|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Headship
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
My concern again, is that it isn't really an argument against headship per se. It is an argument against all kinds of authority, expressing the kind of Western cultural logic that makes many of us (me included) deeply suspicious of any kind of authority.
We tend to be very aware of how easily power can be abused and so strive to limit the power people can have, if not opt for 'flat' relational structures altogether. But while the Bible is quite aware of the abuses that come with power, it tends to endorse hierarchical relationships rather than tear them down.
Does Jesus endorse hierarchical relationships? On the contrary the gospels are full of instances of him overturning what was thought of as the natural order both within families and in society.
I'm going to venture a broad generalisation and say that this focus on authority as in who has the power to make decisions is a very male pre-occupation. Give a group of men a task and the first thing they will do is decide who is in charge. Titles and roles are vitally important and they tend to be doled out according to who are seen as senior and/or dominant. Give a group of women a task to do collectively and they will divide it up informally according to who is best at the different aspects of it. If you find a group of women, say in an office, who are concerned about their titles or which bit of the office refrigerator they can use, a pound to a penny relationships have already deteriorated long before and the office is in crisis.
Even if you only have a group of two, as in a marriage, it's a predominantly male idea that there has to be someone officially in charge. Think about it for a moment. Isn't it a bit ridiculous? It presupposes a God who is equally preoccupied with who is in charge of deciding whether you buy a red car or a blue car and he's decided that it has to be the one with a penis who makes those decisions. I just don't see God being so petty.
I always get confused when people who admit they don't take Genesis literally start to base arguments on the literal truth of it. Do we really believe that God made one original man first and one original woman second and that this had significance universe-wide, the order indicating that the first one is to have authority over the second? How come we then argue that there's nothing inferior about women when Genesis plainly says there is and the whole patriarchal system throughout the OT and beyond agrees?
You see this is where I think the doctrine ends up being hopelessly muddled. The way it has been explained is in terms of mutual self-sacrificing love, but that doesn't need any authority. It doesn't need one person always to take the decisions, in fact I would say quite the opposite. It tries to be modern, conceding equality and everyone being loving and unabusive and unoppressive but it still clings onto the idea of authority which whether you like it or not means power and control. The best defence of it seems to be "well we don't really exercise our authority in any way you would find objectionable – hey, you'd hardly notice we were exercising it at all." If so, why is it there at all? Why do Christians still concoct authority roles for men when the gospel message is about being a servant and about laying down your life for others? Don't you find it a bit embarrassing that Peter says women should emulate Sarah who called Abraham her Lord and Master, or do you think that is your due as a husband? Surely we, even us women, should only have one authority we look to and that is the God we know through Christ Jesus?
By the way, there are several of us headless women on this thread who would still like to know officially how we fit into God's order according to this doctrine.
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
By the way, there are several of us headless women on this thread who would still like to know officially how we fit into God's order according to this doctrine.
I'm beginning to get the impression the answer is something along the lines of 'I don't really know. But unless there's a big important man in it somewhere, telling you what to do, you're probably not getting it right.'
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
Even if you only have a group of two, as in a marriage, it's a predominantly male idea that there has to be someone officially in charge.
If I didn’t know better, Weed, I’d swear you were making common-sense generalisations about the differences between how men and women normally relate to others, and judging that behaviour according to prior ideological commitments. Which of course would be a bad thing. If you were doing it.
quote:
originally posted by Weed:
By the way, there are several of us headless women on this thread who would still like to know officially how we fit into God's order according to this doctrine.
Ok, fools rush in…
If Christ is your head you can hardly be said to be headless, Weed; and in a profound sense the whole doctrine of headship finds its fulfilment not in marriage but in Christ, the true head of his church (Eph 5:32).
Actually just before I rush in any further, another question just occurred to me. If the Lord Jesus is in every sense human (and since we’re not Docetic, so it follows that we believe this), then isn’t our submission to Christ a demonstration that we can submit to someone who is our equal, without any sense of becoming inferior human beings? Indeed those who so submit would, I argue, become more fully human.
Now some would say, I suppose, that we submit to Jesus because he is God and specifically not because he is man. But this seems to divide his human from his divine nature, which is another sort of heresy.
Point being that voluntary submission to another human need not of necessity demean us.
(And this point applies to marriage, as I take it that marriage is still voluntary for most of the contributors here. As is submitting ourselves to the Lordship of Christ, of course)
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Levor
Shipmate
# 5711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
Not being in Mrs Cheng's shoes, but from what is written, I'd concluded (and still do) that what she was lamenting was exactly his lack of involvement, comment, input, but not necessarily lack of directiveness. Getting someone's opinion, is not the same thing as wanting them to take the decision.
You could be right. I thought he was implying a bit more, but your reading is just as plausible. Either way I wasn't wanting to suggest that it was a binary "either he makes the decision or he doesn't care".
I suppose I see a few options in these areas - lack of interest, showing interest and giving input, taking responsibility for the decision. I think the first is generally out, but I think the other two are possibilities on a case by case basis.
However, again, I broadly agree with where you are coming from and in no way want to suggest the annihilation of the wife - quite the opposite. I think the correct application of the principle should involve the husband taking the lead in making sacrifices so that the wife flourishes. It shouldn't be the wife becoming an appendage to the husband.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I read it as "low blow", even though that wasn't what you wrote ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) (though, I must say, I'm not sure what the phrase 'long bow' means in this context, I always thought of it as an archery weapon.)
Sorry Alan, the phrase, as well as the weaponry, must be getting archaic. "Long bow" means "making a big conclusion from small evidence" - and I know you don't think you were doing that either. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
But, if one takes them as being actual descriptions of Creation (especially regarding the temporal order of creation events) then they naturally do conflict. My main point was, therefore, that the temporal order of events (what was created first) is a very shaky ground to build an argument for order in human relationships (eg: man was created first, therefore man is superior to woman - "superior" in the sense often used by the advocates of headship on this thread, ie: not implying women are inferior).
I'm still not sure that that's true. The chronological argument only seems to work within things of the same kind. There's no suggestion in Scripture that an old animal takes some kind of primacy over a young human. The chronology principle only seems to work within a category - not between them. Hence the arguments to Jesus' deity: he is taking a priority that breaks the chronology principle so he must be of a different category. I think the same applies in the two Genesis accounts.
And just because there are two chronologies doesn't mean that either or both are irrelevant. Genesis 1 seems to focus on creation more in its relationship to God. Genesis 2 seems to be more interested in what it means to be human and humanity's relationshp with creation and God. In this light, I think the chronologies function the way I've suggested
quote:
Well, my clearly poorly explained original argument, as I just tried to say above, is that it's actually easy to deny that "the Bible sees chronological order as significant for the structure of relationships", in a large part because that chronological order doesn't clearly appear in the Scriptural texts in the first place. I know Paul appeals to such an order, but it is in a passage that is notoriously difficult to understand.
The chronology does appear. Your argument is that it doesn't matter because other chronologies appear too. I'm suggesting the both Genesis 1 and the beforeness of animals over the woman are irrelevant to the issue.
And while Paul makes his statement in a passage that is hard to understand in every detail, that doesn't mean that it is hard to understand his appeal. It is clear that Paul appealed to creation order, whatever else might be unclear.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I hope I have just dispelled any feeling you have that I'm promoting individualism. I'm promoting a different kind of community to either individualistic "friends + sex" or the heirarchical structure of much conservative evangelical teaching on headship (within the church or marriage).
It'd probably help if you could expand it for me. How is your understanding of marriage different from that which could be expected if there were two extremely close friends who were in a sexual relationship? What is the extra 'bit' of order that isn't covered by "friends+sex"?
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
This is interesting to me, because I’m not sure I have a similar frame of reference, and I’m having trouble getting this to make any sense. How do people ‘stop acting as a group of isolated individuals’? Doesn’t their participation in a group mean that they’re not isolated individuals?
Well, I suppose I was trying to say that the argument - these two people can function fine on their own, so there doesn't need to be any order when they come together - is trying to make out that they remain a collection of individuals when they come together.
A bit like what Thatcher was reputed to have said - something like "there is no such thing as community, only individuals".
That is, once you've looked at some people in isolation then you've understood everything there is to know. It doesn't matter what sort of group they join, that group should be able to explained purely by appeal to the properties of the individuals.
I'm saying that there is more than just the individuals, there is the specific kind of relationship that they are in. And that relationship will have its own properties and order.
quote:
And what is ‘hierarchy’ based on if not ‘merit’? And why?
Depends. A master may be less wise, intelligent etc. than her slave but there's a legal arrangement that orders them the way they are. Like many employees, I've had bosses that I'm sure I could do a better job than they could ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) but they were in charge because they were in charge - and it doesn't have to be because they'd do the better job (some family owned businesses for example). A parent with adult children mightn't be smarter or wiser but yet there is a certain honour the adult children owe them. There's a few examples.
quote:
How does a rejection of the con evo notion of headship necessarily lead to the view that marriage is simply “friendship + sex”? I reject the idea that biology determines my strengths and weaknesses. That has nothing to do with my views on the sanctity of marriage.
