Thread: Dead Horses: Headship Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001285
Posted by Snow White (# 2390) on
:
As I'm new round here I'm not sure where I should be asking this (or even if there is an archived thread that will answer my questions) but....
Does anyone have anyone have any sensible, rational views on headship and submission that fit in with both the Bible and the 21st Century?
I mean, as far as I can see it, the Bible seems to say that God has created man and woman to be equal but to have slightly different, but complimentary roles. Taking into account the cultural context of many of the relevant passages (particularly the Pauline ones) - it still seems to me that God has different roles for man and woman, especially as husband and wife.
What I don't understand, however, is the concept of submission. Call me a heretic if you want, but I just cannot accept that in this day and age, I should "submit" to my husband. I know that submission is a complex issue, but the idea of me having to allow my husband have the final say in a decision (however loving he may be) just seems unacceptable! Maybe I am a product of Generation x growing up with equal opportunities shouted from every roof-top but I refuse to think of my forth-coming marriage as anything but a partnership of equals - with 50/50 voting rights!
I'd be interested in anyone else's views of how they apply these biblical principles to their 21st Century marriage...
What does anyone else think?
[ 25. May 2016, 18:30: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
sensible and rational thoughts? on the Ship??????
you must be joking!
Seriously though, Snow White, you are right to question anybody who demands that you be submissive - this suggestion IME is usually made by someone who wants to dominate you (using the bible as an excuse). And you know you are the fairest of them all, so don't let them! If anyone tries to make you believe you have to live like that, just set the dwarfs on them or give them that poisoned apple...or something.......
Posted by locust-eater (# 2940) on
:
The apostle Paul never married- IMHO, if he had, he might not have relied so much on clever metaphors for his theology in that regard... or maybe that's why he never married...
It should be pointed out, though, that Paul's metaphor centers around Christ-as-head-of-church, and Christ, as that head, is neither a "boss" nor a "master"- he's a servant and, yes, our partner. He got the be head of the church through sacrfice. All the business about man being the "head" of women is, in context, not even about obedience, per se, but about how women behave in church. Many scholars beleive the Corinthian church had, as converts, a good number of women who had converted from the cult of Mithra, which was a priestess cult, one in which the women ran the show, and in which there was a lot of gender-bending rituals and temple prostitution. They guess that Paul's comments about "busybodies" and about propriety in worship comes from these women, who were trying to "import" Mithra rites into Christian practice. Paul's instructions are just a reminder of Jewish regulations about women in synagogue.
Either way, should you meet a man (or a church) who thinks you ought to "submit" to your husband, run away, run far, far away. He (they) is (are) up to no good.
-le
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
St. John Chrysostom, one of our power hitters, said that the most that could be demanded of a woman is that she not insult her husband in public. Anything above that is dependent upon his treatment of her.
That's not 21st century however but 4th/5th century.
Reader Alexis
Posted by Snow White (# 2390) on
:
The funny thing is that it is me arguing for headship and my fiance arguing against!! (Being Snow White, I am actually a girl!)
I just see that there are so many models in the bible of male headship within the family. I just can't see how this means I should submit (and there's not much chance of this anyway!
. I think God must be getting at something in the Bible with so many models of a male head. But what does this mean for a loud dominating 21st century mid twentys girl and her quiet hen-pecked fiancee?!
Posted by Birdie (# 2173) on
:
When you work it out, will you let this very independent-minded 21st century girl and her quiet longsuffering husband know?
We're very new at this (not a year yet) so I'm not going to claim much knowledge... the thing with 50/50 voting rights is who gets the casting vote?
There are issues my husband and I disagree on. Some of them are issues where we can agree to disagree. Sometimes we have talked things through, and he has come round to my opinion. Somtimes I come around to his. What happens though, when we have a disagreement over a particular decision (ie where it is not possible to simply agree to disagree) and neither of us are budging?
I don't know, because it hasn't happened yet, but the biblical model would suggest that the 'casting vote' lies with my husband. And if he gets it wrong, it's his responsibility. But that would only happen after much much discussion, not just as a dismissal out of hand of my opinion or feelings.
Out of interest, and because it's never occurred to me before, you say that you are happy with the idea of his headship, but not of your submission. Can you describe how you can have one without the other?
By the way, I do wince whenever I type 'submit'. But I think that's just the word, not the concept!!
bird
at work and typing fast - apologies for gibberish
Posted by Snow White (# 2390) on
:
Thanks for your thoughts everyone.
I don't have any formulated hard views in my head which is why I am struggling! I agree that God has given very different roles to man and wife and that it seems to be that the husband is the head of the family. Beyond all the cultual issues it seems to me that God is "hinting" at a principle...But I don't know what it is or how it would be worked out today!
