|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Headship
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
So let me put it more simply: Why does a single woman need a leader in any sense? Surely if you are without a "head" in the head-body sense, you are accepting that single women are incomplete?
J's reading to the rugrats, so I'll try to answer in her stead.
A single woman doesn't need a leader. Nor does a married woman. A husband is not a leader.
A single woman is not incomplete. Singleness is one path to God. Marriage is another. In a marriage, in the Orthodox understanding, the man and the woman (husband and wife) are meant to lead each other to salvation. It is a journey they undertake together. Upon that journey, the man is called to love his wife sacrificially, and the wife is called to return that love. Not so somebody will be in charge, but so that the two of them will be equipped for every good work, that together they might inherit the Kingdom of God.
But what do I know? I'm just the consort to the Queen. When she returns I'm sure she'll say it better than I can. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
A single woman is not incomplete. Singleness is one path to God. Marriage is another. In a marriage, in the Orthodox understanding, the man and the woman (husband and wife) are meant to lead each other to salvation. It is a journey they undertake together. Upon that journey, the man is called to love his wife sacrificially, and the wife is called to return that love. Not so somebody will be in charge, but so that the two of them will be equipped for every good work, that together they might inherit the Kingdom of God.
Which is a partnership of equals, hence my point about the Orthodox view of headship being different. In fact the Orthodox concept of "headship" seems to me to be used in a highly technical way to mean " a mutual expression of sacrificial love, which is one path to salvation" and not in its ordinary connotation. That is a gender-free use of the word where it almost seems to be an abuse of the language to use the term "headship".
On the other hand RuthW was also making a point about cultural assumptions and how they might influence religious thought or alternatively that religious thought generates those cultural assumptions. From my point of view, culture influences the expression of our faith and our understanding of the Biblical texts that form part of the expression of that faith. That statement applies to the culture that informed St Paul's writings and to our own in understanding them. In other words, I understand the Orthodox way of approaching the Bible to be the same as my own, but different from that of the other school of headship here.
The only perfect submission without some notion of inferiority that I know of is that of Jesus to the will of God. All other relationships where one party submits to another have some element of one party being inferior to the other. I'll go further and say that that is demonstrated in each of the examples of relationship discussed in this thread.
I am immensely cheered by the Orthodox view of headship, which I see as being a sane view of gender relationships.
The alternate school of headship advocated by Gordon Cheng et al seems hoist on its own linguistic petard, where a relationship of headship created by inequality of talent and ability appears to be mediated by gender and culture and thus not to be equal in any sense that I understand the word "equal".
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Interestingly, those who have observed that the Orthodox position is different are not those who hold the Orthodox position. Neither are they those Protestants who hold to some form of headship.
For my part, Josephine's summary of the Orthodox position sounds fair. I don't think my (adult, single, living away from parents) sisters should submit to my parents in a way that I (adult, male, living away from parents) do not.
It is not that women need a head, it is that in the marriage relationship they voluntarily submit to one as the husband voluntairly submits to the wife by putting her needs above his own.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post.
In fact, we have Levor (who I'd agree with pretty much unreservedly, as I think would Gordo) saying this:
quote:
Josephine, thank you for the extra insight. I think then that I would pretty well unreservedly sign off on what you're saying as what I think my understanding of Scripture is too. Can you see any differences in what I'm saying that you'd want me to rethink carefuly from your perspective?
It therefore seems to me that any differences you are picking up are due either to a failure to communicate properly on our part, or due to "baggage" you might have from past encounters with people who seem to hold the same view as us, but in fact don't.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
In the Orthodox marriage service, the bride is not veiled, her head is not covered, and she is not given away. She comes to her wedding much as a queen comes to her coronation.
At the very beginning, she and her groom are asked the same question: Have you a good, free, and unconstrained will and a firm intention to take this man (woman) to yourself, to be your husband (wife)? In the service, both bride and groom are given rings, both bride and groom are crowned. The rings and the crowns are exchanged. They share a common cup.
As some of you may know, I got married in the summer ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) And, our marriage service in a Reformed church wasn't that different - OK, no crowns and it wasn't a Communion service (we did that the following Sunday morning). But, at one point in the preparation to the service the subject of "giving away" the bride came up in conversation (but, then again, so did a lot of things including a lot of Scottish history) and our minister looked horrified that it was even done in some places - he certainly wasn't going to let that happen.
--------------------
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 Custard.:
It therefore seems to me that any differences you are picking up are due either to a failure to communicate properly on our part, or due to "baggage" you might have from past encounters with people who seem to hold the same view as us, but in fact don't.
I think that's addressed to me. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
"Baggage"? You can't be serious. I don't agree with you because I have "baggage"? I don't agree with you because what you argue make no sense - until you strip away the linguistic games. It comes across more as Humpty Dumpty said to Alice. "Words mean what I want them to mean." You are basically so keen to avoid the cultural meaning of the words appearing in the Bible that in effect you have reasoned yourselves into a linguistic dead-end. You have failed in a real way to see that St Paul was saying something about male/female relationships that was appropriate for his time and place (and which arguably represented a radical departure in that context) but which should have very little to do with the lot of Western women in the 21st century. Unfortunately women in the Third World can't say the same.
See, Custard, there are those other people who seem to hold the same views and they do express them in that same way. Only in their case they are reasoning from a stance where women are inferior and their cry is "submit". And everywhere women do. The ideal of a loving and sacrificial submission by women which is returned in kind is not borne out in practice.
The day that I see truly equal treatment for women and men - in working conditions, pay, opportunity, education, in lack of discrimination based on age or child bearing, a genuinely family friendly society - that will be the same day that your ideas will be safe for general application.
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The only perfect submission without some notion of inferiority that I know of is that of Jesus to the will of God. All other relationships where one party submits to another have some element of one party being inferior to the other.