Ah. Sorry, I wasn't suggesting it was an attack on the sanctity of marriage. My question is, what is different about the way marriage works for an egalitarian (not the lifelong commitment part, the day to day operation) than what could be described under the heading of "friendship+sex"?
And I don't think anyone is suggesting that biology determines anyone's strengths and weaknesses comprehensively. But I think gender does play a part - and that's usually uncontested at the physical level.
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
Does Jesus endorse hierarchical relationships? On the contrary the gospels are full of instances of him overturning what was thought of as the natural order both within families and in society.
Well, as you know, I think the Bible includes more than just the account of Jesus' earthly ministry in the Synoptics. But even there, I would suggest that there are two strands:
1) An overturning of the natural order because of the absolute priority of the inbreaking of the kingdom of God in Jesus.
2) A general endorsement of the order outside that context - paying the Temple tax, rebuking the scribes for allowing children to not support their parents, arguing for no divorce in marriage, "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's" and the like.
quote:
I'm going to venture a broad generalisation and say that this focus on authority as in who has the power to make decisions is a very male pre-occupation. Give a group of men a task and the first thing they will do is decide who is in charge. Titles and roles are vitally important and they tend to be doled out according to who are seen as senior and/or dominant. Give a group of women a task to do collectively and they will divide it up informally according to who is best at the different aspects of it. If you find a group of women, say in an office, who are concerned about their titles or which bit of the office refrigerator they can use, a pound to a penny relationships have already deteriorated long before and the office is in crisis.
I only partly agree - but I think there is a hint of truth to this. But that's one of the reasons why I've loved the Orthodox presentation - it hasn't put questions of 'who calls the shots' at the centre.
quote:
I always get confused when people who admit they don't take Genesis literally start to base arguments on the literal truth of it.
Well, my argument is based more on trying to understand what the narrative is saying on its own terms - and a lot of the points would be accepted by biblical scholars who thought it was an absolute myth. There might not have been a garden, but that doesn't mean that the accounts aren't trying to say something.
quote:
How come we then argue that there's nothing inferior about women when Genesis plainly says there is and the whole patriarchal system throughout the OT and beyond agrees?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you could give some details, that would help.
quote:
Don't you find it a bit embarrassing that Peter says women should emulate Sarah who called Abraham her Lord and Master, or do you think that is your due as a husband?
That's a more difficult one for me. The best explanation I saw of that comes from Athanasius. This post is getting way too long - if you like I can put my thoughts down on a different post.
quote:
Surely we, even us women, should only have one authority we look to and that is the God we know through Christ Jesus?
No. That isn't true of any of us. God made us to have relationships with each other, not just with him. This is precisely the individualism that I'm worried about. We are all under the authority of different people in different contexts.
quote:
By the way, there are several of us headless women on this thread who would still like to know officially how we fit into God's order according to this doctrine.
I don't see any particular problem. The principle in the creation accounts seem to focus on men and women in the gender and in their relationship to each other.
To the degree that gender is important in a certain kind of relationship then I think that the gender differences begin to matter. Where they don't, they don't. It makes little difference whether my accountant, or my head of state, or my check out operator is male or female. It'll make some difference if my immediate boss is - but not so much as to require a different structure.
But the gender difference is absolutely inherent to marriage so it will affect the order of that relationship.
Where someone is working fairly independently and mainly in relationships where gender isn't significant to the structure of the relationship, then I don't think it comes into play much.
And it's no more a problem for a single woman than a single man. He's got a problem of having no body...
In both cases it is wrongly moving from a relational reality to an individual reality.
--------------------
in Christ,
Levor
Posts: 276 | From: Sydney | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If the Lord Jesus is in every sense human (and since we’re not Docetic, so it follows that we believe this), then isn’t our submission to Christ a demonstration that we can submit to someone who is our equal, without any sense of becoming inferior human beings? Indeed those who so submit would, I argue, become more fully human.
Now some would say, I suppose, that we submit to Jesus because he is God and specifically not because he is man. But this seems to divide his human from his divine nature, which is another sort of heresy.
I wouldn't divide Jesus' human and divine natures; it is because he has both and is not just another person that I don't consider myself his equal, so I don't consider submission to Christ comparable to submission to some other person. If I have somehow become equal to Jesus on account of his having given himself for me and raised me to that status--something I have a hard time thinking is the case--then there's even less reason for me to submit to anyone (should anyone ever be foolish enough to marry me).
quote:
Point being that voluntary submission to another human need not of necessity demean us.
Voluntary submission to another person need not demean us, but I don't see how submission can be said to be voluntary if it is the Christian duty of every married woman. Marriage is voluntary, of course, but I don't see submission being put forward here as voluntary for married women.
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
And it's no more a problem for a single woman than a single man. He's got a problem of having no body...
What exactly are the problems associated with having no body?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What exactly are the problems associated with having no body?
For starters, it's hard to pee.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Levor
Shipmate
# 5711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
And it's no more a problem for a single woman than a single man. He's got a problem of having no body...
What exactly are the problems associated with having no body?
I have no idea - except the sort of thing that Mousethielf has alluded to with tongue firmly placed in cheek (something he can do because he's a head ).
If we're going to say that a single woman doesn't have a head and so can't make decisions, then that'd suggest that a single man doesn't have a body and so can't act upon the world.
Both are ridiculous, and come from applying statements made about the nature of the relationship to the nature of individuals outside of the relationship.
--------------------
in Christ,
Levor
Posts: 276 | From: Sydney | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
If we're going to say that a single woman doesn't have a head and so can't make decisions, then that'd suggest that a single man doesn't have a body and so can't act upon the world.
Both are ridiculous, and come from applying statements made about the nature of the relationship to the nature of individuals outside of the relationship.
Individuals' natures don't change when they enter into relationships. If a woman doesn't need a head outside of a relationship, she doesn't need one when she's in a relationship either. It is patently ridiculous to speak of a single man as having no body, but it is just as ridiculous to speak of a married man as having a body other than the one he uses to pee, among other things. Likewise it is ridiculous to speak of a married woman as having a head other than the one she uses to think.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Levor
Shipmate
# 5711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Individuals' natures don't change when they enter into relationships.
I agree. I don't think it has been claimed that they do.
quote:
If a woman doesn't need a head outside of a relationship, she doesn't need one when she's in a relationship either.
But if you are a Christian, then when you entered into relationship with Christ he became your head.
Speaking very analogically, it can be said that anyone in leadership is 'head' of those in that relationship with him/her - hence 'head of state'. Any relationship of a 'hierarchical' nature that a male or female enters into, involves them either becoming a 'head' or acquiring a 'head'.
Again, no-one (I think) is saying that women need a head when they enter into any and every relationship. My argument, at this point, has been that, just because one particular relationship (marriage) involves a head, does not mean that anyone is claiming that a single woman has problems because she is without a head.
--------------------
in Christ,
Levor
Posts: 276 | From: Sydney | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
My argument, at this point, has been that, just because one particular relationship (marriage) involves a head, does not mean that anyone is claiming that a single woman has problems because she is without a head.
And my argument is that since single women clearly don't require a head, there is no reason to think that married women do, and therefore no reason to think that marriage involves a head.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Levor
Shipmate
# 5711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And my argument is that since single women clearly don't require a head, there is no reason to think that married women do, and therefore no reason to think that marriage involves a head.
Would you similarly argue that because non-Christian women don't require a head, there is no reason to think that Christian women do? Or because self-employed/non-working women don't have a corporate 'head' then there is no reason to think that employee women do?
If a relationship has its own properties and order and is not just two autonomous individuals, then it is not enough to just look at the person outside of the context of the relationship.
One also has to look at the nature of the relationship as well.
--------------------
in Christ,
Levor
Posts: 276 | From: Sydney | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If the Lord Jesus is in every sense human (and since we’re not Docetic, so it follows that we believe this), then isn’t our submission to Christ a demonstration that we can submit to someone who is our equal, without any sense of becoming inferior human beings? Indeed those who so submit would, I argue, become more fully human.
Now some would say, I suppose, that we submit to Jesus because he is God and specifically not because he is man. But this seems to divide his human from his divine nature, which is another sort of heresy.
Ruth W: I wouldn't divide Jesus' human and divine natures; it is because he has both and is not just another person that I don't consider myself his equal, so I don't consider submission to Christ comparable to submission to some other person. If I have somehow become equal to Jesus on account of his having given himself for me and raised me to that status--something I have a hard time thinking is the case...<snip>
Actually I think those who trust in Christ are equal! That is the whole point of being "in Christ". Of course, unlike Christ we were never/ are not now/ and will never be divine. But like him, we are rulers over all creation; or at least, will be restored to this position through the resurrection.
The Lord Jesus became Lord of all through the incarnation, not independently of it — as Philippians 2 says
quote:
...Christ Jesus,
Phil. 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Phil. 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Phil. 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Phil. 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Phil. 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Phil. 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
It is as a man that he becomes the Lord to whom we submit. If he himself hadn't submitted to his Father's will, what Philippians 2 here describes would not have happened.
quote:
Me:Point being that voluntary submission to another human need not of necessity demean us.
quote:
You: Voluntary submission to another person need not demean us, but I don't see how submission can be said to be voluntary if it is the Christian duty of every married woman. Marriage is voluntary, of course, but I don't see submission being put forward here as voluntary for married women.
