Christian Feminism

Paul writes in context of an abusive society and law and 
putting the already dominant man in the role of Christ to 
the church reverses the patriarchal concept of roles of 
the sexes, instead of the woman being the support, the 
nurterer, the long suffering supportive one (and 
expendable), now the man is the support (not necessarily 
financially all the time) the nurterer, the long suffering 
supportive one (but not expendable). 

"to have and to hold" is not about love or relationship, 
it is a term you will find in a real estate deed transfer 
contract it is ABOUT PROPERTY. ownership. The 
man in those old vows accepts the woman as now 
his sole property given to him by her father who now 
no longer owns her. This is not a feminist rant THIS 
IS WHAT THE LAW USED TO BE & WHAT THESE 
WORDS MEAN. google the phrase and add real 
estate or property law.

Everything you are used to, 

#that a woman could even be considered as a 
possible custodial parent in the case of divorce, 

# that she could keep money such as wages or 
property she acquired during the marriage or even
brought into it, 

# that she could vote, 

# hold office,

# be in professions like medicine or law, 

# address a public meeting a mixed sex group meeting, 

# or even be issued a patent by the Patent Office, 
something denied to one woman on an invention 
because she was a woman, but then issued to her 
husband she got to front for her,

# and countless things like wife beating being illegal 
and forced arranged marriages being illegal, allowing 
anesthesia in childbirth and allowing barrier 
contraception (once denounced even when a 
woman's health was at risk, the favorite pessary or 
support for uterine prolapsis was also a barrier 
contraceptive in effect so escaped the prohibition),

 #education for women beyond elementary school, 

you even find a basis for in Scripture, YET THESE 
HAD TO BE WON THROUGH DECADES OF 
LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE BATTLES IN THE 
1800s AND EARLY 1900s AGAINST THOSE 
OPPOSING THESE THINGS WHO MISAPPLIED 
THE BIBLE since man is head all this other stuff 
THINGS YOU WOULD BE HORRIFIED AT 
were argued as the only proper way.

misunderstanding "one flesh" resulted in such 
statements in American law 1800s as that the two 
become one person, and that person is the husband.
person is not flesh. and the one flesh remains clearly 
distinct beings. A better understanding in earlier 
British law, resulted in forbidding a man to marry the 
sister of a woman he had had sex with, because that 
sex act, in making him one flesh with her, made him
effectively the brother of her sister, so marrying her 
sister would be de facto incest.

reducing marriage to a set of roles undercuts love 
and relationship, it is said "marriage is the death of 
love," and ignoring the one flesh issue makes 
seduction and abandonment easier since 
supposedly a couple is not bound if not legally 
bound. The faithless lover is applauded not 
condemned.

This twisting of the Scripture IGNORES VARIATION 
PAUL ALLOWED IN PRACTICE AS DISTINCT 
FROM THE IDEAL, e.g., the contrast between Paul's
standard for elders and bishops and the reality of his 
appointing young Timothy bishop of Ephesus is 
extreme.

Of course you never address the issue, that Priscilla 
is addressed BEFORE her husband Aquila, named 
BEFORE him as appropriate to a head of 
household, as often as vice versa by Paul and 
there is mentioned "the church in THEIR house." 

Again, we are told by Paul that we the church are 
to grow up into our Head, Who is Jesus Christ, 
become more like Him, closer to Him, etc., but of 
course there is a limit to this since He is also 
God. Man is the source in a sense of woman - 
which also makes him her model. think amazon 
or tomboy. IF the church should grow into its 
head Jesus Christ, then woman should grow into 
her head, man, and since man is not God this 
means equality with man. Christians whether 
male or female have one model, Jesus Christ 
Who is male.