Indeed. At least we are agreed on that. Is it now clear why the Trinity comes into it, and why all the other models and examples that Josephine mentioned do not cut it?
quote:
The alternate school of headship advocated by Gordon Cheng et al seems hoist on its own linguistic petard, where a relationship of headship created by inequality of talent and ability appears to be mediated by gender and culture and thus not to be equal in any sense that I understand the word "equal".
I do not understand this. In Gordon's view (and I would pretty much agree with what he and Levor have said) the headship relationship is explicitly NOT created by inequality of talent and ability. So I just don't understand this sentence at all. Can you explain it?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Duo - I'm not at all sure what the problem is. As far as I can tell, I, and everyone else on this thread arguing for headship, agrees essentially with the Orthodox view.
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
See, Custard, there are those other people who seem to hold the same views and they do express them in that same way. Only in their case they are reasoning from a stance where women are inferior and their cry is "submit".
If they are reasoning from that stance, then they do not have the same view as me. There might be superficial similarities, but those similarities are only superficial.
I know quite a few British evangelicals / hardline Reformed, even a few real fundamentalists. I know a few who are genuinely homophobic (and yes, I rebuke them on that when I have the chance). I know a man who took 1 Tim 2:12 so literally (at the expense of other Scripture) that he suffered agonies over whether his bride-to-be could make her wedding vows in church. And yes, I spent quite a while arguing that one with him.
But I can think of no British evangelical / reformed / fundamentalist Christians who think that women are inferior to men. Almost all of them would say "Equal but different".
To someone who says that equality implies identicality/interchangability of role (other than those which are obviously gender related), yes, I can see that there are some people who would come across as deeply sexist. But in every case I know, those opinions stem from a belief that men and women are equal, equally in God's image, but that gender means far more than just which set of genitals we have.
--------------------
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.:
Duo - I'm not at all sure what the problem is. As far as I can tell, I, and everyone else on this thread arguing for headship, agrees essentially with the Orthodox view.
I think "the problem" is this:
- There really are people, Christians and non-Christians, men and women, who think women are naturally inferior to men, or defective in some way, or in want of a leader or a boss to get through their lives.
- I am told that there are Christians who use Biblical language about headship to defend such opinions.
- There really are men who, whether or not they hold those opinions, repeatedly try to dominate and control women, abuse them, oppress them, and are violent to them.
- There are people who defend abusive and violent hierarchical relations between couples by reference to the Bible.
- We don't want to be mistaken for those people.
- The language of submission within a couple, or of the headship of a man over a woman, will be understood to mean that that is what we are saying. So if we want to communicate clearly we shoud say what we mean in different language.
[& yes there are women who abuse or control or oppress men, but that's not the point because no-one is pretending that the Bible gives them a right to do that]
quote:
But I can think of no British evangelical / reformed / fundamentalist Christians who think that women are inferior to men. Almost all of them would say "Equal but different".
Same here! (Well, maybe "almost no". And some of them have pretty unequal and unbalanced and hierarchical relationships, whatever the theory)
But it still is true that if you are talking to just about anyone and use this sort of language, even if you mean mutual self-sacrificing love, what they will hear is "The Bible says that the husband is the boss and the wife is his servant" And they will go away thinking all Christians are sexist bigots.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
1) What's the biblical evidence for this concept?
I think it's fairly safe to say we're mainly talking about Paul's writings in 1 Cor 11, Eph 5, and perhaps 1 Tim 2.
They are the more explicit passages that speak directly to the issue. But I think they are simply crystalising a lot of what is implicit throughout the OT and NT. The Bible sees the fact that 'male and female he created them' as quite foundational to what it means to be human, and teaching on human behaviour often has a gender dimension to it in both Testaments.
Thanks for taking the time to interact with me over 1 Cor 11:3. I was being a little tongue in cheek presuming to read Paul's tone into what is written. Your argument that we should be striving to be even more biblically based as the culture shifts away from 'plain biblical values'is somewhat compelling, but...
The problem I have is this: I don't think you can build a coherent model of headship and submission from these passages; they just aren't as clear-cut as one might like. I agree that the Bible highlights that God made man and woman different, but to what extent this should lead to different roles or submission based on appeals to the Godhead or creational principles remains in doubt for me.
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I therefore strongly suspect that what he writes about headship, he writes from the point of view either of defending the subculture against (for example) radical feminism, or from the position of having it as a largely unquestioned cultural assumption. If pushed, would he defend the right of women to work (e.g. Proverbs 31 style)? I bet he would.
The trouble here is that, as has been pointed out, we need to look to practice as well as preaching. I think the people I heard preach on this over the last decade would make such allowances, but if you were to look around the church movements they represented, career women would I think feel very marginalised: the norm is stay-at-home wives.
(I was at a meeting yesterday at which an imam was striving to point out man and women’s distinct and equal creation according to Islam, as opposed to the picture portrayed in the Bible, and generally saying how unoppressive of women Islam is...)
[ 15. April 2005, 13:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I know a man who took 1 Tim 2:12 so literally (at the expense of other Scripture) that he suffered agonies over whether his bride-to-be could make her wedding vows in church. And yes, I spent quite a while arguing that one with him.
But I can think of no British evangelical / reformed / fundamentalist Christians who think that women are inferior to men. Almost all of them would say "Equal but different".
Are you saying that your friend's belief that he can decide whether his wife should speak in the Church, even to make her wedding vows, would be acceptable from an Orthodox POV? That his treatment of her is consistent with the way he would treat someone whom he considered his genuine equal? Because I don't see that at all.