Me again: It is voluntary in the sense that it is inseparably bound up with marriage; and that is the thing—you don't have to get married.
Even if you do get married, the act of submission is an act of your own will and no-one else's; you do it because you want to and if you don't, then you don't.
[ 20. April 2005, 07:09: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
The chronology does appear. Your argument is that it doesn't matter because other chronologies appear too. I'm suggesting the both Genesis 1 and the beforeness of animals over the woman are irrelevant to the issue.
I'm not suggesting that the passages are irrelevant. But, where (as you concede) there are different chronologies, or for that matter any other two passages that present conflicting doctrines or histories, to pick one and say that the other is "irrelevant to the issue" is very poor exegesis. Even more so when the one you pick supports what you already believe, and the "irrelevant" one doesn't. Both passages, indeed the whole witness of Scripture and Tradition, are relevant - the hard part then comes with answering the question of how each bit relates to the others to form an overall doctrine.
quote:
How is your understanding of marriage different from that which could be expected if there were two extremely close friends who were in a sexual relationship? What is the extra 'bit' of order that isn't covered by "friends+sex"?
Well, that's actually not that easy to put into words. First, there's a publically expressed commitment to each other. In the context of a Christian marriage there is also a placing of the relationship under the headship of Christ. And, in the context of both the lifelong commitment and headship of Christ, marriage results in a need for examination of each persons role in that relationship and how it'll work in the long term. "Friendship + sex" can often have an ad-hoc feel to it, a sorting things out as they come up without any compulsion to try and make it work if it gets difficult.
I should add (though it's largely tangential), that I would include many committed relationships as "marriage" even if they haven't gone through all the legal hoops to formalise it. It's better, especially for Christians, that they have made some form of commitment to each other before God and the Church but a marriage isn't made by the signing of a legal document. It also follows, I think, that some "marriages" may be legally so but in fact nothing more than "friendship + sex".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Levor:
Again, no-one (I think) is saying that women need a head when they enter into any and every relationship. My argument, at this point, has been that, just because one particular relationship (marriage) involves a head, does not mean that anyone is claiming that a single woman has problems because she is without a head.
This is where I think I find your position not very consistent with your understanding of Scripture. I'm going to attempt to explain why:
Personally, in the Genesis accounts or creation, I see lots of support for the idea of a distinction between man and woman, but not for the idea of distinct roles or headship/submission. (I would say the portrayal of relationships from the time of the patriarchs onwards is descriptive rather than prescriptive; it's just how things worked out in one particular society).
AFAICS, 1 Tim 2:12-14 is the only place in Scripture which appears to some to derive differing roles for men and women from the "Creational Order" (man first, woman second). (As I have quoted here, at least some cons evos unabashedly think this translates into "subordination").
This "Creational Order" is then predicated on husband-wife relationships: headship and submission in the couple are there because they reflect this created order.
However, the fact is that the passage from which the strongest case for this creational order can be made is not talking about husbands and wives, but about men and women in general in the church. In this reading, it's not saying "I do not permit a woman to have authority over her husband" but "over any man", and this on the basis of an appeal to the creational order.
What I'm asserting is, if you want to include the creational order in your argument for headship and submission, you have to accept that it applies to men and women in other contexts too, and not just to husbands and wives. The cons evo book I quoted admits this very point when it says that if the creational order of 1 T 2 is to apply only to husbands and wives, horror of horrors
quote:
It implicitly … permits (single women) to serve as spiritual leaders of the church
I'm thinking about your question re: authority, Levor, and I'd like to say something about the Earth going round the Sun, too, but it will have to be later.
[ 20. April 2005, 07:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
But the gender difference is absolutely inherent to marriage so it will affect the order of that relationship.
But, what gender difference? There are some definite differences related to biology - as a man I'm unable to carry a new life for nine months and give birth, and then breast feed afterwards. But, apart from that, what differences are there?
Any two people will be different. One may be better at running household finances, rocking a baby to sleep, cooking the meals, driving the car, holding down a well paid job, or whatever. But, I see no evidence at all that these differences between two individuals will be based on gender. And, even if there is a tendancy on average for one gender to be better at something than the other 1) there will be plenty of exceptions and 2) there may well be cultural factors (eg: if schools put the boys through wood work and metal work classes, and the girls needlework and cooking, then that would account to an extent for a tendancy towards the average woman being better stitching up a new shirt and the average man better at fixing a leaking pipe).
Or are you trying to argue that there are gender differences which have nothing to do with ability? And, that men are heads because they're men even if they're significantly less able to fulfill that task than their wives? If so, it's a very strange God who calls people to a task he hasn't equipped them for.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Ok - here's my take on the single issue.
The point is not - women are incapable of making decisions more than men therefore they need a head in every situation - and phew when they get married and they have one.
The point is - that both marriage and singleness are (at least in Pauline thought) opportunities to model or serve the Gospel. The single person ISTM models the Gospel by being able to give themselves more fully to the work of the Lord - ref 1 Corinthians 7. The married person models the Gospel by showing the relationship between Christ and the church in their marriage. The issue about headship doesn't even arise for the single person (except in church, and in their relationship to Christ, which is the same for both sexes)
This question about single people is assuming that the reason headship is required from a conservative point of view is because the woman is incapable without a man to lead her.
Rather it is an isse of modelling order in every way we can whatever our situation.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The married person models the Gospel by showing the relationship between Christ and the church in their marriage.
Ummm, shouldn't the relationship between Christ and the church be modelled in the church? If the church isn't doing that, why should the burden of modelling that be carried by married couples in the church? And, if the church is doing that then the married couples in the church doing so seems very superfluous.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Here are a few personal thoughts on how the biblical doctrine of headship applies to single women, as I understand it.
Single women are not deficient in any way—Christ is their head. They don’t need to get married to be complete. They do need to trust in Jesus to be complete, but then again, so do single men. And married men. And married women.
The Bible doesn’t say much, directly, about how the doctrine of headship applies to single women, especially if we take the view that the passages that speak of headship are addressed specifically to married couples (“husband” and “wife” rather than the more general “men” and “women”).
Nevertheless if the doctrine of headship is true, then like all true doctrines it ought to be believed and taught whether or not we see its immediate relevance to our own situation. We may not see its relevance either because it actually isn’t relevant, or because our own limitations of insight prevent us from seeing its relevance.
Just as I may not see the point of certain buttons on gadgets I am trying to operate, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be aware of them and their stated purpose.
But the doctrine of headship may be more use for the single woman than, let’s say, a button that operates the red light on a coffee maker (and for the single man too, but I am addressing the question in the form it's been stated on this thread so far).
For example, if a single man and woman were to be concerned to uphold the principle of headship when married, possibly to each other, it’s possible to imagine how their relationship as single people might be shaped by this.
It is hard to see how it would be a good thing, on this model, for the single woman to initiate and pursue the relationship, propose marriage, continue to do so if rebuffed and then eventually enter into marriage where all the patterns of the pre-marriage relationship were now to be reversed.
Actually, it’s hard to imagine the single women I’ve known respecting or even being attracted to a partner that passive.
This is just one example, and it is not put forward as a hard and fast prescription for How Things Ought To Be. Neither is it intended to issue in a hard and fast set of rules (which I think is an unfortunate weakness in many con-evo circles, ie the tendency toward legalism). It’s a way of illustrating how, in the absence of much specific teaching, how the principle of headship might apply in one situation.
That this seems loose and vague doesn’t bother me a great deal, so long as the looseness and vagueness isn’t turned into a license for legalism, which I hate with a very deep passion. Like Levor, I find the way Josephine has expressed the pattern of relationship in marriage a very appealing and helpful way to think. The “who gets final say in a deadlock” question, as I think I’ve mentioned, is singularly unhelpful as a point of focus.
Here’s an analogy which may or may not be useful. My eldest daughter has a severe anaphylactic reaction to eggs, a nasty surprise we discovered when she was 9 months old and we fed her omelette in a café in Amsterdam. (There are Dutch people who don’t speak English, we discovered). So since then, she has never eaten egg in any form, and if she does, she might die. She may one day grow out of this allergy, after which she may choose to eat eggs freely.
In the meantime, should my daughter have a concern in how eggs are produced, processed and handled for human consumption? As she never eats eggs, it is somewhat of an academic question. On the other hand, well over 90% of the people she mixes with eat eggs in some form on a regular basis. If eggs are being badly processed and handled, such that consumers were receiving contaminated eggs, it would be bad for them.
Now if my daughter is in anyway concerned for the wellbeing of others, she would want to see that good egg handling procedures were in place and enforced. It may one day end up being directly relevant, if she loses her allergies and starts eating egg.
Or, it may become relevant in unforeseen ways; food suppliers who are sloppy about their egg handling procedures may well be sloppy in their handling of other food; so that rules about egg handling are best seen as a subset of general care and caution in the handling of food hygiene.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The married person models the Gospel by showing the relationship between Christ and the church in their marriage.
Ummm, shouldn't the relationship between Christ and the church be modelled in the church? If the church isn't doing that, why should the burden of modelling that be carried by married couples in the church? And, if the church is doing that then the married couples in the church doing so seems very superfluous.
