g. I Cor 11.5) and called on them to disciple leading men (Priscilla and Apollos). He addresses NT epistles to them (e.g. Philp) and entrusts NT epistles to their care (e.g. Romans).
As the apostle Peter noted in 2 Pet 3.15-16, Paul writes some things that are 'hard to understand'! He has passages which will probably always remain obscure (i.e. the head-covering passage?), and many passages that are exegetically baffling. The 'female silence' passages ('I do not allow a woman to teach' and 'women should keep silent in the churches') fall in these categories. The fact that Paul obviously allows women to speak in the churches ("pray and prophecy") and that prophecy was considered every bit as authoritative and as a teaching-practice as "official" instruction, should tip us off that something else is going on in those two texts. Exegetes from all persuasions have identified a number of options that remove the 'clash' with his less ambiguous (1) apostolic praxis and (2) other passages in his teaching corpus. It still remains which option will surface as a consensus option among students of Paul.
In any event, Paul comes off as quite 'liberated' --esp. for his Pharisaic upbringing! The stereotype of a female-hating, women-subjugating, Christian "Rabbi Judah" just cannot be objectively maintained anymore.
No, Paul understood their potential contributions to the cause of His precious Lord--their passion, their commitment, their love for the Desire of All Nations--and did not hesitate to worship with them and "put them to work alongside him" in His apostolic mission...
The data is quite otherwise--the early church was PROBABLY dominantly female!
There several indications of this, in the data (NT, archeology, extrabiblical lit, sociology):
Numerically, they were a minority in the Greeco-Roman world, but a majority in the pre-Constantine church.
One of the earliest pieces of 'high literature' the church produced--the gospel of Luke--was CLEARLY written with women readership in mind.
Outside Palestine, Christianity was a "cult" (Galen called it a "philosophical school"!). Cults have ALWAYS spread first through the intelligentsia, and intelligentsia are always closely aligned with patrons. And patrons were mostly women in that day and age...
The records of the earliest sites and house-churches feature prominent women leaders.
The earliest pagan reference to Christian leadership (e.g. Pliny) is to women deacons, who were tortured for their faith.
Early paintings and mosaics show females as a large part of Christian gatherings.
Women Christians outlived their non-Christian counterparts by DECADES--due to the Christian ethics around abortion, later marriage, non-forced remarriage, medical care-giving...
Early and Late Church Fathers refer to the large number of women in the church, AND TO their effectiveness at bringing their husbands 'into the fold'.
We have already noted in many places the widespread female representation in early church leadership positions.
Even widow-care was an early Christian priority! (Acts 6).
The church was known to attract a high number of high-status women to its ranks.
The early church was VERY MUCH "inclusive" of females--indeed, females CONSTITUTED a very large (maybe even majority) of the early church. They were a part of the Body of Christ and part of the leadership of that community.
Rex
