The Validity of Fell's Argument in Todays Society

The article on women’s speaking interested me. I think an important aspect to discuss is how valid the argument would be, depending on the period in history. Obviously this article was written some time ago when religion (as we discussed in class) was not passive, but rather a driving factor that affected everyday life. Whereas the article may have provided a convincing argument at the time, because of the use of direct evidence from the bible, I think it would be less valid in today’s society. I say this for a number of reasons. One, culture is not influenced by the bible as much as it once was. Two, interpretation of the bible has become increasingly liberal. What I mean by that is people have learned (perhaps for selfish reasons) that the scriptures of the bible can be manipulated in almost anyway. For example Fell notes that, “when Jesus was risen, the first Day of the Week, he appeared first unto Mary Magdalene” in an attempt to illustrate the importance of Jesus’ mother, and in turn, women in general. One could make multiple arguments to retort Fell’s point. Perhaps Jesus did not return to Mary, and Mary just happened to be around the tomb when Jesus was resurrected. That’s a poor example I admit, but the point is that the bible is used by people who (when making an argument that involves the bible) selectively expose information that seems to support their argument. I agree women should have the right to talk and give sermon in Church (obviously), but Fell’s argument would be somewhat obsolete in today’s society, mainly because it would look (to a critical and modern day citizen) that she used select scriptures from the bible to mold an argument about women’s speaking rights. Since our modern day culture is not driven by the bible, Fell would have better luck constructing an argument that is more applicable to our culture.