|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Headship
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I'm curious - in what context does my wearing jeans or trousers signify a rebellion against the created order and an attempt to usurp male authority?
It's very hard to think of examples because most of the time, we wear clothes for fashion, comfort, vanity, perceived attractiveness, functionality and so on. It's unusual to wear clothing to make a deliberate ideological statement; something which may have been going on at Corinth judging by by Paul's reaction to it.
Back in the '70s there used to be a fashion style which was broadly described as Unisex, which meant that men and women dressed almost identically, and deliberately so. This may have been ideologically motivated in some cases, and if so, would be an example. Or it might just be yet another sign that the 70s was the decade that fashion forgot. Or not, if you liked that kind of thing.
OK, I get it. It’s probably not wrong that I’m currently wearing mostly men’s clothing, since I’m doing so because men’s clothing is cheaper and more comfortable than women’s clothing.
OTOH, when I decided that the junior/senior prom racket was something I was no longer willing to participate in and borrowed a set of tails from a friend (leaving my boyfriend to work out what he was going to wear), I was almost certainly sinning.
And on Friday night, when I will probably wear a certain kind of trousers to indicate my participation in a certain subculture, I may or may not be sinning, depending on whether or not that subculture is trying to rebel against the natural order.
How perfectly clear. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Actually, given your other posts on this thread, I suspect we may not be on the same wavelength here. When I hear ‘headship,’ I tend to think of my grandmother, who would listen to the opinion of my adolescent brother over the opinion of my mother because he was a male.
FWIW, most of my decisions involve reasonable compromises between involved parties, but I will happily submit to anyone who has demonstrated that they both know more about the subject at hand and are willing to take responsibility for the consequences of their decision. Those people are few and far between.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Actually, given your other posts on this thread, I suspect we may not be on the same wavelength here. When I hear ‘headship,’ I tend to think of my grandmother, who would listen to the opinion of my adolescent brother over the opinion of my mother because he was a male.
You are quite right, saysay, that is not what I had in mind, and I will stick my neck out and venture to suggest that it's not what the Bible had in mind either.
Makes me wonder if the grandmother you mention was your mother's mother-in-law. The in-law issue a whole 'nother set of inter-relationships that make the husband-wife question look as easy as working out that, say, the Beatles were the greatest rock group of this age or indeed of any age (an axiomatic truth)
--------------------
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
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
No, it wasn’t an in-law problem.
My grandmother believed that a wife should submit to her husband. This view was extended out to the belief that women, in general, should submit to men (a view encouraged by her church’s hierarchy and leadership).
No, that probably wasn’t the Bible's original intent. However, it was a very real consequence of a certain reading.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Avalon
Shipmate
# 8094
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
However the next Archbishop of Sidney, we can predict with a high degree of certainty, will be male. As will the next Dean. As will, unless a miracle happens, the clergy in that diocese be. Now, like the Order of the Garter, this privileging of maleness as a necessary ground for wielding authority has no damn merit in it. It is arbitrary. We know that men are not intrinsically wiser, kinder, more holy, cleverer, better at liturgy, better at pastoral care etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseam.
So why male headship unless females are somehow ontologically inferior?
Yes, I think it's the sheer bloodymindedness of this which smacked me in the teeth when I was 10/11 years old. The only child in class at school who hadn't come up with what they wanted to do when they grew up I'd had a personal heart to heart with the teacher who was at pains to assure me I could do anything:I was one of the brightest there and nothing I could come up with would be ridiculous.So I walked out of school and asked about ordained clergy only to be told that God does allow women; no rhyme or reason. Coupled with the almost simultaneous onset of menstruation(sorry for mentioning it,guys) with periods coming every 2 weeks and crippling (literally) with pain I spent about 5 years of my formative life believing in God being a bloodyminded sadist - with violence.
I'd promised myself that I wouldn't 'rebel' against God until I'd read the bible for myself but,unsurprisingly, I wasn't in any hurry (convinced that this christian walk was going to be the discovery of how to reconcile this 'Cosmic Sadist' with 'God is Love') to do so. It was only when I learnt that there was a change of heart/that it wasn't necessary to believe in the cosmic sadist who said "women can't; God just says so" that the great flood of relief saw me do so (with commentary even before I left school).It wasn't necessarily an idle threat to do so earlier. I recall, aged 12 ,explaining to an English mistress that I hadn't read the set texts for the year because I'd been reading my way through my father's collection of Shakespeare and could answer her questions with sufficient comprehension to say that my favourite was " The Merry Wives of Windsor" as I liked the women getting to play tricks on the men.
