Another chapter in the Doug Phillips/Vision Forum saga

[Mrs Mungo]

Not sure if anyone's shared this little gem yet: http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/vice-victims-and-vision-forum.html

So...in theory, what would people do if an acquaintance linked this on their Facebook with a, "heck yeah, I agree!" type of statement?

 

What if they also recently linked something from Sproul, Jr.? Would you feel the need to enlighten them or just hide the posts and move on?

[*Lulu*]

So...in theory, what would people do if an acquaintance linked this on their Facebook with a, "heck yeah, I agree!" type of statement?

 

What if they also recently linked something from Sproul, Jr.? Would you feel the need to enlighten them or just hide the posts and move on?

How much do we like this theoretical person?

 

How likely is this theoretical person to actually be open to a different perspective?

 

How cathartic will the experience of publicly decrying this article's brand of BS be for you?

 

Theoretically, of course. :P

[Word Nerd]

So...in theory, what would people do if an acquaintance linked this on their Facebook with a, "heck yeah, I agree!" type of statement?

 

What if they also recently linked something from Sproul, Jr.? Would you feel the need to enlighten them or just hide the posts and move on?

It depends on the nature of the relationship. In my case, I unfriended her after one too many such posts. I doubt she even noticed, as we only talked a few times IRL at my former homeschooling group in another state.

[LizzyBee]

I agree with all you said, bolt, but the part I've marked is, I think, a key piece of the woman's case.

 

I found it interesting that DP apparently told Lourdes that his wife would die. Horrid.

 

It's awful, but not surprising. I've read of this exact thing used by other pastoral predators.

 

[LizzyBee]

Yes, what the heck?  I looked to see if she were currently seriously ill, but the article did not mention it.  So what....was he planning to whack her? 

 

So crazy how someone starts out well-meaning (I believe), and then goes off the deep end. 

You know what's scary about that?  There have been church abuse cases where the spouse got tired of waiting for God to take out the spouse who was in the way, so they did it themselves. I really do wonder if Beall was in danger during that time.

[FaithManor]

I've felt for a long time that Beall neede to get out. As it is, she need to sleep with one eye open, never fix foo he has prepred, and never leave her food unattended. My classic narcissist SIL once concocted some very elaborate plans to off my brother and she did eventually try one. She cut his brake lines, but since he's very anal about checking oil and fluids in his car, he caught it before driving.

 

He was unable to prove it was her; th local police did not take him seriously. The divorce was fast!!!

 

Fo whatever reason my family cannot comprehend, he managed to marry another one. She's horrible, but at least not dangerous.

 

Narcissism can have a psychopathic kind of element, but it's probably not typical. Given though that he kept promising her that Bell would die soon, I think he could be one of the very dangerous ones.

[Anne in CA]

I think Beall would have died the second the poor young victim became more willing to go farther. He was biding his time.

[SadieMarie]

So after reading many of the links and really thinking about this, I just find myself fascinated.  I mean, what is the attraction of churches like this?  And I am wondering how the world becomes so scary to people that as adults they want to be led like little children, told how to dress, with whom they can associate, how they should educate their children, for whom they should vote; the list goes on.  It truly sounds cultish and I do not get the WHY, kwim?  Is this because people feel that their lives are meaningless and they are being offered the "opportunity" to be part of something bigger?  Is it because they can't face being IN the world and need to hide from it?  Does it make them feel important as opposed to insignificant? That does seem like a draw that many churches have, claiming that they have the answers, that they are god's favorites. I have many devout Catholic relatives.  I have protestant friends but they belong to the Methodist or Episcopalian or Lutheran Church.  I have had friends who are Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist.  They are all in the world, interacting with people outside their faiths, sharing traditions and respecting others (or I guess I would not know them lol). It is just so much better than people who want to judge and be separate (imho) or, even worse, have the goal to somehow to force their agenda on everyone.  And that seems to be the point of the whole quiver full thing right?  If they out breed everyone else their values will triumph.

[Word Nerd]

I think it's far-fetched to suggest he was planning to bump off his wife. It's not as if he's incapable of deception and manipulating the facts to get what he wants.

[laughing lioness]

Throwing this out there: often pd's pair up with complimentary pd's. A "classic" pd marriage would be a narcissist married to a borderline. So, when DP is saying B will die soon it could be his narcissistic wishful thinking because she's really not likeable (to put it nicely) and he'd really just like her to disappear. No excuse for DP's behavior, but perhaps a larger perspective. 