In Orthodoxy, marriage is, as Duo Seraphim rightly notes, a partnership of equals. And it's not an Orwellian equality, where some are more equal than others. The wife, in an Orthodox marriage, is truly free to do as she chooses, whether her husband likes her choice or not, just as he is truly free to do as he chooses, whether she likes it or not. Ideally, of course, each partner would be striving to please the other. But that is the choice that each makes, not something that one can impose on the other.
That isn't to say that the husband and the wife are interchangeable. The head is not the body. As the Father is the source of the Godhead, so the husband is the source of the sacrificial love in a marriage. It has to start there.
When Duo says that "The ideal of a loving and sacrificial submission by women which is returned in kind is not borne out in practice," she's right -- it doesn't work that way in practice, because the people doing it that way have it exactly backwards. The wife's loving and sacrificial submission will not bring about sacrificial love on the part of the husband. A relationship that starts with the wife's submission is doomed to the laundry list of problems enumerated by ken.
Rather, when we say that the husband is the head of his wife, we mean this: The husband loves. The wife receives that love, and returns it.
Nevertheless, even though the love starts with the husband, the equality of the husband and wife is no less than the equality of the Son and the Father.
If the husband chooses to lord it over his wife, to treat her as his inferior, by, say, attempting to decide for her what is appropriate for her to do or to say in Church, then he is treating her as a slave, not as a wife. He is acting as her master, not as her husband. He is wrong.
And if the wife attempts to make the marriage work by loving and sacrificial submission to a man who doesn't first love her, it's not going to work. I know. I tried it, in my first marriage, because I was told that's what a Christian wife does. I learned the hard way that submitting to someone who is abusive produces, not love, but more abuse. That's why St. JOhn Chrysostom didn't say to wives, "If your husband doesn't love you, you're not submissive enough. Be more submissive, and then he'll love you." That's not true, and St. John knew it. Rather, he said, "If your husband doesn't love you, don't fight with him or make a fool of him in public, and if you do that, it's enough." To husbands, he didn't say, "If your wife doesn't respect you, you just need to make sure she knows who's the boss." Rather, he said, "If your wife doesn't respect her, love her more."
Headship is about, not submission, but love.
--------------------
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
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I know a man who took 1 Tim 2:12 so literally (at the expense of other Scripture) that he suffered agonies over whether his bride-to-be could make her wedding vows in church. And yes, I spent quite a while arguing that one with him.
Are you saying that your friend's belief that he can decide whether his wife should speak in the Church, even to make her wedding vows, would be acceptable from an Orthodox POV? That his treatment of her is consistent with the way he would treat someone whom he considered his genuine equal? Because I don't see that at all.
Perhaps I should clarify.
I think all the proponents of headship on this thread are largely in agreement with the Orthodox view. That does not necessarily mean that all British reformed are.
My friend wasn't wanting to ban his wife; he was agonising over how it could be allowed.
My friend was wrong on this (though a great guy in many other respects). My point was that even someone as far out as that did not think that women were inferior, which was what was being claimed.
[ 15. April 2005, 17:46: 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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
My friend wasn't wanting to ban his wife; he was agonising over how it could be allowed.
My friend was wrong on this (though a great guy in many other respects). My point was that even someone as far out as that did not think that women were inferior, which was what was being claimed.
I'm confused here. What exactly was it that he wanted? And why?
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(I was at a meeting yesterday at which an imam was striving to point out man and women’s distinct and equal creation according to Islam, as opposed to the picture portrayed in the Bible, and generally saying how unoppressive of women Islam is...)
Yes, this very neatly illustrates the problem about these issues. Some conservatives have become very skilled at co-opting liberal rhetoric to act as apologists for decidely non-liberal religious stances.
It more usually surfaces over homosexuality. Conservatives supporting homophobic action against gay people? How dare a gay person criticise that - whatever happened to tolerance! You're meant to tolerate being told you're dirty and nasty and must get off the streets!
Discriminating against gay people in the church? No, no - nothing to do with them being gay - we are equal opportunities discriminators who also object to heterosexual people having sex outside of marriage! (Except when was the last time you heard of a mainstream church in danger of combusting over some heterosexual issue since Henry VIII?)
Headship and submission of wives to their husbands? No, no what we actually meant was a diverse relationship of separate but equal partners modelling God's order of creation - that doesn't mean that anyone is inferior!
The thing is, the highly-educated apologists who have stolen the liberal enemy's clothes, so they can pretend like Lord Nelson that they see no discrimination, are not representative. They are, like the Imam, not acknowledging the scale and nature of the problem of prejudice amongst their fellow-travellers. The fact is that some people do uphold the pernicious western traditional view of headship and that women still do suffer from it in the more conservative denominations and it doesn't look much like the nicey-nicey Conservative Christianity Lite versions which are being put forward here. (I except the Orthodox folks from this as I'm not qualified to comment on Orthodoxy)
These would be much more persuasive if their proponents would recognise that there is a severe problem in the way many people interpret headship and that the concept carries baggage of the same order as chattel slavery. If an employer treated his black employees nicely but insisted that their job description should be 'slave' and that they should all call him 'Massa', I think we'd all very easily see where the problem is.
Similarly it is not possible to separate the idea of headship and submission of women from 2,000 years of baggage of the Church-endorsed oppression of women. People who use these offensive terms and seek to redefine them, whilst ignoring that many people in their denominations really do think women are inferior and should be staying at home in the kitchen and that they certainly should not be in the workplace and at the altar, are kidding themselves that these ideas are not pernicious.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
joesephine, i really do like the model of marriage you portray here. You articulate it so beautifuly, and seem to agree with what i think that at the end of the day it is about *mutual* submission. love for one another. However I do think, as others have pointed out, this isnt what most cons evos mean by "headship" when they use the term.
custard - you point to many oxbridge women wanting to be a housewife - well im well and truly one of them. As a theologian I will argue till the cows come home about how I *dont* think paul meant inferiority or to be ruled by men, and how I think the church has actually perverted the meaning of the text.