I still look at little girls in late primary school and think that that shouldn't have happened; they're not old enough. I was terribly careful that it didn't happen to my own daughters -after one incident even teaching them that they could fake asthma attacks if necessary to have an excuse to ring us to collect them. I feel, however that the average church response over the last quarter of a century to make sure it doesn't happen is to remove not the half of the equation which says "women can't; God says" but to remove all good christian children to independant christian schools where little girls will never hear the unadulterated "You can do anything" half.
tangent (even if all this so far isn't): I read this thread yesterday in the same room where the movie, "Ella Enchanted" was being played. It was a surreal juxtaposition given that the tension there was the 'gift of obedience' to the lead female character.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
.... as easy as working out that, say, the Beatles were the greatest rock group of this age or indeed of any age (an axiomatic truth)
Mmmm - they are certainly MY favourite band that has funded the IRA!
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
So: Okay. I've been reading some on-line things about Orthodox marriage and have come to the conclusion that their model for marriage, though it does formally include something called "headship" that what it actually represents is nothing like the "headship" that I've ever heard from the religious right. (Another blow for the Orthodox Plot). I'm satisfied that the Orthodox version of "headship" hasn't got anything to do with who is inferior/who has power/women being able to think on their own. So now I have a different question:
I have a great deal of respect for the Orthodox model of marriage, partially based in St. Paul's description, but informed over a great deal of time by Orthodox tradition. But (turning the question around), is the Orthodox vision what St. Paul was talking about? I'm not sure it is.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Isn't this all really a hangover from a time before "civilisation" when survival was primarily dependent on physical attributes?
No.
None of us here has any very good idea how sexual relations were constructed 1000 or 2000 years ago. (Most people have no real idea of how it worked 200 years ago) And no-one at all anyehere has any firm knowledge of how family relationships worked before civilisation.
And though humans lived before civilisation, there were no humans before culture. We're social animals, and it is likely that culture, tradition, law, religion, and politics have always been more important to survival and success than "physical attributes". Always since we have been human, anyway.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I have a great deal of respect for the Orthodox model of marriage, partially based in St. Paul's description, but informed over a great deal of time by Orthodox tradition. But (turning the question around), is the Orthodox vision what St. Paul was talking about? I'm not sure it is.
I think it was, but I think it's possible that he may not have fully understood it himself.
See, the way we understand Tradition, is that it's organic, it doesn't change, but it grows. So you would find, in the Holy Scriptures, a seed, as it were, the very beginnings of an idea. The seed doesn't look just like what grows out of it. And there's a lot of development that happens between planting a seed and sheltering under a tree.
Of course, the whole process, the development of Holy Tradition, is under the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, who guides us into all truth. He didn't hand it all over at once, fully formed -- he directed the process, which is one of synergy between God and man. (Synergy is not an idea which is familiar in the Western church, but it is an absolutely vital concept in Orthodoxy.)
So those verses from St. Paul were the seed from which our understanding of marriage grew. He might not have known what would grow from them, but the Holy Spirit did. And the Holy Spirit ensured that the seed was watered, and fertilized, and pruned, and whatever else it needed, so that what we have is true.
And, of course, what St. Paul said was true, too. It was just undeveloped. And if he didn't know what would grow from it, and if he wouldn't even recognize the tree that grew, that's okay with us. The Holy Spirit knew. And I suspect that St. Paul wouldn't have been too terribly surprised -- he clearly held Priscilla and Lydia in high regard, as well as other women whom he knew.
This brief article on Holy Tradition might be a bit more clear than my early morning ramblings.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
[QUOTE]See, the way we understand Tradition, is that it's organic, it doesn't change, but it grows. So you would find, in the Holy Scriptures, a seed, as it were, the very beginnings of an idea. [...]
Of course, the whole process, the development of Holy Tradition, is under the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, who guides us into all truth. He didn't hand it all over at once, fully formed -- he directed the process, which is one of synergy between God and man. (Synergy is not an idea which is familiar in the Western church, but it is an absolutely vital concept in Orthodoxy.)
Wow. I mean it. Every time I think I've got a handle on Orthodoxy, you guys surprise me.
Quakerism + Catholicism + a little Sufi = Orthodoxy. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scoticanus:
I find this thread unreal - like stepping into the pages of Alice in Wonderland!
It doesn't accord with anything in my own experience.
[...]
Moreover, I've never heard the subject so much as mentioned by any of my Christian friends or acquaintances, or by anyone at all in my Christian life.
I'm with you here. All this is simply not a live issue for me or anyone I know in my generation.