Married couples are part of the church aren't they? As are single people?
We can model that relationship when we are gathered as a church - I hope I can also do it in my home life, and at work, and when there are no other Christians about.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
it is an isse of modelling order in every way we can whatever our situation.
So in the situation of the church, and bearing in mind 1 T 2:12-14, would you say that this order is best modelled in the church by any woman, married or single, deferring to (or however you understand "not having authority over") any man?
[ 20. April 2005, 08:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The married person models the Gospel by showing the relationship between Christ and the church in their marriage.
Ummm, shouldn't the relationship between Christ and the church be modelled in the church? If the church isn't doing that, why should the burden of modelling that be carried by married couples in the church? And, if the church is doing that then the married couples in the church doing so seems very superfluous.
Married couples are part of the church aren't they? As are single people?
We can model that relationship when we are gathered as a church - I hope I can also do it in my home life, and at work, and when there are no other Christians about.
Indeed that is true. But, then the whole "marriage models the relationship between Christ and the church" is an irrelevant truism. Besides, the church is subordinate to Christ because we are his people and he has redeemed us - to what extent can the same be said of a husband and wife? Certainly my wife is not in any realistic sense my property, nor have I redeeemed her. The relationship is founded on different principles, why shouldn't it therefore be different in outworking? To draw a direct analogy either misrepresents the relationship between partners in a marriage, or between Christ and his church - or, indeed both.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It is hard to see how it would be a good thing, on this model, for the single woman to initiate and pursue the relationship,
Well, I for one am very glad my wife doesn't subscribe to this model
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
it is an isse of modelling order in every way we can whatever our situation.
So in the situation of the church, and bearing in mind 1 T 2:12-14, would you say that this order is best modelled in the church by any woman, married or single, deferring to (or however you understand "not having authority over") any man?
Well, it depends what you mean by deferring to!
It is why I go to a church that practices overall male leadership, but I don't think women being servile, non-involved and never voicing their opinions would particularly model creation order well either. To look for "exactly what must I do and what musn't I do" I think undermines the essentially relational nature of headship as it is modelled in creation.
Incidentally, I'm interested to know Eutychus, why you are so sure that 1 Tim 2 is not about husbands and wives. That would at least be some sort of help in understanding the childbearing reference, wouldn't it?
Alan wrote:
quote:
Indeed that is true. But, then the whole "marriage models the relationship between Christ and the church" is an irrelevant truism. Besides, the church is subordinate to Christ because we are his people and he has redeemed us - to what extent can the same be said of a husband and wife?
No it isn't - it says that different people model the relationship in different ways - depending on their situation. How I model Christ's lordship is different from how a married person will model it. Similarly Paul makes the point about how people model their relationship with Christ is different for specific situations throughout his letters.
And no, you haven't redeemed your wife, but Ephesians 5 makes clear that you are to love in her a way that is modelled by Christ's redeeming love - self sacrificially and for the sake of her spiritual growth. I can't understand you but to be saying that Paul just made a mistake when he used the metaphor.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Ephesians 5 makes clear that you are to love in her a way that is modelled by Christ's redeeming love - self sacrificially and for the sake of her spiritual growth. I can't understand you but to be saying that Paul just made a mistake when he used the metaphor.
Well, love is one thing. For me to love my wife as Christ loved me says nothing, IMO, about headship. And, of course, that love I'm supposed to give isn't restricted to my wife - are we not supposed to love everyone as Christ loved us? The love between a man and his wife is different from the love between Christ and each of us, and that love that we should be reflecting by loving all in the same way. If I was to love everyone in the way I love my wife I'm sure you'd all agree something was wrong.
As regards Pauls use of the metaphor. Is he using marriage as he sees it in his culture as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the church, or is he using the relationship between Christ and the church as a metaphor for marriage?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It is hard to see how it would be a good thing, on this model, for the single woman to initiate and pursue the relationship,
Well, I for one am very glad my wife doesn't subscribe to this model
Well at the risk of coming over all earnest, I don't know what that means for you in practice, but as I say it is a relationship and can't be constrained by legalisms.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Incidentally, I'm interested to know Eutychus, why you are so sure that 1 Tim 2 is not about husbands and wives.
I have already gone some way to answering this here.
I think you'll find that most cons. evo theologians would want to argue for "man" and "woman" in 1 T 2 because otherwise the "creational order" argument there can only be made to apply to relationships in marriage and not to church order (which after all is what the whole passage is about). It would mean that a wife cannot teach her husband, but would offer no logical objection to a single woman or a widow teaching men. If you wish to read it that way, you would then have to find another, separate argument to explain why you prefer to
quote:
go to a church that practices overall male leadership
I can't find a single translation that prefers "husband" and "wife" to "man" and "woman" in 1 T 2, I can't even find those as alternative readings. I presume this is because the context (church order) strongly implies that the issue is not that of marriage. I would say that a good argument can be made on this basis for reading "man" and "woman" in 1 Cor 11:3, which a good number of translations do.
I suppose that part of the inconsistency I'm claiming and which Levor has asked about is that cons. evos (witness the ESV) choose to read "husband" and "wife" in 1 Cor 11:3 against the context, because it suits their argument, and "man" and "woman" in 1 T 2 by appeal to the very same contextual argument they discard in 1 Cor 11:3.
quote:
Well, it depends what you mean by deferring to!
quote:
That would at least be some sort of help in understanding the childbearing reference, wouldn't it?
These points raise another big part of the problem for me. I used "deferring to" as a way of referring to what is usually translated "(not) teach or have authority over.." in 1 T 2:12. This is a hapax legomen ie the phrase occurs only here in the entire NT, which means it is difficult to interpret in the context of Scripture alone.
The part about childbearing (1 T 2:15) is also notoriously difficult, as Paul shifts from "she" to "they" in mid-sentence.
As I have said before, I think 1 T 2 is the lynchpin of the "creational order" argument. Not only does there appear to be some confusion as to whether it's referring to husbands and wives or men and women in general (at least in church order), it is also universally acknowledged to be an atrociously difficult passage to understand. Deriving a principle with such far-reaching consequences from such a passage seems a less than certain business to me.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Incidentally, I'm interested to know Eutychus, why you are so sure that 1 Tim 2 is not about husbands and wives.
I have already gone some way to answering this here.
Sorry - hadn't seen that - thanks.
quote:
I think you'll find that most cons. evo theologians would want to argue for "man" and "woman" in 1 T 2 because otherwise the "creational order" argument there can only be made to apply to relationships in marriage and not to church order (which after all is what the whole passage is about). It would mean that a wife cannot teach her husband, but would offer no logical objection to a single woman or a widow teaching men.
No I agree that men and women generally is a better translation, I was just wondering why you didn't! I agree it is about church order.
I think you said earlier, though, that you thought this raised a difficulty for cons evos about why they think it's all right for women to have leadership roles in society. Do you still think that is an issue?
quote:
As I have said before, I think 1 T 2 is the lynchpin of the "creational order" argument. Not only does there appear to be some confusion as to whether it's referring to husbands and wives or men and women in general (at least in church order), it is also universally acknowledged to be an atrociously difficult passage to understand. Deriving a principle with such far-reaching consequences from such a passage seems a less than certain business to me.
No one is denying it is difficult. However, I would point out that I think the "order" bit (Adam---eve in creation and Eve---Adam in the fall)is pretty clear. And I think we still have to deal with the text, even if it is difficult - so yes, to draw "far reaching consequences" from it is serious, but just as serious as saying "we don't understand it, so we effectively ignore it." All I am trying to do is trust and obey the Scriptures as best I can. I understand there are many doing the same thing who come to different conclusions, which is why, for me, this is not a "Gospel" issue.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
I always get confused when people who admit they don't take Genesis literally start to base arguments on the literal truth of it.
Why? If someone believes that the Bible is inspired by God, and given to us for our edification, and preserved by the Holy Spirit acting in the Church so that we now have the Bible God wants us to have; then they can use any part of it to inform their arguments on doctrine.
The parables of Jesus are stories - but like the rest of the Bible stories recorded that we might believe. No-one claims that the Prodigal Son is a piece of documentary reportage, but thousands of sermons are based on it every week. Plenty of Christians, even very theologically conservative ones, consider that the stories of Job or Jonah might at least partly be parables. But that doesn't remove them from the word of God.
So someone who thought that Genesis 1-11 wasn't history at all (presumably the usual moidern position), or was history so allegorised and symbolic as to not resemble human histories (common mediaeval view), or was history from a point of view so different from ours at to not be very useful as a chronological account of events (which is what St. Augustine thought), could still believe that it was supplied by God to teach us.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
i have not read all of the thread but I have been very interested in wthat I have been reading.
My wife and I have been married for 54 years and to people who know us we seem to be a well matched and very happy couple, but my wife does not submit to me in everthing which if she is really following Bible teaching she should do.
There is one issue that she will not give in on and as it is making me feel unhappy I think that she is not submiting as the scripture instructs.
I just let the subject drop to avoide arguments but I am not happy about it. I know that this is derailing the thread a little but I just wanted to get it off my chest as reading this thread just makes mr think about it more. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
My question is, what is different about the way marriage works for an egalitarian (not the lifelong commitment part, the day to day operation) than what could be described under the heading of "friendship+sex"?