For me personally, I would love to be a housewife, supporting my husband in his work, runing a home, having kids and being a stay-at-home mum. Society really isnt geared this way (atleast in teh uk) as you really do need 2 incomes for property now sadly ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
joesephine, i really do like the model of marriage you portray here. You articulate it so beautifuly, and seem to agree with what i think that at the end of the day it is about *mutual* submission. love for one another. However I do think, as others have pointed out, this isnt what most cons evos mean by "headship" when they use the term.
You're right, of course. As I've mentioned before, I was for a number of years a member of the Assemblies of God, where the less egalitarian form of headship was preached and practiced. I know what is usually meant by the term -- and what is usually meant has nothing at all to do with Christian marriage.
But the husband : wife :: head : body analogy had been used by the Church for many, many hundreds of years before cons evos even existed, much less had hijacked and perverted the analogy in defense of whatever it is they think they're defending.
--------------------
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
...and along comes Duchess to demonstrate the difference between the Orthodox view and the traditional conservative US one. Single women must pick a head if they haven't got a husband???
--------------------
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
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
Well, duh, Laura. As a single woman, the only thing I’m capable of doing is tempting married men into adulterous thoughts. It’s a miracle that my bills get paid and the oil in my car gets changed regularly. Whenever something around here breaks, I just wait for someone else to notice it since I don’t know how to use any tools and hardware stores scare me.
And I would never, ever be able to figure out whether or not the person I’m dating is a jerk if the men in my life didn’t tell me what they thought of him. I’m so sweet and innocent that the very idea that anyone might do anything mean or duplicitous causes me to faint. And it’s not like I can trust my friends to ask me wtf is wrong with me when I’m being particularly stupid.
Since my brother and his wife are currently in France, I’m not only getting all my own mail, but all of their mail, too. I can’t for the life of me figure out which bills get paid automatically and which ones require me to write a check. And how am I supposed to figure out if there’s enough money in the account to cover the check when I can’t do math?
I’m also supposed to pay his best friend’s/my faux fiancé's AmEx bill (he’s an officer on a nuclear sub and disappears under water for months at a time) - how am I ever going to keep track of who owes what to whom?
I’m also supposed to drive my brother’s car around every couple of weeks, but there’s this weird third pedal - does anyone know what that’s for?
Oh, well, not to worry. I’m sure if I simply explain to my Boy that he’s not fulfilling his Christian duty, he’ll take over everything except for watering the plants, since that’s a job more suited to my nurturing nature.
Oh, wait, Boy is Jewish and has no time for ideas arising from Pauline Christianity. He’ll probably accuse me of being too lazy to do what I agreed to do. Plus we just had an argument about which one of us gets to be the house spouse if we ever have children (he’s a better cook, but he also earns more money than I do, so he lost).
That’s OK, though. I’m sure there’s someone at church who wouldn’t mind being my head. I’m sure there’s someone who would love to take over worrying about my brother’s mortgage, my rent, my brother’s lawn care, etc. And if someone would just tell me that I should get rid of Boy and his despicable habit of asking for and respecting my opinion and balancing out my weaknesses, I’m sure I could live a happy and fulfilled submissive life.
Don’t mind the tears. I’m just so happy to be freed from the damnable illusion of autonomy and all of its attendant responsibilities.
I think I’ll go shopping now. With someone else’s credit card.
[/sarcasm]
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
But I can think of no British evangelical / reformed / fundamentalist Christians who think that women are inferior to men. Almost all of them would say "Equal but different".
I rarely hear anyone say (in public at least) that they think women are inferior to men. However, when I hear “equal but different,” I immediately start thinking “separate but equal,” and all kinds of unpleasant associations pop into my head.
I have a problem with anyone who assumes that they have any idea what my strengths and weaknesses are simply because they know my gender. IME, those people are usually wrong, and they usually offer me advice that is almost always the exact opposite of what I need to hear.
OTOH, most of my friends and close family have a good idea of their own and each others’ strengths and weaknesses. The final decision gets made by the person who’s most capable of making it, whether or not they have a penis.
But we’re wacky wild and crazy in these parts.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Ditto.
"Equal but different". Uh huh. And when Jim Crow laws are mentioned or the fact that somehow the "different" part often includes plenty of clauses that exclude women from doing all sorts of things like teaching, preaching, or making a differing decisions from one's husband, but men are excluded from doing only one thing (or one and a half things): motherhood and breast feeding, the chorus is "This is religion; it doesn't have anything to do with civil rights. It has to do with the Will of Gaaawd."
And, yes, I understand people on this thread (maybe even duchess for whom getting sensible advice from elders may be the safest course in her particular situation) aren't in that extreme camp, but in the US they are out there, a lot of them. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
I thought Duo was spot on when she said of the orthodox pov:
"That is a gender-free use of the word where it almost seems to be an abuse of the language to use the term "headship".
Whilst I welcome the way some of those who believe in 'headship' claim to live out their lives in a way where there is no 'headship', it seems to me that there is a great deal of effort being put into disguising the problems with the original group of texts. And this comes across to me as practised evasion.
Could someone explain to me what the difference is between a husband's love for his wife and a wife's love for her husband?
Is there any meaning at all in these statements or should Paul have just said that both partners should care and love each other in mutual giving and faithfulness.
Once the husband's duty is emphasised, it highlights the fact that there must be greater difference between the two roles than a partnership of equals, to make this in any way meaningful.
You see all those that go on about how there is equal emphasis on 'husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church' are merely highlighting the problem that I (many?) have with this concept.
It is either worked out in a way that disempowers one of the partners. Or it is genuinely mutual and 'headship' becomes a hollow concept.
