40% of Gen Zs and 30% of young Christians identify as LGBTQ, poll shows

SlickyBoy

Hummingbird
This has to be purely genetic, right?
As Chesterton said, those who do not believe in God will find something to believe in.
link to source

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...uding-us-envoy/ar-AAPRXC0?ocid=BingNewsSearch
Thirty percent of Millennials identify as LGBTQ, according to a soon-to-be released study that is based on scientific polling data. Among Christians the numbers were lower—but only slightly, with just under 30 percent of Millennial Christians identifying as LGBTQ.
The portion of the population that describes itself as gay has varied over the years, from 10 percent, based on research by Alfred Kinsey and widely promoted by the National Gay Task Force in 1977, to less than 6 percent in a recent Gallup poll. The pollster who worked on the new study, George Barna, attributes the unusually high number he found to social and news media coverage that makes it "safe and cool" for young Americans to identify as LGBTQ—whether or not it represents their actual sexual orientation.


"It's a subset of a larger issue, that this is a generation where three out of four are searching for meaning. This is a group that doesn't have a reason to get out of bed in the morning," Barna says. "Therefore, the LGBTQ identity gives them comfort. A lot of this generation claim to be moving in that direction, but there's a big difference between claiming the identity and living the lifestyle."

The poll looked at so-called Millennials, defined as someone born from 1984-2002, which is about 78 million individuals representing a quarter of the U.S. population.

Among Millennials, 30 percent identify as LGBTQ, more than three times that of the rest of the adult population, and when the researchers broke out the youngest of the group, ages 18-24 (which some call Gen Z), they found 39 percent called themselves LGBTQ.

Barna produced the 124-page study in conjunction with the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University and Foundations of Freedom, a non-profit entity that promotes traditional American values.
The results differed significantly from a February Gallup poll that showed just 5.6 percent of U.S. adults of all ages are not "heterosexual or straight," though that poll said that 7.6 percent of respondents refused to answer the question and another 5 percent said they had "no opinion" as to whether they are heterosexual or straight. The Gallup survey concluded that one in six Americans ages 18-23 were gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

Barna's poll is based on a sampling of 600 respondents representing Millennials weighted for factors such as geographic location, race and gender who took an average of 17 minutes each to answer 71 questions.

The poll didn't ask directly whether the respondent was gay or straight, asking instead to choose an answer to the question: "Thinking about your commitments, would you describe yourself as ...."

Six responses were allowed, with the one garnering the most "yes" answers (75 percent) among Millennials being: "Searching for purpose in your life," followed by 74 percent who answered: "Believe all religious faiths are of equal value."

"An American patriot" was next at 55 percent, followed by 54 percent who answered, "Often feel anxious, depressed or unsafe" and 52 percent who answered, "Deeply committed to practicing your faith."

"Prefer socialism to capitalism" was next at 48 percent and "LGBTQ" was last at 30 percent. The order is similar among the 18-24 demographic that has LGBTQ nine percentage points higher.

"It fits into the larger narrative. Millennials are a group that has trouble creating lasting, meaningful relationships," says Barna. "If their sense is that some of the people they want to be friends with — and a group they want to be accepted by — is LGBTQ, then they'll identify with them. It's about image, belonging and acceptance."

Also, a high percent of Millennial Christians (27 percent) and born-again Millennial Christians (28 percent) describe themselves as LGBTQ, even though many faith groups endorse only heterosexual marriage and are sometimes dismissed as homophobic by gay rights advocates.

While the large number of Millennials who identify as LGBTQ is attention-grabbing, Barna says what he found "really interesting is that 40 percent of them fall into the category of what we call the 'don'ts;' they don't believe that God exists, they don't care if God exists. That's the highest we have seen for any generation, ever."

"Why is it when previous generations were able to figure out why life was worth living, this one isn't figuring it out?" he asks. "It has to do with the spiritual changes in America. They don't buy into the Bible, they don't trust God, they don't believe in Jesus, and politics have codified that into law, and the media is a major part of it."
 

rvco

 
Banned
The idea that homosexuality is intrinsically genetic is something that was hilariously debunked by a former acquaintance of mine.

She described herself in her late teens as being a lesbian and turned down this really decent guy because she was a lesbian, apparently. Homosexuality was genetic, she told him. Several years later she starts dating this guy that's not the dude previously mentioned. Previous guy throws a shit fit. ''Stop being so angry!'' she tells him. ''Sexuality is an ever evolving thing that changes!''. When I heard about this, I almost exploded in laughter.
 