It would not have been for my parents either - both born well before WW2. I never met my grandfathers, but I strongly suspect that my mother's father, born in Glasgow the 1870s, would have regarded the idea as something we had grown out of. (I have very little knowledge of my other grandparents)
There are plenty of men who boss their wives and girlfriends around (or try to). And some who beat them up. But theuy don't turn to the Bible to justify their actions, never mind use words like "headship" or "ontological". NO-ONE I ever meet talks like this in real life. And if they live like this, they do it where I don't see them.
I think I've known more people who were het up about whether 5th century BC hoplites held their spears overarm or underarm than I have who argued about this stuff.
And in 30-odd years attending evangelical churches I don't remember ever hearing it preached - the party line is definitly that it is all about love and mutual sacrifice (which, I agree, is probably anachronistic and not at all what Paul meant)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
A little sufi? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
I was surprised to say the least by Gordon's remark about quote:
a judging of the last 2000 years of culture by the narrow standards of feminism in the late 20th century, which may themselves be open to question as to their rightness.
because that seemed to be the tip of a rather large iceberg. I hadn't heard of Grudem and Piper before either so I decided to see what they said. (Apologies if everyone else is aware of them and I'm the last to know.) The first article I read was by Wayne Grudem here.
The link in that article led me to The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood where I found the Danvers Statement and Fifty Crucial Questions.
What has been worrying me all along in this thread has not been two people freely choosing a model of headship - that's no business of mine - but the idea that this is what everyone should follow. The Danvers Statement and the answers to the fifty questions make the wider context very clear at least for this organisation of which Grudem is the President.
quote:
Question 41. Why do you bring up homosexuality when discussing male and female role distinctions in the home and the church (as in question 1)? Most evangelical feminists are just as opposed as you are to the practice of homosexuality.
Answer: We bring up homosexuality because we believe that the feminist minimization of sexual role differentiation contributes to the confusion of sexual identity that, especially in second and third generations, gives rise to more homosexuality in society...To us it is increasingly and painfully clear that Biblical feminism is an unwitting partner in unravelling the fabric of complementary manhood and womanhood that provides the foundation not only for Biblical marriage and Biblical church order, but also for heterosexuality itself.
quote:
Question 9. Don't you think that stressing headship and submission gives impetus to the epidemic of wife abuse?
Answer: No. ... Second, we believe that wife abuse (and husband abuse) have some deep roots in the failure of parents to impart to their sons and daughters the meaning of true masculinity and true femininity. The confusions and frustrations of sexual identity often explode in harmful behaviors. The solution to this is not to minimize gender differences (which will then break out in menacing ways), but to teach in the home and the church how true manhood and womanhood express themselves in the loving and complementary roles of marriage.
I don't know to what extent those evangelicals on this thread who propound the doctrine of headship (I'm not talking about Orthodox shipmates here) agree with those wider statements but I'd like to know. I would also like to know what you are teaching the next generation about maleness, femaleness and sexuality. (I'm not trying to get into an argument about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality itself and it wouldn't be appropriate here. I only chose Question 41 because of what it says about feminists and gender differences. The reference to homosexuality does however point up the argument.)
I am profoundly depressed by that site but wryly amused that, as Louise said much earlier on, you would never have been able to put forward this sort of headship model if it hadn't been for the cultural changes brought about by feminism over the last thirty years.
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
Well I'm the same generation as Ken (forty something) and I'm as surprised that he's never come across this sort of teaching, as he and Scoticanus seem to be by their amazement at this being discussed. Within evangelical circles, I thought it was pretty much par for the course that (for instance) at wedding prep you might be taken through these issues, discuss what the passages actually mean, decide whether or not the wife would include the vow to 'obey' etc. Certainly recall all this from my own wedding 20 years ago in a large Baptist church.
ETA Of course the other place where I came across this teaching
And just to prove my experience is not just based on 20 year old recollections, just last week the (female) youth worker employed by my church was married. Service was held in the local Anglican church as we have building work going on at the Baptist church, and was led jointly by the Cof E vicar and the Baptist pastor. The sermon however was by an old friend of the bride, from her previous church in York - and he made a big thing about submission and headship in his comments (he prefixed it with an out of context quote from 'Men are from Mars...' which didn't exactly endear him to me, but that's as maybe!)
So it's certainly still a live issue among certain evangelicals here in the UK.
[ETA] Of course another time when I came across this teaching a lot was in my early years among the Brethren, where its very much related to the 'headcoverings for women thing' that they really focus on in such a big way.
[ 12. April 2005, 16:03: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
I mucked up that edit, and ran out of time. The single lined 2nd para should not be there!
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
This is probably a totally inappropriate comment for Purgatory, but I'm going to make it anyway. I've found the whole discussion profoundly difficult and painful.