Saysay – loved your last two paragraphs.
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
scoticanus
Shipmate
# 5140
|
Posted
Luigi wrote:
quote:
should Paul have just said that both partners should care and love each other in mutual giving and faithfulness.
I dare say Paul said what seemed appropriate to him at the time. However, to me anyway, Ephesians 5.22-24 seems of no more practical relevance nowadays than Ephesians 6.5, about servants obeying their masters with fear and trembling. And for those who cite 1 Timothy 2.11-12, do they think that 1 Timothy 2.9 means they should order their wives to take off their gold wedding-rings, or the pearls they doubtless wear with their dutiful twinsets?
Paul as a marriage guidance counsellor is probably on a par with Luke as a physician (Colossians 4.14) - pretty good for his time, and the society he lived in, but to be avoided today
Posts: 491 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mancunian mystic
Apprentice
# 9179
|
Posted
I'm still waiting, with great interest, for the proponents of headship to explain clearly where single women fit into their views, and I'm glad that someone has asked about this. I suspect that we're rather an embarrassment to them because - hey - we live perfectly normal lives, supporting ourselves, dealing with whatever needs dealing with, making all the decisions that have to be made, without submitting to anyone, without, apparently, needing the guidance and support of a man in order to live our lives. But then, having had the misfortune to be a member of a church that believed in headship, I guess I know the answer to this - single women are not accepted or respected in such environments, and are regarded as incomplete and inferior - attitudes that might be conveyed quite subtly, but are definitely there. Here's to being an uppity woman!
I'd also like to know - are there any churches out there that believe that single women in the congregation should still be under the headship of a man, whether the pastor or other?
Also, headship tends to ooze out beyond marriage into church culture generally. The church I belonged to allowed women to take secondary leadership positions but held that overall leadership had to be male. A woman in a leadership role had to have someone to submit to.
I've tried realy hard to comprehend the views of those who advocate headship, but I'm afraid that for me it always comes down to one person being given power over another, with the potential for abuse that that implies - even if the wife has voluntarily handed over that power.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
Luigi,
You said what I was trying to say earlier, only better. Which is that even the Orthodox version of headship - which does appear to be the kinder, gentler, acceptable face of headship, according to many in this thread - even that implies different responsibilities based purely on gender.
I'd much rather be a woman in an Orthodox marriage than in a Conservative Evangelical one I think - but since neither is likely, I'm glad, as a man, that I'm not Orthodox. I really don't get why I, because I'm a man, have a greater responsibility to love (to the point of it 'never being enough') anymore than saysay say*, gets why she would never get to have a casting vote.
(*sorry saysay, couldn't resist that )
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Hi Paul. Hey, it's not so bad being single in the Orthodox Church; then Jesus becomes the Head and He takes care of everything! All you have to do is listen to Him, love Him back, and cooperate with Him. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Leetle M.
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scoticanus:
And for those who cite 1 Timothy 2.11-12, do they think that 1 Timothy 2.9 means they should order their wives to take off their gold wedding-rings, or the pearls they doubtless wear with their dutiful twinsets?
Believe me, there are those who do.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mancunian mystic:
I'm still waiting, with great interest, for the proponents of headship to explain clearly where single women fit into their views,
Trying to make the analogy husband : wife :: head : body apply to single women is rather like trying to make The Elements of Style apply to clothing choices or interior design decisions. It doesn't apply.
quote:
But then, having had the misfortune to be a member of a church that believed in headship, ...
I have had the same misfortune. The thing is, those churches aren't just wrong about women. Their attitude toward, and treatment of, women (which is both wrong and sinful) is a symptom of many deeper, more fundamental errors in belief and practice.
The best thing you can do with such a church (whether you're male or female, single or married) is to leave it, then pray for the people still there, and trust God to have mercy on them and save them.
--------------------
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
|
|
scoticanus
Shipmate
# 5140
|
Posted
quote:
Believe me, there are those who do.
OMG, the culture shock I'm encountering in this thread is unbelievable!
Posts: 491 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
I've been following this post with interest and some amazement over the past days. As Scoticanus says, the culture shock is unbelievable. I grew up as a christian in what I have always regarded as a conservative evangelical church. Searching my memory, I can remember one sermon from the pastor on what might loosely be termed headship, when I was - what, 16 or 17 (some years ago, I am in my forties). As far as I recall, we (the teenage girls) just decided that the sermon was risible. I suppose the culture of our church must have allowed us to make that decision and thus not been oppressive. I am interested to know, however, whether those who have posted as having suffered under a particular understanding of headship agreed with that understanding or whether they didn't but went along with it anyway. (I find it difficult enough to do what I believe is right, let alone what someone else believes is right!) I'm not trying to belittle anyone or hurt anyone, I'm genuinely interested. At the time you were suffering, did you agree with the teaching or did you disagree but obey anyway?
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The thing is, the highly-educated apologists who have stolen the liberal enemy's clothes, so they can pretend like Lord Nelson that they see no discrimination, are not representative. They are, like the Imam, not acknowledging the scale and nature of the problem of prejudice amongst their fellow-travellers. The fact is that some people do uphold the pernicious western traditional view of headship and that women still do suffer from it in the more conservative denominations and it doesn't look much like the nicey-nicey Conservative Christianity Lite versions which are being put forward here.
Louise
I really do not understand what you are saying here. That if a doctrine has been abused in the past, it must have NO relevance today? As this would write off nearly every doctrine of the Christian faith, include several lines of the creed I assume that's not what you mean, but I am just having trouble working it out.
If it is merely some sort of "slippery slope" argument then I am afraid I don't buy it.