What you seem to be implying here (and in a couple of other places) is that the hierarchical nature of the relationship is intrinsic to marriage - is indeed what makes marriage marriage.
If that's what you mean, I'm afraid it's just such a completely alien concept to me that I have nothing to the point to say about it - I'm just curious whether that is what you mean or if I am misreading you?
quote:
But the gender difference is absolutely inherent to marriage so it will affect the order of that relationship.
But what is the gender difference, precisely? - and if you can quantify it, how does the model you describe take account of the exceptions which undoubtably exist? Should a man or woman who does not conform to the gender profile you specify simply not marry, or not marry in the Christian church? Or should they pretend to be something they are not in order to make their relationship the model Lep talks about?
I am sure it is not be what you intend, but from this insistence on preordained gender difference I can easily see how the malign doctrines described by others could arise, where women who deviate from the accepted gender norm are made to feel sinful and wicked.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Leprechaun:I think we still have to deal with the text, even if it is difficult - so yes, to draw "far reaching consequences" from it is serious, but just as serious as saying "we don't understand it, so we effectively ignore it."
I am not seeking to dismiss out of hand what Paul says simply because it's difficult to understand, but it has made me re-evaluate what it actually says and how I think it should be applied. Aside from effectively disregarding this passage, there are basically two alternative approaches to it apart from yours:
a) Say that Paul was applying a temporary limitation because of local circumstances and that the reference to creation was a handy illustration for the moment rather than an attempt to ensrhine a principle for all time.
b) Read the emphasis on the passage as being "let the women learn" rather than on "I do not permit" and see the allusion to Eve being formed after Adam as "hey, don't forget she's here too" (Emma has alluded to this view).
quote:
originally posted by Leprechaun:I think you said earlier, though, that you thought this raised a difficulty for cons evos about why they think it's all right for women to have leadership roles in society. Do you still think that is an issue?
I think that a generation ago you would have found that many if not most of those defending your position would have applied the same reasoning to spheres of life beyond church and marriage, and I reckon I could construct a defensible hermeneutic to do this – I certainly know people who objected to Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister on these grounds (not political grounds). Whether exclusion of other spheres is the result of more refined exegesis or adapting to a cultural shift is perhaps a moot point .
This leads me on to my "sun going round earth" thought.
I think it's hard for us (post)moderns to assimilate the impact of the Copernican revolution on the medieval mindset. The idea that the earth was not the centre of the universe contributed to the decline of the "Elizabethan chain of being" in which everyone and everything (including women!) was ascribed to its immutable place in life. I'm sure the theologians of the time felt such a shift might fatally endanger the doctrine of God and used the Scriptures in defence of geocentrism. This change in worldview was the result of scientific enquiry which both fuelled and proceeded from cultural changes. Today, all but a few very marginal theologians have no difficulty admitting heliocentrism and classifying geocentric references in the Bible as culture-bound. They don't see heliocentrism in and of itself as threatening to the doctrine of God or of creation.
I understand the concerns that have been voiced here that tampering with the "creational order" of man and woman (husband and wife?) is really tampering with the doctrine of God, but I can't help wondering whether the same proponents might have found themselves arguing for geocentrism a few centuries ago on the same grounds. Don't you think it's possible we come to a fresh christian understanding of the roles of men and women and how they are to reflect the fact that both are made in the image of God, while at the same time interacting with the changes in human understanding and culture in this area – and without endangering our doctrine of God?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
.... to people who know us we seem to be a well matched and very happy couple, but my wife does not submit to me in everthing which if she is really following Bible teaching she should do.
There is one issue that she will not give in on and as it is making me feel unhappy I think that she is not submiting as the scripture instructs.
I just let the subject drop to avoide arguments but I am not happy about it. ...(
Well, if you are following the advice on this thread, your response ought not to be to embarass your wife publicly on a board to which she belongs, but to love her more as Christ loved the church. If you were doing that, perhaps she would have conceded to your request out of love. Alternatively, perhaps what you have asked is not reasonable or okay for her. If so, in insisting upon it, then, you are sinning against her by not loving her as Christ loved the Church.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Really there's almost no need for the Plot if we can get others to make our points for us! Needless to say, what Laura says goes for me too.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Well, even the Orthodox Plot can't be everywhere. By the way, as I was cruising past Saint Sophia's (Celebrating 100 years of Holy Wisdom (Also come to our Greek Festival!)) last night, I felt a tug of curiosity .... ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Okay so I won't count that toaster as mine just yet....
Actually you need to be on your guard about those Greek festivals. I reckon all those years of going to the Greek festivals in Seattle softened me up for the Plot. Is that just baklava, or an insidious long-term plan to capture your soul for Constantinople? One can't be too careful!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Mousethief, shame on you for tempting Laura to go to Greek festivals! Not only will you raise her cholesterol level 100 points, it's taken me a whole year to lose the weight I gained at just one Greek festival last May! Baklava is deadly!
It's also hard on our image when we want to project Josephine's "Headship" concepts-- one yaya ordering her husband around in strident tones as he turns the spit on the barbecue could scuttle our whole plan! "Dimitrios! Get your lazy _________ over here right now!"
Leetle M.
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
It'd probably help if you could expand it for me. How is your understanding of marriage different from that which could be expected if there were two extremely close friends who were in a sexual relationship? What is the extra 'bit' of order that isn't covered by "friends+sex"?
I've been in relationships that one or both of us thought might lead to marriage. I've also been a member of the "friends with benefits" club. There's a huge difference between the two relationships, mostly having to do with the priority assigned to the relationship and the commitment to making the relationship work.
quote:
Well, I suppose I was trying to say that the argument - these two people can function fine on their own, so there doesn't need to be any order when they come together - is trying to make out that they remain a collection of individuals when they come together.
Why do you assume that the only order possible is that of male headship? I haven't heard anyone on this thread say that they think relationships should be completely disordered. Just that a particular model might not be the best one.
quote:
Depends. A master may be less wise, intelligent etc. than her slave but there's a legal arrangement that orders them the way they are. Like many employees, I've had bosses that I'm sure I could do a better job than they could but they were in charge because they were in charge - and it doesn't have to be because they'd do the better job (some family owned businesses for example). A parent with adult children mightn't be smarter or wiser but yet there is a certain honour the adult children owe them. There's a few examples.
OK. I actually reject all of these relationships, too. I don't submit to authority because legally they're in charge - I submit because the person in authority is smarter, wiser, more competent, etc. I've never had a boss who didn't acknowledge that I was better at certain things than they were and defer to my knowledge in that area (of course, I've only been in the working world for 14 years, and all of my bosses have been women...) And honoring my parents as an adult does not involve submitting to them.
quote:
Ah. Sorry, I wasn't suggesting it was an attack on the sanctity of marriage. My question is, what is different about the way marriage works for an egalitarian (not the lifelong commitment part, the day to day operation) than what could be described under the heading of "friendship+sex"?
I think the lifelong commitment part affects the day to day operation of a relationship, but I'll try to separate them since you think they're different.
The difference is one of priority. "Friendship + sex" means that we value one another, but that we understand if the other has to drop us to attend to their other commitments. That's not an option in an egalitarian marriage. That may not affect 95% of your daily interactions (which involve who does what), but it has a huge influence on the other 5%. Friends with benefits would think it a bit odd if you automatically included/thought about the other in all your plans; the opposite is true in marriage.
I have to say, I'm not entirely clear on what version of headship you're arguing for here. AFAICT, your arguing for an almost completely empty concept that we must obey in order to fulfill Biblical law...
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Levor
Shipmate
# 5711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not suggesting that the passages are irrelevant. But, where (as you concede) there are different chronologies, or for that matter any other two passages that present conflicting doctrines or histories, to pick one and say that the other is "irrelevant to the issue" is very poor exegesis.
Only if it is simply asserted without my stating the reasons which lead to that conclusion. I've given the reasons for my conclusion.
quote:
Even more so when the one you pick supports what you already believe, and the "irrelevant" one doesn't.
Well, I began my Christian life as an egalitarian as strong as anything expressed on this thread so far. The fundamental structures of my thinking are thoroughly egalitarian. The view I'm advocating (and trying to put into practice) is something that I have very grudgingly come to over more than a decade because I'm convinced that that is what the Bible is saying.
Yes, you are going to find that my view of what the Bible says and what I believe line up. That's true, by and large, of any conservative Christian of any tradition. But I reject the 'play the man' argument that I'm simply making the Bible say what I want it to say. I would rather egalitarianism be true. My commitment to headship, like my commitment to Hell, the reality of sin, Jesus as the only way to salvation, opposition to homosexuality and the like is out of my view that God has done things in ways that I wouldn't if I was making the choice. For which we can all be very grateful.
quote:
quote:
How is your understanding of marriage different from that which could be expected if there were two extremely close friends who were in a sexual relationship? What is the extra 'bit' of order that isn't covered by "friends+sex"?
Well, that's actually not that easy to put into words. First, there's a publically expressed commitment to each other. In the context of a Christian marriage there is also a placing of the relationship under the headship of Christ. And, in the context of both the lifelong commitment and headship of Christ, marriage results in a need for examination of each persons role in that relationship and how it'll work in the long term. "Friendship + sex" can often have an ad-hoc feel to it, a sorting things out as they come up without any compulsion to try and make it work if it gets difficult.