[Moxie]

I think it's far-fetched to suggest he was planning to bump off his wife. It's not as if he's incapable of deception and manipulating the facts to get what he wants.

 

Really??  Maybe I watch too much TV but I can absolutely see it.  Absolute power corrupts.  There is literally NOTHING he could do that would surprise me.

[unsinkable]

Homeschool leaders with an agenda? Who ever heard of such a thing.... :( I just found a heart-breaking story of Chandra Hawkins-Bernat, who grew up in one of the prominent homeschool families in the CHEF support group in Missouri. This is her view of what their goals were:

 

This is from Part 1 of Chandra's entire story here.

I hope this woman is a real person. NLQ posted a series of posts by a woman who claimed to be an escapee from a family that followed Gothard who is most likely a hoax.

[ktgrok]

No it's not. Not culturally and not scripturally.

 

Coming back to add that it is very much like Christianity and Christian scripture. The scripture itself inspired a lot of extremism and dysfunction. But the *actual words* speak of inequality, patriarchy, abuse. It's the same as Christian scripture in terms of absurd words about women. Either you have to take it literally, which extremists do. Or you have to pick and choose - which most other adherants do.

 

But, no, please don't contend that either religion, as supported by scripture is egalitarian, supportive of women, or non patriarchal.

 

But I'm not fond of Buddha, either, and the lame apologetics behind him leaving his family.

 

sorry to go off on a tangent, but YES! I took a Buddhism class in college and this was SUCH a sticking point for me. I couldn't get past it. 

[Word Nerd]

Really?? Maybe I watch too much TV but I can absolutely see it. Absolute power corrupts. There is literally NOTHING he could do that would surprise me.

Sure, it's possible--but is it more likely that he was lying or plotting to kill his wife?

[Anne in CA]

I hope this woman is a real person. NLQ posted a series of posts by a woman who claimed to be an escapee from a family that followed Gothard who is most likely a hoax.

I, on the other hand, would be delighted if she were a hoax. Her story was really sad and I would LOVE to think she made it all up for a little attention. I doubt it, though.

[shanvan]

I hope this woman is a real person. NLQ posted a series of posts by a woman who claimed to be an escapee from a family that followed Gothard who is most likely a hoax.

While I don't doubt that there are young women being treated that badly, there are still quite a few things that don't sound quite right.  Of course, it could all be true and the inconsistencies might be part of the genuine weirdness of the family/social dynamic.  It is hard for me to buy that 80% of the homeschoolers she met weren't meeting high school requirements (I think that's what she wrote) and yet she also tells about her mother counseling homeschooling families about the ACT, SAT, and applying to colleges.  Those 2 statements don't go together.  I do know of families who just aren't all that academic, but I don't know of any that are as badly behind as she mentions she and her brother were.  I do sometimes wonder how the leaders of various homeschooling groups find time to teach their own children.  

 

The author calls for regulations so that others don't suffer the same neglect and abuse, but I wonder if regulations would do much for the patriarchal families.  

[albeto.]

So after reading many of the links and really thinking about this, I just find myself fascinated.

 

Me too!

 

I mean, what is the attraction of churches like this?  And I am wondering how the world becomes so scary to people that as adults they want to be led like little children, told how to dress, with whom they can associate, how they should educate their children, for whom they should vote; the list goes on.  It truly sounds cultish and I do not get the WHY, kwim?  Is this because people feel that their lives are meaningless and they are being offered the "opportunity" to be part of something bigger?  Is it because they can't face being IN the world and need to hide from it?  Does it make them feel important as opposed to insignificant? That does seem like a draw that many churches have, claiming that they have the answers, that they are god's favorites.

 

If I were to try and put myself in the shoes of a mother in that culture, I would not think of being led like a child as a bad thing. After all, you can read in the bible where this exact thing is a virtue, and is a prerequisite for access to heaven (Matthew 18:3). So, being led like a child expresses true faith, and faith is what it's all about, right? How one responds to the various events in life in faith is the million dollar question, and the patriarchal formula offers a simple solution to a complex problem.

 

I imagine it also appeals in some measure to a desire to reclaim the feeling of safety and security known in childhood. The modern world is wicked, it's too "worldly" and is getting worse and worse. Confirmation bias is used as evidence, and information to the contrary is suppressed as much as possible. At the risk of sounding divisive, I think patriarchy appeals to men because it offers uncontested control. It appeals to women because unavoidable suffering is going to be rewarded in an unfathomably wonderful way. After all, life isn't fair, you can rage against the machine all you want, people don't play by the rules, and sometimes s**t just happens. To value the suppression of one's own desires and consider it a virtue is to internalize the value of this unequal distribution of control. It's part of the mechanics of control. I suspect the way in which it is internalized is by identifying another thing as being more valuable than control. If self-suppression of desires is identified as humility, and humility is a virtue, then a humble woman is an honorable person. Her identity isn't one of being without value, but with great value - honor and virtue. I think the convenience this argument affords men is likely quite vigorously ignored.