DeusLuxMeaEst

Pelican
Orthodox Catechumen
Gold Member
I don't believe the propaganda, but concerning. They post tons of articles like these to normalize degeneracy.

The lukewarm fraud Christians are rising though. I can't tell you how many I've seen who love social justice or claim Jesus was a socialist. I even heard one guy claim prostitution is fine because Jesus knew Mary Magdalene.

They are distorting the faith in the name of 'progress'
 

Gimlet

Pelican
The number is inflated because of the never ended list of letters added. People with no meaning in life want to join a "counter culture" team, and this is the popular one today. (And we know there really is no such thing as counter culture.) I recall Miley Cyrus proclaiming heeself as "queer" while being married to a man. You can collect cash and prizes by declaring yourself a tranny, while still keeping your penis and continuing to shag blue haired fat chicks. The numbers mean nothing in terms of practical life
 

infowarrior1

Crow
Protestant
I don't believe the propaganda, but concerning. They post tons of articles like these to normalize degeneracy.

The lukewarm fraud Christians are rising though. I can't tell you how many I've seen who love social justice or claim Jesus was a socialist. I even heard one guy claim prostitution is fine because Jesus knew Mary Magdalene.

They are distorting the faith in the name of 'progress'
@NickK @DanielH @Hermetic Seal @Eusebius Erasmus @MichaelWitcoff

Or that failure to ordain women as Priests/Pastors is contrary to the Gospel:






Also arguments like this in response to the key verses:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Traditionally, authentein has been understood to connote a sense of "domineer" or "to usurp authority" and the term is even associated with murder. Although not all of the evidence and arguments have been fully assessed, two points seem relatively certain. First, the term is unusual. If Paul were referring to the normal exercise of authority, his otherwise constant exousia/exousiazo ("authority/to exercise authority") vocabulary would most likely have been used. The choice of such an unusual term itself indicates that Paul intended a different nuance or means Second,...many uses of the term seem rather clearly to carry the negative sense of "domineer" or "usurp authority." Thus I see the injunctions of 2:11-12 as directed against women involved in false teaching who have abused proper exercise of authority in the church (not denied by Paul elsewhere to women) by usurpation and domination of the male leaders and teachers in the church at Ephesus.

after much elaboration over the meaning of the Greek:
This means that women here are not prohibited from roles that involve teaching men. The issue is rather the manner in which they teach—that is, they should not teach in a dictatorial or domineering way

To argue for equality in ordination:
Now, in case I am wrong about this, the NEXT MOST LIKELY understanding of this verse (maybe even the preferred understanding, at the time of this update) keys off of another translation of authenteo, namely, "to domineer" or to "violently wrest authority from". Under this alternative interpretation, the error was not the 'having authority'(remember, that would have normally used Paul's "standard" authority words) but for "overthrow" or creating imbalance. Men and women were supposed to be 'co-rulers'; to "push the man off the platform and take it alone" is just as bad an error as "not getting up there" when you should be there! It is much more difficult to make sense of the adam/eve verses that follow that instruction, in my opinion, and the childbearing verse is extremely difficult to understand.
Now, we have already seen in the section on Women's roles in the NT that Paul consistently utilized women as leaders in the early church, and called them by 'authoritative names' such as apostle,deacon, co-laborer, patron, 'hard worker'.
We did NOT examine I Tim 3.11, but, depending on how one understands the word there for women, Paul COULD be talking about female elders. If the term is understood as'wives', then the passage is silent on the issue; if the term is understood as 'women', then Paul is indicating women elders. (Note: the 'husband of one wife' text is NOT an issue, since standard writing usage for brevity allows that to count for BOTH wife/husband cases...Similar to how we say "brothers" instead of "brothers and sisters" every time.)


Likewise, Titus 2.2-3 is sometimes understood as the qualifications for male/female elders (so RSV).


We also saw that congregations were told to "submit" to such these (I Cor 16.16)--indicating positions with significant authority.

We also saw that he used Priscilla to play a major role in discipling/teaching the gifted Apollos.


In short, we have plenty of historical data that demonstrates his rather 'unrestricted' official usage of women as partners in the early church; we have NO narrative or historical data that even slightly suggests that he refused to 'allow' women to serve in ANY capacity.

