Just wondered what other people think...
Can someone be (for want of a better word) a 'relaxed' Christian? By relaxed I mean in terms of views etc.
For example: my church had a great family atmosphere and I like the family feel etc.
I believe in God etc but my church is very heavy on the 'women are submissive to the men, men are in charge and women cannot have any preaching/leadership roles in the church unless it's with children'.
This doesn't sit well with me, ice always been quite independent and 'in charge'.
They are also very strict on no sex before marriage, it is very frowned upon to date a non-Christian etc.
I have much more liberal views and do not like those views being transferred to heavily to my children during Sunday school and kids club etc.
I work full time and the bible study group can't understand why I can't spare them three hours one evening a week (between marking and running the house I simply don't have time).
I have many friends in the church as do my children but so feel some of it (by a few of the people) is conditional on your regular attendance and commitment to bible study and Sunday morning services etc.
I have a strong belief in God and my faith is very real but feel like I am pulling away from the church a bit.
I am awaiting the call anyday now to ask where we've been.
Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.
Philosophy/religion
Can you be a relaxed Christian?
SeaGshore · 28/09/2014 20:29
How are you doing OP? There are a lot of different strands on this thread, but I think much agreement actually about central principles of Christian faith, centred on Jesus' own proclamations and the way he lived.
Just to sneak in that not all 'evangelical' type churches are fundamentalist and/or oppressive/misogynistic/homophobic etc etc. I have certainly come across those that are, but many, many that are open, welcoming, lovely, have women in leadership and don't hold such a literal view of scripture - take it seriously, but not literally iyswim. These tend to be more of an 'open evangelical' type tradition and many tend to be C of E, although more and more 'free' churches are like this. I think it's wonderful that there is such a range of traditions which suit different personalities - Tuo likes the fusty old high thing 
and I like the lower plebby kind of stuff - great that we can both worship in ways which minister to our spirit, and God loves it all :)
I would be very uncomfortable in a church like yours, op. There is sometimes an argument to be made whereby one sticks with a church to try and influence it to the good, but this is not always appropriate or possible, and if you feel it is draining you, your faith, your spirit, then it's not a healthy place to be. I am obviously firmly in favour of women in leadership, and did a very happy dance when women bishops were finally voted for, so any church twisting scripture to suit their outdated views would turn me off - however, I have friends who still attend these churches and get a lot from them, so I mustn't judge well only a little bit - I actually love the Pauline passages about women, because they simply do not say what they have been twisted to say by those who advocate this way of thinking. The word 'head' for example, when talking about man being head of woman - in the Greek, this does not mean anything akin to 'boss' 'leader' 'oppressor' or anything in that line. It is closer to 'one who goes before' as in battle - not the director, chief or general, but the person who physically 'goes first' to find the way. Paul did not choose the word 'arche' which meant ruler, which is what the church has mainly, unfortunately, taught over the centuries and has been used to oppress and suppress women. Instead he used 'kephale' - meaning first into battle - which then is followed by the verb 'submit to' or 'be subject to' in many translations, which has been used to follow the meaning of 'arche' (boss) but which has then been wrongly translated and used. The line of thinking went 'if man is the boss/ruler/director of women, then women have to submit or obey.'
The passage starts though with 'submit to one another.' How can the verb 'submit' then be used to suppress one gender when all have just been told to do it? There must be something more at play. Again, the Greek word Paul used for 'submit' was not the word in use at the time which meant something like 'obey, cower, kneel down to, be governed by' etc - he used a different form of the verb which means something of a more voluntary nature, and certainly not 'be governed by'. The verb he used means something like "give allegiance to," "tend to the needs of," "be supportive of," or "be responsive to." When he then follows this up with an unheard of response from the husband, to 'love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her....to love his wife as his own body' etc - then the main impetus is actually on the male to get his act together and treat his wife with immense love and respect. Paul turned the idea of the marriage relationship on its head, in fact, by demanding a greater giving up of himself from the husband, and releasing the wife to a more voluntary respectful role based on the idea of her husband as the 'one who goes before'. I find all this fascinating - how can these churches take such verses at the face value they have been given over the years? I feel like shoving a Greek NT at them sometimes 
Getting deeply into semantics here (could go much, boringly, deeper..) - but suffice to say things are not always as they seem and we have a duty I think to learn more and to respect God's amazing word by understanding it rather than by clinging to bits of it that make sense to us and rejecting other parts.
Hope you find what you need, OP. :)
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.