What's more, having now attended churches my whole life that taught headship in terms of church leadership and marriage, I can categorically say that "stay at home motherhood" was not the norm. Even amongst women of my mother's generation (now in her 60's) in cultural backwater Northern Ireland, most of the women my mum's age worked, and took less maternity leave than anyone is entitled to nowadays. I can't actually think of a woman in my church now who has a child who doesn't work.
I would love someone to actually prove to me, with more than a recitation of their former unfortunate experiences, that this view as practiced in conservative evangelical churches harms women, their careers, their self esteem and their personal security. Because family experience, and that of my friends, says exactly the opposite; so we're just swapping anecdotes until someone moves the conversation on a bit.
edited: to address to the correct person.
[ 17. April 2005, 16:20: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I would love someone to actually prove to me, with more than a recitation of their former unfortunate experiences, that this view as practiced in conservative evangelical churches harms women, their careers, their self esteem and their personal security.
If personal experience isn't acceptable, what would you accept as proof?
--------------------
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
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I am interested to know, however, whether those who have posted as having suffered under a particular understanding of headship agreed with that understanding or whether they didn't but went along with it anyway....At the time you were suffering, did you agree with the teaching or did you disagree but obey anyway?
M.
It's really hard to articulate. First of all, the doctrine of my former church is that Eve was decieved so women are gullable and susceptible to "lies that appear to be truth". Woman was also created second and so is made in the image of God because man was made in the image of God.
How do you feel about it? Well, if you grow up being told this stuff from a very early age, you just believe it. But as you grow up, you start observing that the information you get from experience does not jive with what you've been taught. E.g. rather than women in general having perceptibly poorer judgement than men in general, you observe that who has good judgement and who has bad judgement seems to depend much more on the individual person than on their gender. So there is a cognative dissonance that starts happening.
What was the "suffering" in my case? It's a term I hate, but it was low self-esteem. In addition to thinking that God existentially hated human beings for being born in original sin, I thought God hated me even more than he hated an individual man because of Eve's original sin. For many years, even well into adulthood, I believed at an emotional level that anything that a man told me about myself - even if he didn't know me - was more accurate than what I knew about myself because a man's judgement was more accurate than mine.
I left my congregation of origin when I went to university although they also made it clear to me that I was not welcome to return. For me the effect was lots of anger turned in on myself - anger that I have only been able to let go of in the latter half of my 40s.
I accept the fact that many women belong to churches such as this and do not see a negative effect on their lives. I think both the good and the bad experiences should be taken into account. It seems to me that the logical conclusion to hearing experiences is "Some women are damaged; what do we do - if anything - about that?" To say "Well, my experience was good, and it's not conclusively proven that anyone gets hurt, so we're just comparing anecdotal experiences" is, it seems to me, just a way of saying "I don't believe you or anyone else had a bad experience" (whether it's the person's intention to say that or not). It's perfectly possible to re-think a doctrine in the light of someone's bad experience and, for instance, to think about putting pastoral safeguards in place but to retain the doctrine. To say "I'm not going to take the bad experiences into consideration, because I've not seem them" is either irresponsible or it's disbelief in the stories of those who have been hurt.
--------------------
"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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I would love someone to actually prove to me, with more than a recitation of their former unfortunate experiences, that this view as practiced in conservative evangelical churches harms women, their careers, their self esteem and their personal security. Because family experience, and that of my friends, says exactly the opposite; so we're just swapping anecdotes until someone moves the conversation on a bit.
You go first. Prove without reference to personal experience that it has not done these things.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Dear Seeker963,
Thank you for this and for being so honest.
I am not from a christian home and became a christian in my teens, by which time, I suppose, a lot of my views about myself and my place in life were already set.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
scoticanus
Shipmate
# 5140
|
Posted
Seeker963 wrote:
quote:
First of all, the doctrine of my former church is that Eve was deceived so women are gullible and susceptible to "lies that appear to be truth". Woman was also created second and so is made in the image of God because man was made in the image of God.
What kind of church was it that taught you this drivel? Surely not Methodist or URC; and while you say you are a cradle Lutheran, I always thought Lutherans were like Anglicans, only more liberal.
It's appalling to think that anyone takes such stuff seriously. How do they manage when they get to Leviticus?!
(BTW as a High Church Scottish Episcopalian I'm always puzzled that such people don't take Malachi 1.11 seriously as well. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) )
Posts: 491 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scoticanus:
[QB] Seeker963 wrote:
[quote] and while you say you are a cradle Lutheran, I always thought Lutherans were like Anglicans, only more liberal.
That would be the mainstream Lutherans (ELCA in the United States). I grew up in the Missouri Synod, which is fairly conservative, and in a congregation that was at the conservative end of the denomination. Edited to add: I should also point out that this was in the 1960s - I'm not trying to diss the denomination; I'm just talking about my experiences.
quote:
It's appalling to think that anyone takes such stuff seriously. How do they manage when they get to Leviticus?!
I doubt that some people here will believe this but I've tried really hard to look at what I grew up with and to cast the teachings in the best possible light. I can't cast the best light on this; my honest answer was that the bits that were uncomfortable just got ignored.
[ 17. April 2005, 19:41: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
I'd much rather be a woman in an Orthodox marriage than in a Conservative Evangelical one I think - but since neither is likely, I'm glad, as a man, that I'm not Orthodox. I really don't get why I, because I'm a man, have a greater responsibility to love (to the point of it 'never being enough') anymore than saysay say, gets why she would never get to have a casting vote.
You appear to be mixing apples and oil filters here. The "never being enough" thing is from the Orthodox understanding of headship; the "never get to have a casting vote" is not.
I'd like to know what your understanding of love is, that says, "okay, you've loved your wife enough. Take a break. Put up your feet, order the little lady to bring you a beer. You've done enough."