Having grown up in a denomination that believes firmly that the man is the head of church and household and that women may not hold positions of authority in church, and having done so in the middle of the unfolding of "Women's Lib" / "Feminism", I was an adolescent girl in the middle of a struggle that was both theological and sociological. I remember being told in High School that I could not study calculus because they could not waste the place on a girl who would only become a housewife. I remember the (male) office manager telling me that I should smile more because that's what women were made for. And I remember being cornered in lonely places with the boss trying to stick his tongue in my mouth and my parents telling me that I'd have to get used to it because that's what a woman's lot was like.
None of that is theological, but it's what growing up a girl was like in the US Midwest in the 1960s and 1970s. Remembering that stuff is worth doing because I venture to say that most people today would be outraged at all that and it was considered fairly normal then. As the old saying went, we have indeed come a long way, baby.
Back to theology. I believe that the whole theology of gender roles really does presuppose the idea that God creates men with a wonderful assortment of abilities, talents and interests, but that he creates women with only the talent and interest to be a wife, mother children and make a home. Those women and girls who do not have these interests are labelled sinful and rebellious and it is often the women who do have these interests who will Lord it over them, being quite aggressive in labelling the "rebellious" women as sinful.
Furthermore, no matter what anyone says in this context about women being "equal but different", the fact is that I grew up believing that I was an incompleted man in the eyes of God. I was able to be punished by God and by men as if I had adult responsibility, but I was not able to build anything as if I had adult abilities - for indeed, in the eyes of the church I did not. I was a woman, perhaps a bit more mature than a child, but certainly not the responsible adult that males were. None of this was The Official Theology, but if you tell a female child that she must submit to men all her life, she will certainly grow up thinking that she is not whole in some way.
Now anyone want to come to another forum with me where a "gentleman" has just said that God can use anyone to speak his word once, but he wouldn't want his children to be taught by a donkey?
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Seeker963, every sympathy. I fear your story may be dismissed by some as "anecdotal experience which only serves to prove that we just haven't applied the doctrine of headship and submission properly even after 2000 years of trying..."
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
I hadn't heard of Grudem and Piper before either so I decided to see what they said. (Apologies if everyone else is aware of them and I'm the last to know.)
Weed, welcome to where I spent most of the last decade theologically…
I'd like to highlight this quote from the Grudem article:
quote:
So deep is their commitment to an egalitarian view of men and women in marriage that they will tamper with the doctrine of the Trinity if necessary to maintain it.
Looking back, this seems to be an attempt to scare people away from asking questions about the subject by saying that to do so is tantamount to blasphemy. I accept that such matters should not be dealt with lightly, but I think this is plain intimidation.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Also in that article that TUC linked, you will find the argument 1 Corinthians 11:3 used to linking the doctrine of the trinity to the question of headship and submission.
Ah, so 1 Cor 11:3 is up for debate now ? Does this mean you are willing to go further down the line than to say, as you did on the subordination thread, that the only bearing the Trinity has on human relationships is to say that God is a relational being?
If so, I would like to know how you, or other headshipmates, propose to translate 1 Corinthians 11:3. Are you going to go with the ESV which says:
quote:
The head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband…"
or the NIV which says
quote:
The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man…"
If the former (ESV), please explain to me:
i) on what grounds the same word is translated in the first clause "man" and in the second clause "husband"? (as an extra, can you tell me why the ESV footnotes admit that "wife" here could be translated "woman", but give no indication that "husband" could equally be translated "man")?
ii) where the "her" in this sentence has come from (in my limited understanding of Greek, there is a personal pronoun in v4 and v5 for "her" and "his" head, but I don't see one in v3 at this point).
iii) in a train of thought that appears to contain no other reference to husband and wife, why this translation is preferred here?
If the latter (NIV), I would like to know on what grounds you think this means the husband is the head of the wife, rather than every man being the head of every woman (I have the same question about 1 Tim 2:12-13, which not even the ESV seems to think applies to husband and wife).
I'd appreciate all thoughts on this as I'm really trying to work through it all again. In the mean time, I've had my Bible more open than for some time.
--------------------
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
|
|
scoticanus
Shipmate
# 5140
|
Posted
Gracious Rebel:
quote:
Well I'm the same generation as Ken (forty something) and I'm as surprised that he's never come across this sort of teaching, as he and Scoticanus seem to be by their amazement at this being discussed.
In my case, though obviously not in Ken's, it may be because at no time in my life have I had any experience of Evangelicalism in any of its forms; my experience has all been Scottish Episcopalian/Church of England (middle of the road to higher), Church of Scotland (Presbyterian, mainstream and fairly liberal), and some Roman Catholic. Evangelicalism is a foreign country to me, and in a sense these Boards are serving as my Rough Guide to it!