 

I have many devout Catholic relatives.  I have protestant friends but they belong to the Methodist or Episcopalian or Lutheran Church.  I have had friends who are Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist.  They are all in the world, interacting with people outside their faiths, sharing traditions and respecting others (or I guess I would not know them lol). It is just so much better than people who want to judge and be separate (imho) or, even worse, have the goal to somehow to force their agenda on everyone.  And that seems to be the point of the whole quiver full thing right?  If they out breed everyone else their values will triumph.

 

I don't know that out-breeding the non quiver-full population is quite the point. I think it might align more along the lines of showing true faith. You and I may note the that convenient aspect of keeping women busy with children, thereby limiting choices, but I don't know that it's a conscious goal. Maybe, but I imagine at the very least it's rationalized into a religious belief that speaks of honor and virtue and good things about otherwise good people.

 

[TranquilMind]

I've heard that interpretation once before (from someone with a woman pastor), and I don't buy it, especially considering the similar instructions in 1 Timothy 2. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any Bible commentator in the first 1,900 years of Christianity who espoused the view that Paul was being sarcastic in these verses.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Your position does not square with the many women who held leadership roles in scripture.  In fact, Priscilla taught Paul herself, along with her husband, Aquila; why would Paul be ok with that?    Phoebe was a leader noted by Paul at the Church of Cenchreae, and he specifically requested that the Romans welcome her, indicating her ministry was wider than just her own church.   He praises Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and the four daughters of Phillip who prophesied and preached.   I can't square this with your viewpoint.

 

The verse in Timothy must be considered in context.  The pagan practices were rife in the area, and may have been arising in the church.   The Greek specifically states that he is not "presently permitting" the women to teach or have authority. 

 

I'm not fine with women "usurping" authority, which is what is proscribed here, but men of spiritual discernment will freely bestow it when the time is right to whomever has a word from God, as the 1st Corinthians passage describes. 

Those who rigidly hang onto their authority and wield it as a sword should concern us all more.  That's how this Doug Phillips kind of thing happens. 

 

[Seasider]

In fact, Priscilla taught Paul herself, along with her husband, Aquila; why would Paul be ok with that?.

I read recently that some scholars are of the mind that the anonymous sermon of Hebrews may have been the work of Priscilla. Interesting to consider, eh?

[Hope44]

So after reading many of the links and really thinking about this, I just find myself fascinated.  I mean, what is the attraction of churches like this?  And I am wondering how the world becomes so scary to people that as adults they want to be led like little children, told how to dress, with whom they can associate, how they should educate their children, for whom they should vote; the list goes on.  It truly sounds cultish and I do not get the WHY, kwim?  Is this because people feel that their lives are meaningless and they are being offered the "opportunity" to be part of something bigger?  Is it because they can't face being IN the world and need to hide from it?  Does it make them feel important as opposed to insignificant? That does seem like a draw that many churches have, claiming that they have the answers, that they are god's favorites. I have many devout Catholic relatives.  I have protestant friends but they belong to the Methodist or Episcopalian or Lutheran Church.  I have had friends who are Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist.  They are all in the world, interacting with people outside their faiths, sharing traditions and respecting others (or I guess I would not know them lol). It is just so much better than people who want to judge and be separate (imho) or, even worse, have the goal to somehow to force their agenda on everyone.  And that seems to be the point of the whole quiver full thing right?  If they out breed everyone else their values will triumph.

I think you'll find the reason that there are people who are "attracted" to Mr. Fix It Follow Only My Interpretation Of Bible Verses Taken Out of Context So I Can Push My Agenda Down Your Throats types is just that.  They've had experiences in their lives they want "fixed." (ie...to basically have their slate wiped clean).  They can't deal with the reality of choices they've made or other abuses they've endured or some type of critical situation they've encountered.  They want the pain or embarrassment GONE and they don't want anyone in their family (especially) their children to have those experiences at all.  It is like they just over-correct and it is why so many NEVER actually leave the cult mindset, even though they may, in fact, physically leave the cult.  They, in many times, retain much of the teachings, sometimes justifying it by using the phrase "chew on the good meat, but spit out the bones."  The trouble is many of the followers have totally LOST the ability to be rational and think critically of the leader or the "principles" they've been taught.  

