A Letter to Paul


My dear brother,

I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond, but life has a habit of getting in the way, so to speak.  Please forgive me.  However, some sort of response is necessary because of the inappropriate and misinterpreted manner in which  your teachings are currently being used.  I wish you were here, yourself, to set everyone straight, but that obviously cannot be.  So be it.

It is your closing remarks to Timothy, in your first letter, that I wish to address.  You advise women to dress modestly and quietly and not wear fancy hairstyles, or jewelry.

Then how do women show the glory of God's perfected creation?  Should not an image of God be glorified?  After all, God created man, and then perfected that creation with a second try.  Think about it.  Man was made from dirt.  Woman was made from a human being.

While the subject is self-adornment, why do you not address the blatant and blaring bodily adornments of men?  Men exercise and buff up their muscles and puff out their chests while parading around showing off their well-toned bodies.  They even shave off their manly hair to further delineate their musculature.  They also wear gold ornaments and costly clothing as if they were the kept pets of royalty.

Should not both men and women who profess to adhere to their religious principles adorn themselves with their good deeds and not cheap trinkets?

Please explain to me why a woman must be silent and submissive to an abusive lout?  That is not right.  Surely, you did not think your words to Timothy through.  It is not common sense that anyone be silent when sin is committed.

Finally, let me set the record straight.  Naive Eve was tempted by a higher intelligence.  Adam was tempted by himself; he didn't want Eve to be above himself.  It really was no contest between an angel and woman--higher intelligence v. naivete.  Besides, Adam was in charge; he was there, (Genesis 3: 6) standing right beside Eve when the serpent tricked her; why didn't he speak up.  If anyone is to blame, it would be the man in charge--Adam.  All he had to do was shout, "No!"  What kind of man would allow his woman to fall into sin when he was right beside her?

Excuse my bluntness, Paul, but I think you have a lot of chutzpah to lay the blame of original sin upon the more vulnerable of the pair.  It is clear that the man exhibited cowardly and self-serving behavior.  The woman wanted to be like God and she even shared that desire.  What was Adam's motivation?  Where was his leadership?

I am sorry to say, Paul, that I perceive your advice to be crass, ignorant, misogynistic and an embarrassment to the Body of Christ. In my humble opinion, since Adam was created first, he was in charge of the woman and should have been in charge of the situation in the great temptation.  Since he was not, he should be sentenced to working for his family, for the rest of his life.  He should stay yoked to the mother of his children and work to support his family.  He should play a major role in the upbringing of his children, in order to see to their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being.  Man will be saved thus, provided he continues in faith and love and holiness--his faithfulness in chastity, of course, being taken for granted.

With love and prayers,
your sister (respectfully submissive) in Christ,
Faith (the One True Faith)

P.S.  Excuse the rant.  (PMS)


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Posterity

Re-examen