Seeker963:
quote:
Furthermore, no matter what anyone says in this context about women being "equal but different", the fact is that I grew up believing that I was an incompleted man in the eyes of God.
So much must depend on one's own personal experience, and I dare say yours was much more typical than mine. Our extended family, however, was matriarchal; the women tended to be more gifted and successful than the men, who to me as a child seemed merely to be kind and well-meaning adjuncts! My father was less well educated and less successful in life than his sister, and the same pattern repeated itself with my sister and me - she had great artistic gifts and was feted both in the family and in our home town as something of a celebrity, whereas I was a plodder. I could go on and cite many more examples from family history and background, but (in essence) the view I was brought up with was that women were "special" in a way that men weren't, and it was the job of men to help and support them.
My feeling is that this sort of ethos was more common in Scots families than in the Middle West of the USA. My male peers tended to have strong, interesting mothers, and gentler, quiet fathers who were gently patronised
I have no hesitation in finishing by saying that my wife is more intelligent than I am!
Posts: 491 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by scoticanus:
I've never heard the subject so much as mentioned by any of my Christian friends or acquaintances, or by anyone at all in my Christian life.
I'm with you here. All this is simply not a live issue for me or anyone I know in my generation.
Then everyone you know has managed to miss out on the teachings of Bill Gothard, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, et al. These very prominent, very popular, and very influential speakers and writers insist unequivocally in a model of headship that places the wife very firmly under her husband's authority, and makes disobedience to her husband tantamount to disobedience to God. In their view, any problem in a marriage (even abuse) is a direct result of the woman's failure to submit.
Among conservative evangelical-to-fundamentalist Christians in the US, this poisonous doctrine is commonly believed and commonly taught. It's not just something from a prior generation -- the seminars and retreats are still being held, the books and newsletters still being published. I suffered under it myself for many years during my first marriage.
If you and your friends have missed out on this corrupt perversion of everything God ever meant marriage to be, count yourselves blessed.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
All this is simply not a live issue for me or anyone I know in my generation.
Then everyone you know has managed to miss out on the teachings of Bill Gothard, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, et al.
Oh I've read some of the books. Never heard of Gothard, but Dobson is read over here. LaHaye is thought of as a fantasy writer, not a Bible teacher.
I literally meant that its not a live issue. Just about no-one I meet seriously intends to live like that, or if they do they don't talk about it in public. It is rarely if ever taught about from the pulpit. (Not that most preachers use pulpits any more). I'd not be surprised if some of the African & Caribbean members of our church think that way, but if they do they don't tell me about it. It is hard to imagine living in such a relationship, or what one would look like. Its not something I think I would be capable of, and if I did want to live like that I can't imagine any of the women I know being willing to go along with it. The thought is ludicrous.
Maybe it exists buried underground and I don't notice it because I can't pick up the signals. (Unlike Gracious Rebel, Seeker963, or Scoticanus, I wasn't brought up in any church, and my parents were socialists & feminists - I used to read my Mum's copies of Spare Rib - which is perhaps why I always found the "Post Evangelical" thing a bit pointless) But I don't notice it. Most of the married women who come to our church seem to leave their husbands at home (or down the pub, or in the betting shop) so if the husbands think they are excercising "headship" I doubt if it's Christian headship in the context of the church. Those that do come as couples don't talk about this kind of thing anywhere I can hear, and the women don't seem any more submissive than non-Christian women. Not in public anyway. Many - but not all or even most - Muslim women do seem to behave submissively in public, I don't see that sort of thing amongst our churchgoers. Not at all in the British ones (white or black) and very rarely with Africans.
Of course there are unequal power relations within marriage. And of course there are men who like to abuse or oppress women. But what I don't hear is them defending it on these grounds. I read these things, online and in books, but I don't hear them with my own ears or see them with my own eyes.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Seeker963, every sympathy. I fear your story may be dismissed by some as "anecdotal experience which only serves to prove that we just haven't applied the doctrine of headship and submission properly even after 2000 years of trying..."
Which is why I wasn't sure it was "appropriate" for Pugatory. Fora like this tend to run on lines of logic. However, theology is often made in the stories and experience of people.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
scoticanus
Shipmate
# 5140
|
Posted
josephine wrote:
quote:
Then everyone you know has managed to miss out on the teachings of Bill Gothard, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, et al.
I've spent 40 years devouring all sorts of books about the Faith and I've never heard of any of these people!
The US writers I've been reading or re-reading most recently have been Thomas Merton and John L Allen. John S Spong is also on the shelves somewhere . . .
