Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
opalecent

"If men got the Titus 2 Treatment"

Recommended Posts

Recently read this article and thought it was worth discussing. I'd like to start discussion/debate, and my only request is that people avoid pulling the "false analogy" card. It may be a valid argument, but I would like to hear other aspects of this link being discussed, primarily, how does this blog post affect the way you view women's role in the church and Biblical literalism? Do you agree or disagree with its premise? Individual points? 

 

(oh goodness, I sound like an English teacher, I promise I'm not guys, I'm just studying to be a math teacher.. but hey, SAT words, right?)

 

The link: http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/men-titus-2-treatment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As one of the people that tore into your last link for not being strictly analogous, I apologize.

 

That said, I thought the article was pretty humorous and right in some respects. I am of the school of thought that tends to believe that women are generally superior to men and so I agree entirely that societal rules regarding men and women are generally skewed.

 

On to the criticism! The writer isn't applying the principle of interpreting the Bible literally. Interpreting something literally doesn't mean taking something at face value so much as it means interpreting Bible according to the common laws of literature. For that reason I would play the 'false analogy card' and point out that her 'Titus 2 treatment' isn't strictly equivalent to the conventional position on women in the congregation or in life in general. That said I applaud her for pointing out that men have some of the dumbest arguments for enforcing a quasi-religious stratification on society.

 

Basically she points out that men are required to do certain things if they hold to the framework of interpretation she lays out in the beginning. However that doesn't necessarily validate her position (which I am assuming might be assumed from what is listed at the very end of the article) because, as she rightly pointed out, that interpretive framework is wrong to begin with. She hasn't actually dealt with the very good reasons that women are/were not allowed to speak in/to the congregation, are subject to their husbands, etc. To me, it seems as though the reason for those directives has more to do with men than it does with women. Men are supposed to be men and it is a male's duty to become a man. For that reason women are asked to be silent and subject so that men may get where they need to be; if they weren't men might have no reason to assume a position which is healthy for them if highly uncomfortable.

 

Now does this mean women can never hold leadership positions or speaking offices? No. But they should allow men the space to lead so that men can grow. How do women grow? It would be my opinion that generally speaking women need to calm down and, like Mary, learn to leave the kitchen and sit at the feet of Christ. Does that mean women can't manage or speak out loud? No, it just means that men and women need to overcome the problems inherent to their sex. 

 

The one thing that I would 'deny' women is an 'equal partnership' with their spouse. I would deny this only because this is usually interpreted to mean that the gal no longer has to worry about what the guy thinks. Like I tried to explain, women aren't subject like slaves who have no choice in the matter but are subject out of their own free will for the betterment of their guys. Guys have to learn to grow up and women can help them by not making their decisions for them. In this way the marriage isn't equal like two boxers are equal (which is what comes to mind when someone says 'equal partnership'), it's equal because both spouses nurture the other at different times. In the case of the Corinthian church and Titus' church women just happened to need correction in that area. Men also apparently needed to be told to be wise if that tells you anything about the condition of the men.

 

I hope you could understand me. Let me know if I wasn't clear and I'd love to answer questions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my only request is that people avoid pulling the "false analogy" card. It may be a valid argument, but I would like to hear other aspects of this link being discussed, primarily, how does this blog post affect the way you view women's role in the church and Biblical literalism?

 

It doesn't change my views because my views were never based on really bad biblical interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×