[MercyA]

Well, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

It looks like it.  ;)

 

Your position does not square with the many women who held leadership roles in scripture.  In fact, Priscilla taught Paul herself, along with her husband, Aquila; why would Paul be ok with that?    Phoebe was a leader noted by Paul at the Church of Cenchreae, and he specifically requested that the Romans welcome her, indicating her ministry was wider than just her own church.   He praises Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and the four daughters of Phillip who prophesied and preached.   I can't square this with your viewpoint.

 

Looking quickly at each of your examples:

 

Priscilla:  "Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures.This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately." Acts 18:24-26

 

They took Apollos (not Paul) aside and explained the Gospel to him.  This is not at all the same as Priscilla formally teaching in a church, nor does it indicate that she had a leadership role.

 

Phoebe:  "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a  servant [deaconess] of the church which is at Cenchrea;  that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well." Romans 16:1-2

 

She is a servant and helper of the church, and Paul instructed the church in Rome to help her in return.  There is no indication that she taught men or had authority over them.

 

Mary:  "Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you." Romans 16:6

 

Tryphaena and Tryphosa:  "Greet Tryphaena and Tryphosa, workers in the Lord. Greet Persis the beloved, who has worked hard in the Lord." Romans 16:12

 

There is nothing to indicate that these three women taught in the church or were in leadership positions.

 

Phillip's daughters:  "Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses." Acts 21:9

 

I would never say that women cannot prophesy, just that, according to Scripture, they may not do it in the church service.  The passage doesn't say anything about them preaching. 

 

The verse in Timothy must be considered in context.  The pagan practices were rife in the area, and may have been arising in the church.   The Greek specifically states that he is not "presently permitting" the women to teach or have authority.

 

If you're referring to á¼Ï€Î¹Ï„Ïέπω (the verb translated as "allow" in "...I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet," it's a present, active, indicative verb.  That same verb form is used over 3,000 times in the New Testament.  Should we feel free to disregard any commandment in the New Testament using the present tense?

 

Those who rigidly hang onto their authority and wield it as a sword should concern us all more.  That's how this Doug Phillips kind of thing happens.

 

Maintaining that the historical and, in my view, plain meaning of Scripture should be adhered to may make someone "rigid," but it doesn't make them wrong.  The fact that someone like Doug Phillips has a traditional view of these passages doesn't make the traditional interpretation invalid.

[Catwoman]

I think it's far-fetched to suggest he was planning to bump off his wife. It's not as if he's incapable of deception and manipulating the facts to get what he wants.

Personally, I think she knew exactly what he was doing all along and played along because she was getting what she wanted out of the whole situation. She sounds like a nasty and manipulative woman, and I don't feel sympathy toward her.

 

I think she and her horrible husband make a wonderful team and work beautifully together. Otherwise, she wouldn't keep supporting him and staying with him. I don't know much about her, but from what I have heard, she doesn't strike me as a weak-and-meek little wallflower. I think she's a barracuda.

[Anne in CA]

I don't think she is weak either. She enjoyed the power the position of her husband gave her, no doubt. Although, leaving someone like DP is nearly impossible to do. Every single woman I have ever known who divorced a controlling man got no money, and they do everything they can to ruin the rest of the woman's life. If she left him, she would have been tied up in divorce court for YEARS, she would have probably never collected any divorce settlement she finally did mange to win, and he probably would have have turned as many of their children against he as possible. A lawyer is a very bad person to divorce already, and a manipulator does not ever give in, even when they do lose.

[SadieMarie]

Maintaining that the historical and, in my view, plain meaning of Scripture should be adhered to may make someone "rigid," but it doesn't make them wrong.  

 

But does it make them "right"?  

[MercyA]

But does it make them "right"?  

 

Adhering to the plain meaning of Scripture?  Generally speaking, I'd say yes.  Of course there will always be those who twist Scripture to make it fit what they themselves would like it to say.  I've been guilty of that in the past, but I try to consciously avoid it.

 

I would also say that if a particular understanding of Scripture has been generally held by most Christians for many centuries, it's more likely to be correct than a new and novel interpretation.

 

But now I'm out of time for the evening.  Good night, all! 

[TranquilMind]

It looks like it.  ;)

 

 

Looking quickly at each of your examples:

 

Priscilla:  "Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures.This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately." Acts 18:24-26

 

They took Apollos (not Paul) aside and explained the Gospel to him.  This is not at all the same as Priscilla formally teaching in a church, nor does it indicate that she had a leadership role.