Posts: 491 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scoticanus:
I've spent 40 years devouring all sorts of books about the Faith and I've never heard of any of these people!
No reason to change that now! In this instance, ignorance truly is bliss.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
Sorry to "almost double post".
I think that the reason I don't buy the idea of a "right application of male headship" (with apologies to The Plot), is that I don't think one can set up a structure that says "This group always wins by virtue of their biology" and that "That group always submits by virtue of their biology" and honestly believe that there won't be a number of people in the "winners" group who don't try to abuse it.
I believe that at the heart of Christianity is the message that ALL are equal. It doesn't seem credible to me that Jesus came to teach that equality under God was available to the Gentiles but not to women. I think that one of the reasons we fail at being abundant-life Christians (and I include myself in this) is that we really dont get, we really don't want to believe, that when God says everyone is equal in his eyes, that there ARE no groups against whom we can set ourselves over. We really do want to have power over someone and I think that's part of our sinful natures.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't think Jesus came to teach equality. I think he came to teach, and effect, salvation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I agree with MT here.
And also the whole point of headship is not that they "win", but that they are meant to love as Christ loved. Both partners win if the relationship works properly.
[ 12. April 2005, 18:51: Message edited by: Custard. ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
And also the whole point of headship is not that they "win", but that they are meant to love as Christ loved. Both partners win if the relationship works properly.
What would you do if your wife refused to accept either your religious teaching on a certain matter or your decision on a domestic one?
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
What would you do if your wife refused to accept either your religious teaching on a certain matter or your decision on a domestic one?
I'm not married. Hypothetically speaking therefore...
"Religious teaching" (what a horrible phrase): if it was peripheral, we'd have a nice long Bible study on it and pray about it. If we still disagreed but could understand the other point of view, we'd agree to differ. If it was central, we probably wouldn't have got married...
Decision on a domestic matter: if she really really didn't want it that way, then I'd hope we'd talk about it and either come to a compromise or I'd lovingly let her have what she wanted.
I don't see how the kind of self-sacrificial love Christ has for the church could do otherwise.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Hear, hear as to what Custard said.
My own answer to the same question was: Find out why and work to effect a compromise. Why do you ask?
[ 12. April 2005, 19:33: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
But that isn't remotely what most people mean by "submission" which implies - no, more than that it states - taht one person obeys the orders of the other.
So what you are really saying is "we have a special Christian relationship between husband and wife that we call 'submission' but isn't really."
And "headship" and "submission" just become obscure bits of jargon that are meaningless to most people.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Find out why and work to effect a compromise. Why do you ask?
Because I wanted to know Custard's answer.
Custard,
That's fine and dandy but where's the headship? Wouldn't you do exactly the same if there was no doctrine of headship operating?
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
That's fine and dandy but where's the headship? Wouldn't you do exactly the same if there was no doctrine of headship operating?
Because I'd expect her to do what I decided in the end; I'd expect to be the one making the decisions, albeit putting her interests above mine, using her wisdom, after discussion with her, etc.
That's how I see it from my position. Seems to work ok for my parents - they've managed 28 years...
I suspect your issue is that submission to a loving husband doesn't seem like an especially big deal. I don't think it is one either, even though it's not always human nature to do so. I'd imagine it's much easier to submit to a loving husband than to an unloving one.
I'd also expect it's easier to obey parents when they avoid embittering you and to obey masters when they treat you well.
[ 12. April 2005, 19:59: Message edited by: Custard. ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
if she really really didn't want it that way, then I'd hope we'd talk about it and either come to a compromise or I'd lovingly let her have what she wanted.
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Because I'd expect her to do what I decided in the end; I'd expect to be the one making the decisions
This does not compute, Captain.
quote:
I suspect your issue is that submission to a loving husband doesn't seem like an especially big deal.
It seems a huge deal to me.
quote:
I'd imagine it's much easier to submit to a loving husband than to an unloving one.
Sometimes one partner thinks they are being loving, tries to be loving, and the other experiences it as unloving.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
That's fine and dandy but where's the headship? Wouldn't you do exactly the same if there was no doctrine of headship operating?
Because I'd expect her to do what I decided in the end; I'd expect to be the one making the decisions
Just because you have a penis? That is exactly the sort of silliness that this headship thing lends itself towards. Why should the situation exist whereby two single people successfully run their own lives without having someone else make the decisions, they then get married and one of them suddenly becomes incapable of doing that? If a woman is capable of being her own "head" on her own, what changes when she gets married? Absolutely nothing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
if she really really didn't want it that way, then I'd hope we'd talk about it and either come to a compromise or I'd lovingly let her have what she wanted.