True, but many good and strong friendships don't. Good Christian friendship is certainly a relationship with a long-term commitment, and under the headship of Christ.
I suppose as I hear egalitarian accounts of marriage it seems to me to be fully explained as a lifelong commitment of two friends to each other in a sexual relationship. I can't see anything else in the account that's not explained by that.
And if that's the case, then I wonder if friendship really does come close to capturing the essence of this marriage thing.
Saysay, I think my answer to Alan here should cover your very thoughtful response too - let me know if there was anything you missed that you particularly want me to respond to.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is where I think I find your position not very consistent with your understanding of Scripture. I'm going to attempt to explain why:
Personally, in the Genesis accounts or creation, I see lots of support for the idea of a distinction between man and woman, but not for the idea of distinct roles or headship/submission. (I would say the portrayal of relationships from the time of the patriarchs onwards is descriptive rather than prescriptive; it's just how things worked out in one particular society).
If you're wanting to just say why you disagree, Eutychus, it's fine to assert your views without giving reasons. If you are trying to help me come to a better view on things, you're going to have to give me some evidence to work with.
I've said why I think that the Genesis accounts indicate some kind of 'hierarchy'. And you're going to have to say what in Scripture tells you that the Patriach narratives are purely descriptive.
quote:
AFAICS, 1 Tim 2:12-14 is the only place in Scripture which appears to some to derive differing roles for men and women from the "Creational Order" (man first, woman second).
I think I would add the word 'explicitly' - it is one of the few places where the rationale is stated explicitly. I think it is implicit in many other places.
quote:
What I'm asserting is, if you want to include the creational order in your argument for headship and submission, you have to accept that it applies to men and women in other contexts too, and not just to husbands and wives.
I think it does apply to contexts outside of marriage. The principle I stated was that, to the degree that gender is a key factor in the kind of relationship people are in, then this sort of issue is going to come into play.
I see it as somethig like overlapping circles of less and less intensity - strongest in marriage, and less so in other relationships that have gender less and less as part of their essence.
Once one factors in the Genesis 1&2 accounts that suggest we were made male and female in order to be married, then some of the difficulty of working out whether a particular passage is saying 'man and woman' or 'husband and wife' makes more sense. The man-woman dimension to being human is most clearly seen in marriage. To the degree that clarity exists in other relationships the same sorts of principles apply.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what gender difference? There are some definite differences related to biology - as a man I'm unable to carry a new life for nine months and give birth, and then breast feed afterwards. But, apart from that, what differences are there?
I admit, I find it very hard to state them in the abstract, without getting into the "Men are from Mars..." reductionisms that I find thoroughly counterproductive. But then, I find it hard not to see the world through egalitarian glasses.
But I can say that I find men and women very different. Yes, there's a big variety among men and among women. Nonetheless, I find both to be different from the other - and more than just the fact that one begets while the other conceives.
quote:
Or are you trying to argue that there are gender differences which have nothing to do with ability? And, that men are heads because they're men even if they're significantly less able to fulfill that task than their wives? If so, it's a very strange God who calls people to a task he hasn't equipped them for.
No. I'm not saying that men are unable to be heads. I am saying that head =/= decision maker. Like what others have been saying, while I think authority comes into play, it is not the heart of what headship is about.
I think the husband has a responsibility to love the wife in a way that is not shared by the wife's responsibility to love the husband. The husband's role is to sacrifice himself for the growth and glory of his wife. The wife's responsibility is to receive this love and respond to it. And I think both are equipped to do this.
I've got no problems with traditional gender roles being swapped or mixed and matched.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, then the whole "marriage models the relationship between Christ and the church" is an irrelevant truism. Besides, the church is subordinate to Christ because we are his people and he has redeemed us - to what extent can the same be said of a husband and wife? Certainly my wife is not in any realistic sense my property, nor have I redeeemed her. The relationship is founded on different principles, why shouldn't it therefore be different in outworking? To draw a direct analogy either misrepresents the relationship between partners in a marriage, or between Christ and his church - or, indeed both.
Well Paul explicitly uses the language of salvation to describe the way the husband is to behave towards the wife. Doesn't mean that the husband is the wife's saviour - simply, as Josephine put it, that marriage is a path to salvation (or as I'd prefer, a context of salvation).
And not every element has to line up for the analogy to work. You'd have to show that Paul is wrong because the analogy doesn't work at the points he is referring us to.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I suppose that part of the inconsistency I'm claiming and which Levor has asked about is that cons. evos (witness the ESV) choose to read "husband" and "wife" in 1 Cor 11:3 against the context, because it suits their argument, and "man" and "woman" in 1 T 2 by appeal to the very same contextual argument they discard in 1 Cor 11:3.
No. I think it is clearly 'man' and 'woman' in 1 Cor 11:3. I think people try to wriggle out of that because they don't have a good understanding of 'image' language and so think that they need to make it refer only to husband and wife to stop it saying that women are less then human. (Which is a good goal, just the wrong way to get there.)
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
What you seem to be implying here (and in a couple of other places) is that the hierarchical nature of the relationship is intrinsic to marriage - is indeed what makes marriage marriage.
Yes to the first, no to the second. I think marriage is inherently 'hierarchical'. But I don't think it is hierarchy that makes marriage what it is. (If you're aware of the terms - hierarchy is necessary but not sufficient).
I think many people have marriages that 'work' on egalitarian principles. I think many people have marriages that 'work' on subchristian strong hierarchical principles. So that can't be the absolute essence. But I do think it is part of the reality of marriage and so lining up with that is better than not.
quote:
But what is the gender difference, precisely? - and if you can quantify it, how does the model you describe take account of the exceptions which undoubtably exist? Should a man or woman who does not conform to the gender profile you specify simply not marry, or not marry in the Christian church? Or should they pretend to be something they are not in order to make their relationship the model Lep talks about?
I tend to have a more fluid view of reality in practice, with lots of room for moving. Depending on the personalities, gifts, situation etc. these principles can work out in very different ways - ways that might almost seem opposites if you're just looking at whether the husband is making enough of the decisions.
I'd say if a man isn't prepared to live life daily by laying down his life for his wife, and have that kind of love shape his life then he shouldn't get married. And if a woman doesn't want to be loved that way and have that kind of love given to her shape her life then she shouldn't get married. Outside of that, I think it comes down to a lot of wisdom - and to the degree that certain couples share certain defining features (like a particular combination of personalities or gifts, or a cultural context) then there will be very similar outworkings between them at those points. To the degree there are wide differences the outworkings will look substantially different.
quote:
I am sure it is not be what you intend, but from this insistence on preordained gender difference I can easily see how the malign doctrines described by others could arise, where women who deviate from the accepted gender norm are made to feel sinful and wicked.
I agree. It's happened to both me and my wife and we've never enjoyed it. But I think the price tag of egalitarianism is even higher than the way this will be used to justify people's sinfulness.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Why do you assume that the only order possible is that of male headship? I haven't heard anyone on this thread say that they think relationships should be completely disordered. Just that a particular model might not be the best one.
Well, it's not an assumption. It's an attempt to make sense of what I see the Bible saying. It is a posteori not a priori. If I was working simply from how things seem to me without Scripture, I'd be with Alan (not saying that's what he's doing by that - just that that would be my position).
I wasn't trying to prove male headship by that argument. Merely show that you can't disprove male headship by pointing out that both genders function fine on their own.
quote:
OK. I actually reject all of these (examples of abitrary)relationships, too. I don't submit to authority because legally they're in charge - I submit because the person in authority is smarter, wiser, more competent, etc.
Then I suspect there is probably a sense in which you don't submit. Submission means more than just recognising that this person is right in this instance. If that was all it was, then the Bible's call to submit to those in authority wouldn't be so difficult for us.
quote:
I have to say, I'm not entirely clear on what version of headship you're arguing for here. AFAICT, your arguing for an almost completely empty concept that we must obey in order to fulfill Biblical law...
I think I'm arguing for the same concept that Jospehine and others have outlined. I don't think it's empty - maybe if you could ask me some questions as to where I'm introducing an empty concept.
--------------------
in Christ,
Levor
Posts: 276 | From: Sydney | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not suggesting that the passages are irrelevant. But, where (as you concede) there are different chronologies, or for that matter any other two passages that present conflicting doctrines or histories, to pick one and say that the other is "irrelevant to the issue" is very poor exegesis.
Only if it is simply asserted without my stating the reasons which lead to that conclusion. I've given the reasons for my conclusion.
Then, we're at an impasse. As I don't accept the reasons you gave for describing some passages I see as relevant as not being relevant. If you're going to argue a headship for men based on chronological order of the creation account in Genesis 2 (man, then animals, then woman), then my counter argument based on the different chronological order of the creation account in Genesis 1 (animals, then men and women apparently at the same time) needs to be addressed. Stating, as you did, that there are plenty of Biblical examples of the chronological order being over turned (eg: choosing David, the youngest son of Jesse, over his older brothers) simply weakens the case for the chronological order in Genesis 2 being relevant at all - and we simply end up with one verse from Paul in the midst of a difficult passage to comprehend.