 

Phoebe:  "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a  servant [deaconess] of the church which is at Cenchrea;  that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well." Romans 16:1-2

 

She is a servant and helper of the church, and Paul instructed the church in Rome to help her in return.  There is no indication that she taught men or had authority over them.

 

Mary:  "Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you." Romans 16:6

 

Tryphaena and Tryphosa:  "Greet Tryphaena and Tryphosa, workers in the Lord. Greet Persis the beloved, who has worked hard in the Lord." Romans 16:12

 

There is nothing to indicate that these three women taught in the church or were in leadership positions.

 

Phillip's daughters:  "Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses." Acts 21:9

 

I would never say that women cannot prophesy, just that, according to Scripture, they may not do it in the church service.  The passage doesn't say anything about them preaching. 

 

 

If you're referring to á¼Ï€Î¹Ï„Ïέπω (the verb translated as "allow" in "...I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet," it's a present, active, indicative verb.  That same verb form is used over 3,000 times in the New Testament.  Should we feel free to disregard any commandment in the New Testament using the present tense?

 

 

Maintaining that the historical and, in my view, plain meaning of Scripture should be adhered to may make someone "rigid," but it doesn't make them wrong.  The fact that someone like Doug Phillips has a traditional view of these passages doesn't make the traditional interpretation invalid.

Correction: 

18Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken. 19They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. 20When they asked him to spend more time with them, he declined. 21But as he left, he promised, “I will come back if it is God’s will.†Then he set sail from Ephesus. 22When he landed at Caesarea, he went up to Jerusalem and greeted the church and then went down to Antioch.

 

 

23After spending some time in Antioch, Paul set out from there and traveled from place to place throughout the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.

24Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor^a and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

 

 

You are correct on that point; mea culpa.    While Paul did travel with Priscilla and Aquilla, it was Apollos that they subsequently instructed as to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as he had only known "John's baptism" (of water).    I was working from memory there and obviously conflated these two stituations.   Priscilla and Aquilla are mentioned six times in scripture, always with Priscilla first, which contradicted custom of the time.  They were called "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" exactly as other leaders were referenced, such as Urbanus, Timothy, and Titus and a few other men.

It clearly says "they" instructed Paul, not Aquilla, and I don't think we can ignore that distinction. 

 

 

Phoebe was a helper in the same way that Paul described his own ministry- a "diakonos" (the male form of the word).  He equates the ministries of himself and Phoebe.  I doubt he would have done that for a woman who brought a pie to the potluck, the way we think of deaconesses today.    In Romans 16:1, scripture states:  16 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae.   She is an important leader. 

 

 

Paul refered to Timothy in exactly the same way.  He could have easily have used another word that meant merely "helper" and avoided confusion. 

 

 

Paul refers to Tryphena and Tryphosa as having "worked very hard in the Lord", exactly the same Greek word he used to refer to other ministers in the gospel.  That term was not used casually for menial task workers.  The Greek makes the distinction that the English waters down.

In Phillipians, Euodia and Syntyche were grouped with "Clement and the rest of my fellow workers", Paul said, and they contended at Paul's side in the cause of the gospel (not behind him). 

I believe you are not considering the Greek terms that class these women with the male leaders, and taking the whole of scripture into context. 

 

 

1 Corinthians 13For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. 14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 16Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer,^d say “Amen†to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? 17You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.

18I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

 

 

Clearly this praying and prophesying is going on in the group setting, i.e. "church".   Paul is simply saying not to engage in the gift of speaking in tongues without an interpretation in the group setting.   So the members are speaking in the church setting and engaging in the gifts.

 

 

1 Corinthians 14:26-30 seals it (clearly mixed groups meeting, and "each one"  can have a hymn, word, revelation, or tongue/interpretation in this setting.  Not just men only).

 

 

26What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

 

29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged

Again, I believe you are not considering the whole in scripture, but are focusing merely on two scriptures taken out of context that do not line up with the rest, and which have unfortunately been used as sledgehammers to keep women "in their place" by insecure men.   I can't ignore the things that don't fit this patriarchal view, such as the admonition by Paul to brothers AND SISTERS to engage responsibly in the spiritual gifts in the church setting. 

 

(And I'm pretty darn traditional)

 

Like I said, we will have to agree to disagree. 

[TranquilMind]

I read recently that some scholars are of the mind that the anonymous sermon of Hebrews may have been the work of Priscilla. Interesting to consider, eh?

Yes.