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Because I'd expect her to do what I decided in the end; I'd expect to be the one making the decisions
This does not compute, Captain.
Then, with all respect, it sounds like you need an upgrade. Blame Bill Gates; everyone else does.
I can lovingly make the decision to do what she wants to do, not what I would otherwise want to do - to do things her way, not my way. Still my decision.
Seeking my joy in her joy (as Piper would put it).
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Exactly what I was wondering earlier, Alan, though perhaps since you're a man someone will respond to the point this time.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I can lovingly make the decision to do what she wants to do, not what I would otherwise want to do - to do things her way, not my way. Still my decision.
Replace 'she' with 'he' and 'her' with 'his'. How is a wife's decision to do what her husband would like to do any different? It's still her decision.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
I don't think Jesus came to teach equality. I think he came to teach, and effect, salvation.
Granted. But He didn't come to teach inequality either, in that sense.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I can lovingly make the decision to do what she wants to do, not what I would otherwise want to do - to do things her way, not my way. Still my decision.
Stand back a little and read what you just said:
If she is willing to do what you want her to do, and does, she is obeying you and it is your decision. So you are the head and she submits.
But if she completely refuses to do what you want you are willing, out of love, to change your mind - so it is still your decision. So you are still the head and she still submits.
So you are the head and she submits whatever decision is made and whoever in fact makes it? (And the most stubborn person gets their way?)
That's what you just said, right?
OK that is probably how many marriages in fact work. Maybe most of them. But (leaving aside any philosophical notion that everything anyone does is in some sense their decision, even if they are forced to do it) you still have a notion of "submission" and "headship" thatat best boils down to an idea of love expressed through "mutual submission". As commonly taught in churches (at least British ones) but which we sort of mostly agreed earlier was probably not how the early church interpreted Paul's letters.
If you give in in the end it's not what most people mean by "submission".
And if you don't give in you sooner or later end up forcing someone to something they really don't want to do. How is that achieved? Beating them? Locking them in their room? Denying them food or water?
I still don't see how any concept of automatic and neccessary submission of one partner to another (in the normal way that word is used) can work in a marriage, as marriage is understood an practiced in our society, other than in a context of potential oppression or abuse (threatened or feared if not actually practiced)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Maybe not, but it still doesn't stop some people trying to teach it. (Perhaps it is like the Pope teaching that birth control is wrong - lots of people might well listen to the teaching in church, and then quietly ignore it in the comfort of their own homes.)
Out of interest, what is the Promise Keepers view on all this headship business?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Out of interest, what is the Promise Keepers view on all this headship business?
Looking through their website, I can find very little (a search on "headship" there turns up nothing), but I've heard for some time and see elsewhere very clear references to it: They're very big on the headship of the husband/father.
My own position, based on Christian tradition (Lewis discusses it in Mere Christianity as well) remains the same as I've posted before and elsewhere, but the approach many take to it creeps me out so much that, all other things being equal, I'd rather people be in a loving egalitarian relationship than an unhealthily controlling hierarchical one.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'd rather people be in a loving egalitarian relationship than an unhealthily controlling hierarchical one.
With this I can find no fault.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
AFAIK, Promise Keepers does not have an official position on headship, although certain representatives do.
Most of the people I know who have been involved in Promise Keepers have primarily advocated men taking responsibility for their actions since their decisions inevitably affect others whether or not anyone else has agreed to submit to their decisions.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If a woman is capable of being her own "head" on her own, what changes when she gets married? Absolutely nothing.
No one has said that the woman is not capable The issu is not one of capability but order. Certainly, the Bible seems to suggest that in marriage the husband and wife are supposed to model the order of Christ and the church, by not doing some of the things they would be perfectly capable of doing, if they wanted to.
Of course, this is where the inferiority monster rears it's head in the discussion, because ISTM some people here think that one cannot give up some of one's rights for the purpose of modelling something higher without acknowlegding or admitting some sort of inferiority. That, to me, seems to be much more a cultural assupmtion (of a supposedly "rights" based Western liberal democracy, in this case) than that of male headship at the time Paul was writing.
And we may well assume that our cultural assumptions are better than Paul's, but that's not a step I'm particularly willing to take.
Chorister, not that I am a fan of Promise Keepers, but I read about them recently in a Tony Campolo book: he is very critical of them for their "traditional" view of headship. So yes, headship for them.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Responding to an earlier general question from Weed, it's been years since I've read Grudem thoroughly but he is a careful scholar and I agreed with many of the things he said at the time. I'll have to look more carefully at the Danvers declaration before I make any specific comment, but I would say that theologically and exegetically, Grudem is an able exponent of his position and worth reading even if you don't agree with what he says.