I can imagine the line "Women were always Priests in Church Tradition" line being produced. Whilst memory holing every instance of All-Male Priests.

Or that the Church Fathers could be made to mean. Always approved of "Women's Ordination" from the beginning via deliberate mistranslation like NIV 2011:


Also:
Sixth, the general tone of 'submission' verses for women is geared toward practical matters (and not more fundamental theological-authority issues). So, Titus 2.5: to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. and I Peter 3.1: Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,.In such a way, they appeal to more culturally-oriented values of the non-Christians around the church. So, just as Paul would suppress personal 'rights' out of desire to further the work of Christ (e.g. I Cor 9.1ff; I Cor 9.22f), so took we should 'subject ourselves' to each other, to move the Kingdom farther.

Finally, 'submission within marriage' CANNOT be relevant to matters of church leadership, simply because (1) we KNOW of a husband-wife pair in which the woman was the dominant teacher (Priscilla); and (2) entire congregations were told to 'submit' to women leaders in I Cor 16.16: "submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work (synergounti), and labors (kopionti) at it." We have already seen that Paul refers to numerous women by these titles. In this latter case we have men OBVIOUSLY 'submitting' to women (not necessarily their wives). So whatever "submission" means (and it DOES imply obedience-under-God in certain passages--Rom 13. 5), it is mutual enough to apply in several different directions.

It must also be noted that Paul was very familiar with OT history, and accordingly he would have known that many of the main women leaders there were married (e.g. Deborah the Judge, Huldah the prophetess).


So, I personally have to conclude that although submission is a very, very real command to a wife, it would be false to restrict it to her or to impute the 'traditional' notions of 'obedience' or 'obey your husband, right or wrong' to that word. The very mutuality and grounding of the notion in the person of Christ, indicates that it is concerned with respect, putting other's needs first (cf. I cor 10.24: Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.), and generally 'fitting in' ENOUGH within the cultural context as to not hinder the work of Christ.]


Those are the arguments by this very sophisticated Apologist. So we need to be aware.
 
Last edited:

nathan

Robin
Catholic
Assuming this poll isn't just (((propaganda))), it does make sense based on the conspiracies we have long identified, including the social media algorithms pushing this nonsense, to what we know about the globohomo takeover of all establishment entities, to how the US public education system has always been.

I don't know which generation is worse: boomers or millenials. Boomers basically made every wrong decision to lead to this (they are Good Times -> Weak Men), but millenials are listless and rotten (Weak Men -> Hard Times).

Hard Times or not, though, this can't last. Godless societies always fall sooner than later, and even before ours gets to that point, I'm optimistic the tide will start changing and people will repent. Communists can temporarily silence the truth but the truth doesn't stay silenced.
 

SlickyBoy

Hummingbird
The idea that homosexuality is intrinsically genetic is something that was hilariously debunked by a former acquaintance of mine.

She described herself in her late teens as being a lesbian and turned down this really decent guy because she was a lesbian, apparently. Homosexuality was genetic, she told him. Several years later she starts dating this guy that's not the dude previously mentioned. Previous guy throws a shit fit. ''Stop being so angry!'' she tells him. ''Sexuality is an ever evolving thing that changes!''. When I heard about this, I almost exploded in laughter.
Twenty years ago everyone knew the term LUG - lesbian until graduation. This genetic nonsense is just that, nonsense.
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Moderator
Orthodox
Or that failure to ordain women as Priests/Pastors is contrary to the Gospel
Read what you shared, insane what lies they're pushing now. Just obviously wrong. Women aren't even supposed to speak in church, how are they to be pastors? Are they to do the anaphora in sign language? How could a female priest take off her head covering during the liturgy when they are commanded to cover their heads in the bible? The literal mother of God was not a priest and these unruly women think they deserve to be priests.

Regarding the OP, I strongly encourage everyone to not sugarcoat this issue when dealing with others. My mom doesn't talk about her gay friends to me or my brother anymore. My mother was getting upset at my brother for being "homophobic" and I simply described what sodomites do in blunt terms and said my brother has every right not to associate with them.
They
masturbate their penises inside another man's anus until they ejaculate inside, mixing the semen with the feces
It is vile, it is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. There is no such thing as pro-LGBTQ Christians. "Hi I'm a pro-sin Christian. Love is love!" No, there is no such thing. Read Romans chapter 1, and then read it again.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Thirty percent of Millennials identify as LGBTQ, according to a soon-to-be released study that is based on scientific polling data.

