[Vision2020] what the Bible really teaches (was Douglas Wilson on women)

[Joan Opyr]

On 14 Jan 2006, at 23:05, keely emerinemix wrote:

> If we take Jesus at his word and follow his example, we'll see that 
> sexism in the church is even worse than sexism outside of it, because 
> it purports to have the stamp of approval of the One who proclaimed 
> through Paul that "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor 
> free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  
> (Gal. 3:28)  Christ came to reverse the effects of the Fall, not to 
> make sure that its more odious manifestations continue in robust 
> display.  I'm sure many Kirk women disagree with me, and that's fine.  
> But freedom in Christ can never be diminished by the men around us, 
> and those men who attempt to curtail the abundant life of women in 
> Christ will have much to answer for.

Keely is again spot on.  According to Genesis 3:16, "To the woman, He 
said, 'I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing, in pain you 
shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, 
and he will rule over you.'"  Woman's submission to man is a punishment 
for Original Sin.  What it is not is the divine ideal (Eden), and it is 
not a Biblical reflection of biological determinism.  To answer 
Michael's observation re: Doug's pilot parable, I would suggest that 
biological determinism is not a road any Christian theologian really 
wants to travel.  How does the praying mantis fit into the divine 
order?  After mating, the male makes a lovely dinner for the female  -- 
husband a la mode.  And among arachnids?  Devouring hubby is not 
uncommon.  Drones serve no purpose beyond mating; when they're done, 
their wings fall off and they die.  In prides of lions, flocks of 
chickens, herds of deer -- only one male is required.  I have ten happy 
hens and two roosters.  The thing is, I don't need two roosters, so 
guess who's coming to dinner?  Foghorn Leghorn.

Further, if the natural world reflects God's will, then how does 
Michael (or, for that matter, Doug) explain the more than 300 species 
that engage in homosexual behavior?  From penguins to dolphins to 
bonobo monkeys, homosexual behavior is quite common.  In nature, 
homosexual behavior is good, clean fun.  Brokeback Mountain?  Try 
Brokeback Zoo.

[This might sound odd coming from a lesbian, but I don't think human 
males are superfluous to requirements.  I like men; I have many, many 
male friends with whom I enjoy spending time -- time free of any silly 
flirtations, sexual tension, or wifely jealousy.  It's great!  I do 
believe that I like men, genuinely like them, better than do many 
straight married women.  Men are good fun, and I've found that they're 
usually willing to lend you their truck or their chain-saw or their 
snow-blower.  Yay men!  And yay butch lesbians!]

To argue that women are biologically (or Biblically) unfit for certain 
jobs like fighter pilot -- well, nonsense.  Sexual dimorphism has very 
little meaning in a modern technological society.  No man, I don't care 
how big or macho he is, has ever been a match hand-to-paw for a polar 
bear, a tiger, or even a determined Doberman.  Why is humankind on top 
of the food chain?  Because we're smart; because we're big-brained tool 
users, male and female alike.  To limit just over half of your 
population to kinder, kirke, kuche simply because they are born female 
(and because you are a misogynist) is not only a waste, it's an 
abomination.

Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
www.joanopyr.com