9: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10: But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15: Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. One of the most controversial scriptures within Christianity is I Timothy 2 in particular the above passage. The liberal theologian Gary Wills even went so far as to say that Timothy was probably not written by Paul because he felt that it was so different from Paul's other works. The problem though is even if that were theoretically true the doctrine purposed in this portion of scripture was not a new or radical idea but an extension of Jewish doctrines about the role of women within spiritual communities that had been in place for centuries. The idea was that men were supposed to be the leaders within public spiritual communities and women within homes. So, for example a man would read the Torah at synagogue but his wife would prepare their house and meals for the Sabbath. The point was not that women were not allowed into the greater community in most respects just that there primary duty was in the home. I say this not to belittle Judaism but only to explain it. Judaism probably has more positive women role models than unfortunately Christianity including Deborah, Ruth, Esther and Hannah. Granted with the exception of Deborah most modern feminists probably wouldn't find their stories necessarily inspiring and polygamy was practiced by many leaders of the Old Testament including Jacob, David and Solomon. Apologetics writers like to note that at the birth of Christianity it was a group of women three of which were indentified, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of Jesus, who first discovered the resurrection. The point being that if the writers of the New Testament were trying to fool people they would not have included women as being the first spreaders of the gospel. Whether this a deliberate split from the Jewish view of women or merely a coincidence is subject to interpretation. Christianity also seems to split from Judaism on polygamy or at least the works the counsel of Nicaea canonized. Timothy chapter 3 in its instructions about what should be required of church elders instructs that: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife. However, the New Testament does not include any women among its writers or unlike Judaism even its main heroes granted though there are far fewer 'heroes' in the New Testament. Some conspiracy theorists (I.E Dan Brown) have argued that the Catholic Church deliberately suppressed information about women's role in Christianity. However rather ironically it's in Catholicism in which the Virgin Mary takes a far bigger role than a casual reading of the scriptures would indicate. What does all this mean about how one should live their life though? A cynic could definitely say that it doesn't mean much or that it's unclear what it means. A straight interpretation would say that traditionally both Judaism and Christianity say that men should be leaders. A more contextual interpretation might point to the differences in societies between now and the first century. It may not be politically correct to say it but women did have less value as workers in agrarian or nomadic societies than they do to technological or industrial societies. The interpretation that I've heard that probably is the most helpful though is the idea that even though Jewish doctrines separated the roles of men and women that the role of homemaker if you will was not considered to be a lesser calling but actually a greater calling. When I first heard this it seemed so counter-intuitive because of course I like almost every other religious person in the world and probably most secularists believe that the first duty of any person who has one male or female is to care and provide for their family. However, given the time energy and attachment that our society gives to careers it seems almost like one is saying that a woman is less of a person if they say that a woman should not take on a career or should have their primary focus in life to be something other than a career. Looking at my own life though my mother who is one of my heroes is a lady who could have probably done whatever she chose to chose not to work but instead focus most of her energies on raising myself and my three siblings. While, I don't doubt that there are many women who have both fulfilling careers and family life, I view her decision as a good one. At the same time though I have a hard time believing that I will eventually marry a woman who was as much of a 'stay at home' as she was. What's more while I definitely don't think that a woman or man is by definition not putting their family first if they have a career that is demanding, I do think that they both should put their families first and there's no way of getting around the fact that while this has changed somewhat most of the work of raising children still falls on wives much more than husbands. So, what then does it mean for a man too but for a woman especially to put your family first or to be a leader of a home? To me it definitely doesn't mean putting candles out on the Sabbath as it does to some orthodox Jews. It could mean setting aside specific time in the week to be with one's family, as the Mormon Church teaches but there's really nothing to my knowledge in Judaism or Christianity that would call for such an interpretation. P.S. I've been thinking about the scripture above and what it means in large part because of a discussion about Judaism on a radio program called On Point which I listened to a few weeks ago. The link to which is below. http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/12/david-gelernter | 