Barna's poll is based on a sampling of 600 respondents representing Millennials weighted for factors such as geographic location, race and gender who took an average of 17 minutes each to answer 71 questions.
The poll didn't ask directly whether the respondent was gay or straight, asking instead to choose an answer to the question: "Thinking about your commitments, would you describe yourself as ...."

Six responses were allowed,

This "scientific polling data" is a multiple choice poll of 600 people, which I'm to believe it can be extrapolated to the general population? Cast this into the fire where it belongs. Why even post this garbage?
 

RafBo

Chicken
I don't believe the propaganda, but concerning. They post tons of articles like these to normalize degeneracy.

The lukewarm fraud Christians are rising though. I can't tell you how many I've seen who love social justice or claim Jesus was a socialist. I even heard one guy claim prostitution is fine because Jesus knew Mary Magdalene.

They are distorting the faith in the name of 'progress'
It’s all (prophesied) in the Bible. Even the vaccine/medicine tyranny was…

“And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries* were all nations deceived.” (Revelations 18:23, KJV).

Note* -
Strong's Concordance Number 5331 is pharmakeia
Definition: the use of medicine, drugs or spells

Original Word: φαρμακεία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: pharmakeia
Phonetic Spelling: (far-mak-i'-ah)
Usage: magic, sorcery, enchantment.
 

rvco

 
Banned
This "scientific polling data" is a multiple choice poll of 600 people, which I'm to believe it can be extrapolated to the general population? Cast this into the fire where it belongs. Why even post this garbage?

We quote it because it shows how disgusting and utterly subjective LGBTism is. The fact this stupid poll was even published by the queer lobby shows how disingenuous and stupid it is.
 

Gimlet

Pelican
Identifying as LGBTQAetc only means "My identity is based upon my sexual desires." Nothing more nor less, and that's pathetic. Normal people in society do not identify as "straight" or "heterosexual" because our sexual desires are not the forefront of who we are. An exception would be when many of us would call ourselves "players" - and as we now know that identity was just based on sexual desires, and equally pathetic.
 

Elipe

Ostrich
Protestant
Those are the arguments by this very sophisticated Apologist. So we need to be aware.
  1. Paul's use of the word authentein is indeed intentional... for a woman who holds church authority over a man is, in the fullest sense, usurping the authority of man. She is taking for herself authority which is not naturally ordained for her. Also, the reason Paul gives for this policy was that Adam was first created and that Eve was the first one deceived. This sounds more like Paul is warning of the gullibility of women, and gullibility is a very poor character trait in a leader. And this redefinition of authentein to mean "domineering" is also stupid, as a woman exercising any kind of authority over man was considered in these days to BE domineering.
  2. It's also funny how Bible "scholars" of this stripe - liars and charlatans - play the "cultural context" game so selectively with those verses. This one claimed that the part about wives submitting to their husbands was "contextual" to the culture around them, as the dominant culture of the time expected women to be subservient to their husbands, yet neglects to mention that many converts to the church also brought with them many of these aspects of their culture. Paul rebuked Judaizers, polygamists, even those who committed incest and boasted of it, and even had to settle some questions about sharing in pagan feasts. If Christianity really was about women teaching men, we would have expected to see Paul rail against these customs, rather than make strange, ambiguous "permissions" for those cultural norms. Of course, in reality, there is nothing "ambiguous" about female submission. The supposed ambiguity is entirely invented and manufactured for the express purpose of facilitating and upholding heretical sects in order to deceive more people and lead them astray from Christ.
  3. The rest of this liar's arguments are not based in solid evidence, but are peppered with the word "COULD". In other words, baseless speculation that serves a clear, antibiblical agenda. "But did He REALLY say..." is the oldest lie in the book, literally. Satan deceived Eve by asking her, "Did God REALLY say you couldn't touch the fruit of the tree?" (God didn't say that - He only said she couldn't EAT the fruit). Getting people to doubt the meaning of words is the oldest play in Satan's playbook. If you reduce all words to ambiguities, then words can mean anything and everything someone wants them to. With a sufficient amount of lawyering, even a clear "no" can be inverted into a "no, except under conditions that pretty much apply universally, so it's as good as a yes".
  4. Priscilla was not stated to be the "dominant teacher" anywhere in Scripture. The verses of interest are Acts 18:2, Acts 18:18, Acts 18:26, Romans 16:3, and 1 Cor. 16:19. Only Acts 18:26 could be seen as offering any credence to this theory about Priscilla, but it is clear from the Greek that she and her husband, plurally, taught. Nowhere is it stated or implied that she was the "dominant teacher". The grammar in the verse there does not in any way imply that Priscilla wore the pants. Romans 16:3 is another potential argument, but only says that Priscilla is a fellow "worker" in Christ Jesus. That could mean anything, including that she cooked meals, fluffed their pillows, or even washed their feet - all would be things that could be called "doing work in Christ Jesus." But again, this is not a verse that conclusively establishes that Priscilla was a "dominant teacher."
Regarding the OP, I strongly encourage everyone to not sugarcoat this issue when dealing with others.
Yes. StoneToss demonstrated the strength of this quite well with a comic.