My point is simple - if you want to argue for male headship you need to appeal to stronger evidence than the chronology of the creation account in Genesis 2. If you have established male headship then, and only then, can you safely reference Genesis 2 in this context - for what it's worth, I believe that Paul probably took male headship as axiomatic and did just that when he referenced Genesis 2. It was an axiom he got from his culture, both Jewish and Greek.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
But if you are a Christian, then when you entered into relationship with Christ he became your head.
I don't think either you or St Paul get very far with analogies between our relationship with Jesus and headship in marriage generally. Our relationship with Jesus is unique - no-one else is both fully God and fully man. Just as his submission to the will of God was perfect and carried with it no notion of hierarchy.
Even St Paul was good enough to describe it as a mystery (in the theological sense).
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what gender difference? There are some definite differences related to biology - as a man I'm unable to carry a new life for nine months and give birth, and then breast feed afterwards. But, apart from that, what differences are there?
I admit, I find it very hard to state them in the abstract, without getting into the "Men are from Mars..." reductionisms that I find thoroughly counterproductive.
I'll agree with the counterproductivity of the reductionisms. They are counterproductive precisely because there is so much variation between individuals that the "average man" (or woman) is actually meaningless - each couple needs to find out how their partner ticks, and who they are, to find out what works best in their relationship. But, what's the difference between the "Men are from Mars ..." reductionisms and the "man is the head" reductionism in that sense? Both make assumptions of gender roles in a relationship, that may work for many (indeed, they may work for most), but can't be expected to work for all.
quote:
But I can say that I find men and women very different. Yes, there's a big variety among men and among women. Nonetheless, I find both to be different from the other - and more than just the fact that one begets while the other conceives.
And, until someone comes up with a list of differences between genders that is sufficiently large that one can safely assume that there will be no exceptions those difference can't be used to argue for differences in roles to be the norm. I'm not denying that for many, indeed maybe even most, marriages it may be appropriate for the man to take a headship role. What I'm looking for is anything that has so few exceptions that it can be used as a basis for saying men always have a headship role. I'm simply not seeing it.
quote:
quote:
Or are you trying to argue that there are gender differences which have nothing to do with ability? And, that men are heads because they're men even if they're significantly less able to fulfill that task than their wives? If so, it's a very strange God who calls people to a task he hasn't equipped them for.
No. I'm not saying that men are unable to be heads. I am saying that head =/= decision maker. Like what others have been saying, while I think authority comes into play, it is not the heart of what headship is about.
I think the husband has a responsibility to love the wife in a way that is not shared by the wife's responsibility to love the husband. The husband's role is to sacrifice himself for the growth and glory of his wife. The wife's responsibility is to receive this love and respond to it. And I think both are equipped to do this.
So, the ability question is simply one of love. The ability of men to love, and of their wives to receive love. OK, where's your evidence that men are more able to give love, and women more able to receive? There may be an average tendancy in that direction (which may, or may not, be linked to cultural expectations of gender roles that aren't intrinsic to men and women) but there must surely be great ranges in ability to love and be loved that will result in many marriages where it is the wife who has the greater ability to give love and the husband the greater ability to receive and return that love.
And, that whole argument is based on an assumption that love is something that can be quantified and measured. Or, so it seems to me.
quote:
I've got no problems with traditional gender roles being swapped or mixed and matched.
Well, many of the advocates of male headship I've come across would have problems with that. Precisely because if the woman works long hours in a high powered job that that hinders her ability to receive the love and care her husband has to give. Or, if a husband spends his days keeping the house tidy and caring for the kids he doesn't have the resources (he's not the "bread winner") to lavish tender gifts on his wife.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Levor
Shipmate
# 5711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Then, we're at an impasse. As I don't accept the reasons you gave for describing some passages I see as relevant as not being relevant. If you're going to argue a headship for men based on chronological order of the creation account in Genesis 2 (man, then animals, then woman), then my counter argument based on the different chronological order of the creation account in Genesis 1 (animals, then men and women apparently at the same time) needs to be addressed.
But I've addressed it, Alan. Twice. Your response to my addressing of the issue of the issue is to state:
quote:
I don't accept the reasons you gave for describing some passages I see as relevant as not being relevant.
I suppose it follows by your logic stated here that it is now OK for me ask you to address my two-fold counter-argument to your argument from mixed chronology and man-animal-woman chronology.
quote:
Stating, as you did, that there are plenty of Biblical examples of the chronological order being over turned (eg: choosing David, the youngest son of Jesse, over his older brothers) simply weakens the case for the chronological order in Genesis 2 being relevant at all - and we simply end up with one verse from Paul in the midst of a difficult passage to comprehend.
Hardly. For example:
1. The principle of the firstborn is a fairly dominant one. And it is an argument from chronology.
2. The argument to Christ's deity still stands.
3. And the fact that sometimes the Bible goes out of its way to overturn the chronological principle only weakens the principle if the Bible does that without making anything of the fact. But if the Bible overturns the principle (like it does with election in Genesis) and makes something of that, it is reinforcing the principle, not weakening it - precisely by the way that it draws attention to the principle and makes its point by drawing on the existence of the principle.
quote:
My point is simple - if you want to argue for male headship you need to appeal to stronger evidence than the chronology of the creation account in Genesis 2. If you have established male headship then, and only then, can you safely reference Genesis 2 in this context
Well there's three strands - at the moment one of those is still standing, and the other I didn't see any rebuttal of my recent argument in favour of it.
quote:
- for what it's worth, I believe that Paul probably took male headship as axiomatic and did just that when he referenced Genesis 2. It was an axiom he got from his culture, both Jewish and Greek.
As I presume neither of us believe that the Bible was, by and large, dictated by God it hardly matters where Paul got it. All the writers got their ideas from somewhere - it is a human book after all. It's never been thought in mainstream theology that this would undercut the Bible being God's word. Are you suggesting that the only things in the Bible that can be from God have to be things that weren't part of Jewish or Greek culture?
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
I don't think either you or St Paul get very far with analogies between our relationship with Jesus and headship in marriage generally. Our relationship with Jesus is unique - no-one else is both fully God and fully man.
Yes Jesus is unique. But the thrust of the Chalcedonian definition of the two natures in the one person was not to make Christ into a 'third thing' - neither human nor God but a human-God.
If you are right, then we've just lost any ability to draw any ethical implications from the pattern of Jesus' life.
I think he offers us much, much more than that.
quote:
Just as his submission to the will of God was perfect and carried with it no notion of hierarchy.
I think you're almost alone on that view as far as theological scholarship goes. I haven't seen any theologian try to argue that the relationship between the incarnate Jesus and the Father is anything other hierarchical. Instead they try to argue that he only submits in his humanity.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, until someone comes up with a list of differences between genders that is sufficiently large that one can safely assume that there will be no exceptions those difference can't be used to argue for differences in roles to be the norm.
I suspect we may have a very different understanding of how we know things at this point, that is probably going to affect the argument. (And is probably going to make things still more complex).
I don't believe we know things by breaking them down into a check list of elements and then ticking them off when we find an example of the type to see if it is part of that class of thing. Which seems to be where you're coming from with your list of differences between the genders.
I think that approach leads to abstractions and isn't really how we learn. We tend to learn analogically - moving to something we don't know yet by comparing it to what we do know. And, by and large, we learn by just grasping the reality whole rather than in bits.
It is notoriously difficult to give a comprehensive and adequate description of what it means to be a human being. That doesn't mean I don't recognise human beings or that I don't know what a human being is.
By and large the Bible doesn't give us definitions with a list of components for key concepts. It shows us different concrete examples of it, and we pick up the category by being exposed to the concrete examples.
Hence Christians can often find it hard to clearly state what certain key ideas are, (like faith, salvation etc) even though they are living realities for them.
So I'm not particularly worried that I can't come up with a list of differences - that can be a useful exercise, but it's hardly necessary. All I have to do is be right in saying that the differences between a man and a woman are more than just plumbing and contribution to reproduction.
quote:
So, the ability question is simply one of love. The ability of men to love, and of their wives to receive love. OK, where's your evidence that men are more able to give love, and women more able to receive?
This is probably going to exasperate you, but we'll give it a whirl anyway.
I subscribe to the approach of 'faith seeking understanding' not 'I understand so that I may believe'. So, as Callan put it once, I'm in the "God did it so it must be good" camp, not the "It isn't good so God can't have done it camp".
I don't look for some kind of external verification of the idea first. I start with what the text seems to be saying and then see how that sheds light on what I see around me. I presume it is true and start looking for confirmation, rather than begin by comparing it to the evidence to see if it will stand or fall.
This principle then leads to what is going to seem like a vicious circle - I think the way in which you see that male headship is good for both parties is to look at marriage, not to look at the genders in abstract and ask whether one is 'better at loving'. If gender was given to humanity for the purpose of marriage, then the question needs to start with marriage, and work back to gender, not vice versa. I see what is right and good about male headship by going with it by faith and then finding out what the good is, rather than by trying to work out the good first.
So I'm not sure if I can answer the question the way you've asked it. I'm not even sure that it is relevant (not saying it isn't, I'm not sure).