Is that love?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
I'd much rather be a woman in an Orthodox marriage than in a Conservative Evangelical one I think - but since neither is likely, I'm glad, as a man, that I'm not Orthodox. I really don't get why I, because I'm a man, have a greater responsibility to love (to the point of it 'never being enough') anymore than saysay say, gets why she would never get to have a casting vote.
You appear to be mixing apples and oil filters here. The "never being enough" thing is from the Orthodox understanding of headship; the "never get to have a casting vote" is not.
I never said they were from the same source I said they were similar.
Never the less - have you forgotten this -
quote:
We've never had it come to a stalemate yet (may it never do so!) but should it do so, I have the responsibility to cast the tie-breaking vote, and stand by the consequences.
(Mousethief from page 1 of this thread)
quote:
I'd like to know what your understanding of love is, that says, "okay, you've loved your wife enough. Take a break. Put up your feet, order the little lady to bring you a beer. You've done enough."
Is that love?
Josephine, quite clearly stated that there is an 'enough' for women that there isn't for men. I don't believe I said anything about 'ordering the little lady to get a beer' - that's your phrase not mine. I just object to the idea that because of my gender I have to put in more effort than my prospective wife.
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
One can only try to explain one's position so many times, and watch other people garble it repeatedly, before one just gives up.
I give up.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
I am a bit hardpressed to understand why I would not be doing my own online banking or using Quicken, if I embrace the Headship thang?
I only said I get advice on situations on my life, I did not state I surrender my household finance responsibility to others. I paid my own taxes on my condo 2004 and also got to file my own taxes online with my deductions.
About the membership packet paragraph...I understand other young ladies may not wish to have this type of thing set up in their own lives. Me, I am weak in this area, and I need help. Others may not.
I must disagree that headship is a cutural-norm (maybe I am misunderstanding the way it was addressed, I read it the wording as such). Where I live, I am pretty much going against the grain of most people I know outside of my own church.
I might add, I sought out my conservative church, church-shopping if you will, in Silicon Valley. I looked for a church that I believed really was humble yet taught the Word™ effectively.
Yes, I have seen couples where the woman seems depressed and not happy. I have also seen couples that seem to be very happy and full of joy applying it. I have seen though buttheads in secular and relgious marriages...both men and women. Buttheadedness is not negated by omitting headship.
In my church, we did not have a Women's Ministry until we had a Men's Ministry first. Men should have accountability in their lives, not just women. Discipleship is sorely lacking in many churches. That one on one relationship, helping to "grow" a person in knowledge of the bible, as it applies to their own life.I think this is part of the problem in abusive "keeping the little woman down" attitudes prevalent in churches. I sadly agree it seems to be the way people view headship, by the hurt it has caused when a butthead's warped view of it destroys a marriage and the elders side with the fool, not helping the couple by taking to task the jackass.
Back to my single woman headship experience...when I trying to figure out if I should buy my condo, I consulted people and nobody told me what to do...but instead helped me figure out what my options were. Nobody was all "keep duchess down! Find fault with her! She sucks! We enjoy degrading her!" Instead, I feel loved and supported. It was a scary thing to buy my own place back in Dec. 2004 (sale closed though in January 2004). I felt more calm and level-headed about the whole matter since I got to talk it out. I did talk to some elders but I also talked to a lot of people in my church, plus others.
My point is I enjoy the community of my church. I enjoy having loving leadership. 1 Peter 5 makes it clear leaders are to be good examples, not buttheads. As men who are leaders in their households are supposed to be good examples of Christ's grace and light, not buttheads.
Was Jesus less than the Father since he submitted to the Father? No. He is equal. He took on the will of the Father over His own. Luke 22:42 NIV FAce it, we are all submissive in this life in one way or other...to a judge's ruling in court, to our parents growing up...to a captain on a ship. Does not mean we are less than somebody who has more responsibility in my eyes, nor hating others.
The elders are supposed to watch over their flock on spiritual and emotional matters brought to their attention, not do their online banking. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[Lord help me with my grammar]
[ 17. April 2005, 22:15: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
why is that headship tho? i mean why ask (male) leaders? Just because theyre good at teaching/whatever does that mean they are best at financial advice...
id personally ask friends about huge decisions, accountant about finances (or my dad) etc... whether theyre male or female....
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
why is that headship tho? i mean why ask (male) leaders? Just because theyre good at teaching/whatever does that mean they are best at financial advice...
id personally ask friends about huge decisions, accountant about finances (or my dad) etc... whether theyre male or female....
Emma, where did I say I consult them for financial advice? I mainly consult them for spiritual matters...big decisions (to way my options).
I talk to finanical advisors in banks for investment advice, not my elders.
If I had a spiritual dilmena though, I would not hesistate to ask an elder or his wife (many times I do end up talking to the wife instead).
I must go now...I may not be able to check in for awhile...so don't think I am ignoring you all...as the Lone Single Headship Gal proponent™ in here.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
ok - to buy a condo or not - is that a spiritual decision?
still - im not meaning to have a go at you, just think its an odd position to take.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
It is shame that mousethief is giving up at this very point. As far as I am aware many have asserted that the man has to love his wife in a way that mirrors Christ loving the church but no-one has explained how this is any different to how the wife should love the husband.
If (and I stress 'if')it is no different then this 'get out' is shown up for what it is.
If it isn't then it becomes, as far as I can see, nonsensical - and this is where I would like further explanation because it hasn't been explained so far. Because of course I could be understanding this contrast wrongly.
More information please.
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
scoticanus
Shipmate
# 5140
|
Posted
Seeker963 wrote:
quote:
I doubt that some people here will believe this but I've tried really hard to look at what I grew up with and to cast the teachings in the best possible light. I can't cast the best light on this; my honest answer was that the bits that were uncomfortable just got ignored.