lgbt-lube-political-cartoon.png

The reaction he got from Twitter really said it all. People were grossed out. People who normally are pro-gay, were grossed out by this image. That's the power of unboxing a lie from its pretty, shiny, glittery packaging. When you force a person to really think about what something actually entails, suddenly, people don't find it so... cute or appealing. There's a reason "homosexual" got repackaged as "happy" - gay. Homosexuals in TV shows are generally comedy relief characters, so that you associate them with positive emotions like laughter. And you'll also notice they never show gay sex on mainstream TV, despite being more than happy to portray heterosexual sex. There's also a reason for that too. It's all about marketing homosexuality as this clean, sterile, neuter thing.

To break the spell, you just have to show people what homosexuality really entails.
 
Last edited:

infowarrior1

Crow
Protestant
Read what you shared, insane what lies they're pushing now. Just obviously wrong. Women aren't even supposed to speak in church, how are they to be pastors? Are they to do the anaphora in sign language? How could a female priest take off her head covering during the liturgy when they are commanded to cover their heads in the bible? The literal mother of God was not a priest and these unruly women think they deserve to be priests.

His answer to that passage on women needing to keep silence:
  • "Verses 34–35 are considered to be a quotation of what some Corinthian Christian men have been maintaining against women who have been speaking out in cultic assemblies. It has come to Paul’s attention, just as did the slogans quoted earlier in the letter (6:12, 13; 8:1, 4, 5; 10:23). Paul’s reaction to the statement quoted is expressed in v. 36, which is introduced by the disjunctive particle ē, “or,” used here twice with two rhetorical questions (as also in 11:22b), along with the masc. monous modifying hymas, referring to such Corinthian men. So (with differing nuances) Bilezikian, Flanagan, Gourgues, Kaiser, Snyder, Odell-Scott, Talbert. ... In this case, the three verses were written by Paul, but vv. 34–35 are the quotation of a view that is not his. His reaction is expressed in v. 36, vague though it is, and its implication would be egalitarian and would contradict neither 11:5 nor Gal 3:28. Even though this last interpretation may not fully satisfy either the understanding of v. 36 or its connection with what precedes, it is better than the other interpretations,pace Hays (1 Cor, 248), Garland (1 Cor, 667); and it rightly severs the close connection of v. 36 to vv. 34–35, as even Murphy-O’Connor (“Interpolations,” 90, 92) has recognized.... Women should remain silent in the churches. Lit. “let women be silent in the cultic assemblies,” i.e., in the various house-churches of Corinth.