Instead, having tried it in our marriage, we've found it has worked very well. Could egalitarianism have worked as well? Don't know. But we've found the principle has worked. When I've compared the predominantly egalitarian marriages of evangelicalism in Brisbane with the predominantly headship marriages in Sydney I've seen problems (mirror image problems) in both evangelical cultures. But overall, I think the Sydney couples are happier and godlier. But I'm not sure that proves anything in the way you're asking me to.
quote:
quote:
I've got no problems with traditional gender roles being swapped or mixed and matched.
Well, many of the advocates of male headship I've come across would have problems with that. Precisely because if the woman works long hours in a high powered job that that hinders her ability to receive the love and care her husband has to give. Or, if a husband spends his days keeping the house tidy and caring for the kids he doesn't have the resources (he's not the "bread winner") to lavish tender gifts on his wife.
I don't think I have to defend something I don't agree with, simply because it fits into the same general taxonomy that my view does. I'm not going to ask you to defend some of the stupidities associated with the general category of egalitarianism. Let's both hold each other accountable just for the stupidities inherent to the views we're endorsing.
[ 21. April 2005, 12:45: Message edited by: Levor ]
--------------------
in Christ,
Levor
Posts: 276 | From: Sydney | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Sorry, not much time at the moment ... I hope to get back to the rest of your post later.
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
As I presume neither of us believe that the Bible was, by and large, dictated by God it hardly matters where Paul got it. All the writers got their ideas from somewhere - it is a human book after all. It's never been thought in mainstream theology that this would undercut the Bible being God's word. Are you suggesting that the only things in the Bible that can be from God have to be things that weren't part of Jewish or Greek culture?
No, I'm saying that when a Biblical passage exists within a particular cultural setting then the chances are you can't simply lift that passage out of that context and apply it directly in a different culture. Paul clearly saw that the headship of a man over his wife (or of men over women more generally) was appropriate for the Greek and Jewish cultures he was familiar with.
As I pointed out a couple of pages back (or maybe it was another thread), despite accepting that model (which was the cultural norm) he was still happy to significantly reform it - hence he let women learn, and even have some level of authority in the church (we can leave the discussion of exactly how much authority for another time). To the first recipients of his letters "I permit women to learn in silence" was radically progressive, to us the "in silence" bit is offensively patriarchal and archaic. If we want to be true to Paul and the gospel message, is it better to be radically progressive in recognising the value of women in the church, or oppressively conservative by sticking with the point Paul left us at?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
Well there's three strands - at the moment one of those is still standing, and the other I didn't see any rebuttal of my recent argument in favour of it.
From one of your earlier posts, which gives what I'm assuming are the three strands you're refering to.
quote:
There are three strands of evidence in the way the narrative works in Genesis 2-3.
1. The man is created first and the woman is created from the man, (and Paul points out, the woman is created for the man not vice versa). Man is the source of woman - a derived equality as Divine Outlaw Dwarf has suggested on the Father-Son side of the issue.
2. The man names the animals and the woman. Naming in the Bible does have an authority component to it - which is one of the reasons why the theme of God's name is so important.
3. When the temptation account is given in chapter three there is an order of animal --> woman --> man. When the judgement account is given there is an order of God --> man --> woman --> animal. It suggests a certain kind of order is built into things and sin disrupts that, like it seeks to overturn all of God's order and destroy all of God's creation and so return things back to being 'formless and void'.
In my response (here) I'd pointed out that 1) requires a chronolgy which is different in Genesis 2 from Genesis 1, 2) also requires an assessment of the differences
between Genesis 1 (where both men and women are given authority) and Genesis 2 (where it is just the man who does the naming, which I agree is an exercising of authority) and 3) relates to the Fall rather than the original creation.
What areas of response to these three strands still leaves the Biblical case for headship based on Genesis 2 on a sure basis?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
I subscribe to the approach of 'faith seeking understanding' not 'I understand so that I may believe'. So, as Callan put it once, I'm in the "God did it so it must be good" camp, not the "It isn't good so God can't have done it camp".
I don't look for some kind of external verification of the idea first. I start with what the text seems to be saying and then see how that sheds light on what I see around me. I presume it is true and start looking for confirmation, rather than begin by comparing it to the evidence to see if it will stand or fall.
I'd agree with the general approach. More or less. Starting "with what the text seems to be saying" is good, but that "seems" is important. When you compare that text, or the apparent interpretation of it, and start looking for supporting evidence, what do you do when the supporting evidence turns out to be very weak? Do you not reject the apparent interpretation for an alternative that fits the other data better?
quote:
Instead, having tried it in our marriage, we've found it has worked very well. Could egalitarianism have worked as well? Don't know. But we've found the principle has worked.
Well, I'm glad it works for your marriage. But it's a big leap from saying it works in one marriage, or even most marriages, to saying that that's the way it has to be.
I can't really speak from the experience of my marriage, as we're still getting used to the idea of being married. But, just going by the idea I think Gordon mentioned that headship means it's inappropriate for a woman to actively pursue a man I'd say if we'd followed that model our marriage wouldn't have even got going.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, I'm saying that when a Biblical passage exists within a particular cultural setting then the chances are you can't simply lift that passage out of that context and apply it directly in a different culture. Paul clearly saw that the headship of a man over his wife (or of men over women more generally) was appropriate for the Greek and Jewish cultures he was familiar with.
As I pointed out a couple of pages back (or maybe it was another thread), despite accepting that model (which was the cultural norm) he was still happy to significantly reform it
<large snip>
If we want to be true to Paul and the gospel message, is it better to be radically progressive in recognising the value of women in the church, or oppressively conservative by sticking with the point Paul left us at?
The time has come for a bit of cultural reconstruction of my own, as I realise I’ve been reading many of your posts in the wrong way, Alan, and along the way not allowed for the fact that you’ve been posting from Scotland. In fact you are presenting a very conservative line that ultimately agrees with what I am saying. Indeed, I shouldn’t be surprised if you were in reality heading down an even more conservative trajectory, but I can see why you are writing as you do.
Firstly let me lay out my credentials. I know a lot about Scottish culture, certainly at least as much as any of us know about life in Greece, Rome, Palestine and places in between back in the first century. I’ve watched Trainspotting, bits of Hamish Macbeth, Chariots of Fire and some of those cop shows that need subtitles. My mother was Swedish so we even have a couple of words in common in our mother tongue. Australia being originally an English colony so there would’ve been a few
Scottish people in our history too, and we Australian Chengs know quite a bit of Australian history so we have your lot pegged.
Mind you “Cresswell” doesn’t seem a particularly Scottish name, but if you’re English that only strengthens my understanding of where you’re coming from, as I spent 3 weeks in England in 1993.
Now the Scottish Christian culture at present is notoriously liberal, as the occasional statements by that chap Holloway on homosexuality demonstrate, and I further take into account that you are a longterm contributor to Ship of Fools and have been a host in your time, and you are still an administrator. So one of your motives will be to maintain credibility with your culture and say things that will not be rejected outright by the majority of your fellow shipmates. But I’ve picked up that you were involved in your University Christian Union at a formative stage of your Christian life, so I conclude from this and various other statements about your attitude to scripture that you are actually committed to a very traditional evangelical view.
Reinterpreting most of what you’ve said in the light of what I know to be the case, it seems fairly obvious to me that you are writing with your intended audience in mind, and that the net impact of what you believe will be to lead your readers almost unwittingly in the direction of conservatism. The interpretive key to your words is that you have said that in the past you’ve belonged to Christian groups that are committed to respecting the Bible’s authority, thinking it through, and interpreting it accordingly. Everything else you say has to be read in this light. The meaning of your words at face value is occasionally quite liberal, but the basic trajectory of what you are saying is radically conservative.
Of course reading your statements in this culturally contextualized way will mean that I will occasionally seem to dismiss out of hand what you’re saying and over-ride the plain meaning of your words. But I know that I’m reading with a good awareness of where you’re coming from, so I feel quite confident that you will be quietly nodding your head in agreement with what I’m saying. It must be a relief to come across a reader who really understands what you're saying, after so many years of being misheard by everyone else. True?
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Wow, Gordon. That is quite impressive. As a demonstration of how it's possible to take something written by someone from one culture, that is poorly understood, and then try and read those statements in the context of another culture with the resulting conclusions being radically different from the original intention it is unsurpassed. A veritable tour de force demonstration of how easy it is to misinterpret what someone writes, even when they're from a very similar culture. How much harder is it to correctly understand what someone in a very different culture meant? Can we really claim that we're able to say what someone like Paul would say about an issue such as roles in marriage if he were writing within our culture?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
G'day Alan. Alternatively you might conclude that this whole "reading in the light of what we know of the culture" is a game best left to the kookaburras, and struggle with the meaning of the words on the page.
Cultural reconstruction might throw up interesting interpretive possibilities, so it's not as if it's an illegitimate part of an interpreter's armoury. Part of the trick to it though will be recognising that our access to the culture will need to privilege the words that are in front of us. Particularly if we are going to lend weight to the idea of God having spoken those words in a way that he hasn't spoken what you and I are now saying to each other.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Of course it can! Is outrage! 
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