Now I really am going away for a couple of days, as promised!
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[qb]But that isn't remotely what most people mean by "submission" which implies - no, more than that it states - taht one person obeys the orders of the other.
So what you are really saying is "we have a special Christian relationship between husband and wife that we call 'submission' but isn't really." And "headship" and "submission" just become obscure bits of jargon that are meaningless to most people.
That's true, I suppose. The husband's duty, as the head of his wife, is to love her. If he doesn't like what she does, if he's not pleased with her, if she disagrees with him over anything, then it's his responsibility to love her more.
The woman's submission to her husband is not a slavish obedience, but a returning of love for love.
It's true that the headship language doesn't express this particularly well. I'd love to have other language for it. But it's what is meant by it, at least in the Orthodox Church.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Responding to an earlier general question from Weed, it's been years since I've read Grudem thoroughly but he is a careful scholar and I agreed with many of the things he said at the time. I'll have to look more carefully at the Danvers declaration before I make any specific comment, but I would say that theologically and exegetically, Grudem is an able exponent of his position and worth reading even if you don't agree with what he says.
Now I really am going away for a couple of days, as promised!
Well, enjoy your trip. I'm still waiting for you (or anyone else! Leprechaun? Custard.? … ? ) to explain how you understand 1 Cor 11:3 to relate headship in a married couple to the doctrine of the Trinity (see my post here).
(I'm also awaiting your response to my claim that 1 Tim 2:12, on the reading these guys gives it, looks like pretty strong evidence for submission on the basis of inferiority (see here).)
The proponents of this form of the headship view make much of the fact that it is grounded in thorough biblical exegesis devoid of cultural bias. If you can't address the exegetical difficulties I've raised, I think your position is in trouble right from the start.
Such difficulties are one of the reasons I no longer subscribe to this view. I'm open to being convinced back again, but so far, it ain't happening.
--------------------
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
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Not a Greek scholar, but I'll take 1 Cor 11:3. Don't have time for both right now....
NKJV has
But I want you to know that the head (kephale) of every man (pantos andros) is Christ, the head (kephale) of woman (gunaikos) is man (aner), and the head (kephale) of Christ is God.
"aner"/"andros" can mean either "man" or "husband". In 1 Corinthians 7, it is used extensively to mean "husband" - the context there makes it clear that should be the translation.
When "aner" is used in conjunction with "gunaikos", it tends to mean "husband" (e.g. Mark 10:2, 1 Cor 7). When it isn't, it doesn't (e.g. 1 Cor 13:11). I can't find any verse in the NT where both words are used without the implication of marriage (except for possibly 1 Cor 11, which is what this discussion is about and 1 Tim 2:12, which would make me think that "husband" and "wife" would be the preferred translation there too). True, I've only checked about 20 of the 49 instances, but if you want to do so, feel free (Strong's numbers are 435 and 1135).
So I assume the ESV translations took the second use of "aner" to be in conjunction with "gunaikos" and the first not to be. A bit naughty of them not to put it in the footnote though.
ETA: I'm still working through my understanding of this too.
[ 13. April 2005, 06:42: Message edited by: Custard. ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(I'm also awaiting your response to my claim that 1 Tim 2:12, on the reading these guys gives it, looks like pretty strong evidence for submission on the basis of inferiority (see here).)
What are you asking for Eutychus? An interpretation of this verse that allows it not to be about inferiority (which I'm sure you must have heard before)?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I agree with MT here.
Sorry, not a lot of time for fancy editing, so I'll note that your agreement is that Jesus came to teach salvation, not equality. My comment would be that equality is at the heart of salvation and Jesus' message. Prior to Jesus, the message of salvation was - in effect - "Only Jews (converts included, but conversion required) can be saved". I believe that Jesus came to tell humanity that we'd got that wrong and that God's love and grace were open to all without discrimination, on the same basis. (e.g. women directly through the mediation of Christ's life, death and resurrection).
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
And also the whole point of headship is not that they "win", but that they are meant to love as Christ loved. Both partners win if the relationship works properly.
To me, this is the double-bind. If males do this, then there is no reason to insist on headship. (If one actually practices sacrificial love and insists on headship as a purely pendantic theological point, then I'll be a bit more soft-hearted; my experience is that in practice insistence on "headship" is done out of insecurity and a desire to diminish women ontologically.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Prior to Jesus, the message of salvation was - in effect - "Only Jews (converts included, but conversion required) can be saved".
Slightly off-topic but lots of the prophets talk of God redeeming the Gentiles. Especially Isaiah who rather seems to like the Egyptians and Persians.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