I suppose each of us has his/her own Bible, personally edited and adapted. It amuses me*, however, that fundamentalists and other conservative evangelicals seem to do this just as much as liberals do, the only difference being that they don't acknowledge it.
* OK. Irritates me!
Posts: 491 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I would love someone to actually prove to me, with more than a recitation of their former unfortunate experiences, that this view as practiced in conservative evangelical churches harms women, their careers, their self esteem and their personal security. Because family experience, and that of my friends, says exactly the opposite; so we're just swapping anecdotes until someone moves the conversation on a bit.
You go first. Prove without reference to personal experience that it has not done these things.
Where does the burden of proof lie? I would say with those who want to ditch a doctrine that church has held for the majority of it's history but I am being told now, societally, we are ready to ditch. But I would say that wouldn't I?
I suppose, apart from personal experience, I would be looking for "proof" that women who attend churches that teach headship as it has been described on this thread, are less likely to work, take longer maternity leave, more likely to be physically abused by their husbands than in general society where a more egalitarian view of marriage is held, and maybe higher levels of depression due to being trapped or trodden down. As I have said, my family and church experience, compared to the people I meet in the course of my work has been exactly the opposite of this, but others here insist that my experience is not normative.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I would be looking for "proof" that women who attend churches that teach headship as it has been described on this thread, are less likely to work, take longer maternity leave, more likely to be physically abused by their husbands than in general society where a more egalitarian view of marriage is held, and maybe higher levels of depression due to being trapped or trodden down. As I have said, my family and church experience, compared to the people I meet in the course of my work has been exactly the opposite of this, but others here insist that my experience is not normative.
Difficult to get beyond anecdotal evidence, I fear, but where in my previous context I think the maxim applied in John Grisham's The Firm was applicable: "(we're) not against wives working ... we encourage children", which translated into women pursuing careers or taking up studies again being looked at very askance and even openly mocked. This is in an evangelical movement which is not marginal in numbers or influence.
I also knew first-hand of one leader's wife beaten by her husband (he told me and she had the black eye to prove it), and wondered about some other instances.
quote:
Originally posted by scoticanus:
I suppose each of us has his/her own Bible, personally edited and adapted. It amuses me*, however, that fundamentalists and other conservative evangelicals seem to do this just as much as liberals do, the only difference being that they don't acknowledge it.
Yes. Which I think makes them all the more culpable - they claim so much. I'm not sure how statistics compare on abuse and stuff between those of varying doctrinal persuasions, but what is chilling is the virtual impossibility in some circles of puclicly admitting such things happen within the ranks, even as 'fail-safe', God-inspired values are preached from the platform.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Leprechaun:
I would be looking for "proof" that women who attend churches that teach headship as it has been described on this thread, are less likely to work, take longer maternity leave, more likely to be physically abused by their husbands than in general society where a more egalitarian view of marriage is held, and maybe higher levels of depression due to being trapped or trodden down.
A couple of years after we got married, my husband and I joined a mission. We both spent about the same amount of time and energy in the ministry we were involved in, and we both had part-time secular employment at that time. When my husband asked if the salary he was paid by the mission could be paid part to him and part to me in recognition for the work I was doing and to get me some retirement provision, he was told that this would not be a good idea, and in any case the mission would refuse, because I would never be "first in command".
I think these guys would be pretty much in agreement with all that you have said, Leprechaun (I wasn't even asking to be "first in command" and have no problem with the idea of submitting to my husband, according to my understanding of the word "submission"), but their response to me, in retrospect, shows that married women in that setting were not valued as much as men.
More recently, we were having dinner with a well-known Christian leader and his wife. They certainly espouse the views set forth by Grudem referred to earlier. During the course of conversation I asked this man about a certain aspect of his systematic theology. His answer to me was, "Ask your husband at home." From this I now conclude that as a married women, in this man's understanding of headship, I was not allowed to have an equal exchange of theological views. He didn't actually say that to me in so many words – he would say that he believes in the 'equal but different' put forward by Grudem (which I don't have a problem with on paper), but in fact his behaviour belied something else.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I suppose, apart from personal experience, I would be looking for "proof" that women who attend churches that teach headship...are... more likely to be physically abused by their husbands than in general society where a more egalitarian view of marriage is held
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
As I look at our predominantly egalitarian society I don't think we are necessarily doing that much better overall than we were beforehand. I much prefer now to what I see of 40+ years ago, but I don't think women are safer from violence, I don't think men and women are all that better at living happy (let alone godly) lives together.
From this week's Economist, which I have just received, an article entitled "Have you stopped beating your wife?":
quote:
According to the British Crime Survey, domestic violence... is now less than half as common as it was in the mid-1990s...
...the most likely explanation... has to do with changes in British society.... women have become more economically independent and have started to behave in a way thattheir chances of falling victim to a violent partner are greatly reduced.
The article goes on to report that in about half of all cases domestic violence takes more than one year to emerge. From this I think it can be fairly inferred that in a context in which headship is preached and divorce is frowned on, there is an increased likelihood of ongoing domestic abuse of wives, compared to the general population.
The whole picture is doubtless more complex than that, but I think those stats deserve a response.
--------------------
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
Gracie wrote:
quote:
More recently, we were having dinner with a well-known Christian leader and his wife. They certainly espouse the views set forth by Grudem referred to earlier. During the course of conversation I asked this man about a certain aspect of his systematic theology. His answer to me was, "Ask your husband at home."
I'm 52 and I never knew such people existed. I just can't relate to this.
Posts: 491 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Hi Paul. Hey, it's not so bad being single in the Orthodox Church; then Jesus becomes the Head and He takes care of everything! All you have to do is listen to Him, love Him back, and cooperate with Him.
Leetle M.
Some of us have been trying to do all that, too, in the Anglican Church. But apparently, being women - whether single or married - we've still got it wrong.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