  • Paul quotes the saying of some Corinthian men who undoubtedly might allow the women to join audibly in “Amen” to a prayer, as in the thanksgiving of 14:16, but would exclude them from any form of active public speaking in churches (now in the plur., in contrast to the sing. “church” used so far in this chapter [vv. 4–5, 12, 19, 23, 28]); the prep. phrase echoes 11:16c. Some MSS (D, F, G, K, L) add hymōn, “your (wives),” which is otherwise omitted in the best MSS. In either case, one should note the difference from 11:5, where the sing. gynē is found, whereas here it is plur. hai gynaikes. The silence is general and absolute, and not merely while someone else is speaking (v. 30), as Kremer (1 Cor, 312) would have it; nor does it refer to something specific (like idle gossip).... What, did the word of God originate with you? Lit. “Or, has … come forth from you?” This verse, with its double-rhetorical question, formulates Paul’s reaction to the attitude of Corinthian Christian men quoted in the two preceding verses. Paul’s phrase, ho logos tou theou, may be derived from LXX Jer 1:2, but he is using it in the sense of the “gospel,” the Christian message, as in 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; Rom 9:6. In the LXX the more common phrase is logos kyriou, “the word of the Lord,” a communication from Yahweh. Paul wants the Corinthian Christian men to realize that neither the gospel nor its implications for life have had a starting-point among them, and so they are in no way a law unto themselves. This interpretation of v. 36 seeks to give full force to the introductory ptc. ē, “or,” which Paul often writes when introducing rhetorical questions (e.g.,1:13; 6:2, 9, 19; 9:6; 11:22). Along with the RSV, I have translated it as “What!” in the lemma above. It marks an alternative, as it introduces the two questions that express Paul’s impatience with the attitude of such Corinthian men expressed in vv. 34–35." [Fitzmyer, J. A. (2008). Vol. 32: First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible (533). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.]


  • "The lack of specific information about the situation(s) Paul faced in Corinth may make it impossible for later readers of the letter to determine conclusively the meaning of these lines, even if they do come from Paul. Paul’s rhetoric could be much clearer if he intended for the verses to function as a timeless principle for how women are to behave in worship settings. The only way to progress toward Paul’s meaning is by tracking the path set by the passage itself. ... As was mentioned in the introduction to this section, there are a number of options to understanding 14:33b–36. All of these hinge on various interpretations of verses 34–35. This could be an instruction from Paul to women to avoid a certain type of speech in the church. Perhaps verses 34–35 are a non-Pauline scribal interpolation into this part of Paul’s letter to Corinth, although it is difficult to see what would have brought this obscure remark into this otherwise focused discussion of tongues and prophecy. Perhaps Paul is awkwardly quoting and responding to a position that the Corinthians had developed; perhaps they distinguished between wives and other women in worship. Or, it is possible that Paul was addressing a specific problem in Corinth that has no real application today. One finally cannot decide from the evidence available which of the several suggestions for interpretation is absolutely correct." [Soards, M. L. (2011). 1 Corinthians. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (307). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.]
  • "Second, “silence” in the context is a temporary renunciation of speech (14:28, 30). It refers to “holding one’s tongue.” There are times when spiritual contributions are not valuable and are unwelcome. Some speech must be suppressed momentarily for the good order of the community. This command does not permanently and absolutely enjoin women’s silence in every circumstance, requiring them to learn only at home (contra R. Allison 1988: 36–42). “All” are to learn in the assembly (14:31). They are asked to hold their speech for the moment to avoid any embarrassment." [Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (671–672). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.]
  • "Women are the third category of persons who need to learn to discipline their speech in the assembly. All three (tongue-speakers, prophets, and women) are instructed with the same word, “be silent” (sigaō [4601, 4967]).All three must have been talking too much. Paul also reused the word “submissive” (hupotassomai [5293A, 5718]), first urging prophets to submit their spirits to their minds to stop speaking (14:32), then to women to submit to their husbands to stop speaking (14:34). Paul believed his goal of bringing the Corinthians’ chaotic worship into order could be accomplished by limiting the formal participation of all three categories of people. ... It is a mistake to read Paul’s instruction for women to be silent in any fashion that expands beyond the type of situation he was concerned about in Corinth. He was not calling on all women everywhere not to talk or women to always defer to men in conversation. He defined the parameters of his concern very narrowly in 14:35 when he refers to asking questions. It would appear that while tongues-speakers were talking too much (without interpreters) and prophetic speeches were going on too long, the women were extending the questioning period too long, maybe even dominating the questioning. Paul acknowledges that asking questions is one of the best ways to learn, but he can also see that there was enough of a breach of public decorum occurring that this was another practical way to regain order." [Baker, W. (2009). 1 Corinthians. In Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Volume 15: 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians (207). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.]

Interestingly enough, if it is a Pauline REFUTATION of 'universal silence' (as my argument above attempts to show is the best understanding of the text), then it ALSO will function as strong data we can use in our analysis of I Tim 2(!)...In other words, our understanding of I Tim 2 will need to take into consideration that Paul probably DISAGREEs with the position of women's silence--even from teaching and prophesying (e.g 14.26 and 11.5)--in the church!
 
Last edited:
Top