I just hate the idea of my husband making a decision that was against my view. Perhaps that is a lesson in humility that I need to learn!
It also seems very difficult when in many areas I am the leader. He is a relatively new Christian (although I probably have more to learn from him than he does from me). I am usually better informed about finance, work issues, current events etc and often provide a rational viewpoint to his views! But that's not to say he is any less - he is a wonderful, kind caring thoughtful man who has a hungry heart for God... but if anyone was to be the natural leader - we would both say that I was!
Perhaps this will change when we are married? Over years?
I want to have a biblically based marriage but struggle when the biblical model we both see seems so far removed from our situation!
Help!
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Birdie:
I don't know, because it hasn't happened yet, but the biblical model would suggest that the 'casting vote' lies with my husband. And if he gets it wrong, it's his responsibility. But that would only happen after much much discussion, not just as a dismissal out of hand of my opinion or feelings.
This is how my wife and I have worked it out also. It has never come down to invoking that authority yet, and I hope it never does. I can tell you that knowing the responsibility ultimately rests on my shoulders makes me much more cautious and considerate than I might be naturally.
scot
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Everything that has been said thus far rings true for me and my wife also. 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.
Reader Alexis
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
I think Birdie and Mousethief have pretty much said it, so I don't have to post my own identical views...
Submission, obedience, and hierarchy have been given a bad rap in our era, in my view. But I've posted ad nauseam about this elsewhere... you might want to look at C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity and what he says about marriage there.
Or I could just post the link here.
"Something else, even more unpopular, remains to be dealt with. Christian wives promise to obey their husbands. In Christian marriage the man is said to be the `head'. Two questions obviously arise here. (1) Why should there be a head at all - why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?"
There's also this essay, "Membership," though I warn the reader that this particular web page is pretty painful to try to read, but at least it has the text. They need to fix their typeface...
"Authority exercised with humility and obedience accepted with delight are the very lines along which our spirits live. Even in the life of the affections, much more in the Body of Christ, we step outside that world which says 'I am as good as you.' It is like turning from a march to a dance. It is like taking off our clothes. We become, as Chesterton said, taller when we bow; we become lowlier when we instruct."
Lewis in another essay I cannot find online explains further his notions (with which I wholeheartedly agree) about authority and hierarchy, not legally enforced but freely undertaken, of husband over wife as well as priest over layman and others. (If there is anything Lewis ever said with which I personally disagree, it is that he is more democratic than I am.)
David
trying to learn obedience with delight and authority with humility
Posted by Birdie (# 2173) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snow White:
I just hate the idea of my husband making a decision that was against my view. Perhaps that is a lesson in humility that I need to learn!
Yes, it sounds awful, I agree. But do bear in mind that this is your husband, who (presumably
) you love and respect, and who loves and respects you. It's not like he's going to come home one day and say "hello dear, I've decided XY and Z, and I don't want to hear your opinion on it, because I'm <beats chest> the man". At least I hope not... These things happen after lots of discussion and throwing ideas around.
I think the principles of submission & headship are there, and how they work out in your marriage is something you'll discover as you go along. We're all different.
I think what Scot said:
quote:
I can tell you that knowing the responsibility ultimately rests on my shoulders makes me much more cautious and considerate than I might be naturally.
is also very important.
By the way, there are a couple of references earlier in the thread to husbands, churches or people generally 'demanding' your submission. No-one demands that I submit to my husband. I submit to my husband (in the ways already described) because I think there is a biblical principle there.
bird
Posted by Birdie (# 2173) on
:
sorry, that last para should have been "I choose to submit to my husband because..."
bird
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
if there is free choice involved, birdie, that is fine. But the 'command' gets into difficult water when a dictatorial leader demands it and a person is in a difficult situation, such as having a very dominant partner. If one is in such a situation (fortunately not mine) imagine the guilt that person would feel when they tried to stick up for themselves. (They would feel they were going against the bible )
I have been in an experience where a priest tried to 'divide and conquer' using this 'be submissive' command. It was pretty unpleasant, but fortunately we saw through what he was trying to do. It may not be a commonly used technique but it helps to be aware that it can happen.
Posted by Birdie (# 2173) on
:
I do appreciate that. Any principle can be abused, and I think you were right in your earlier post to suggest that Snow White should question anyone who 'demands' her submission.
I am also aware that I am very fortunate in my position where my submission to my husband is not abused.
However the fact that a principle or doctrine might be abused doesn't mean we should therefore not bother with it any more. Not that that's what you're saying, I'm sure.
bird
Posted by gbuchanan (# 415) on
:
Ok, start with disclosure, I'm male and I am very much against headship.
How I've dealt with the issue is that each partner brings individual strengths and weaknesses to the relationship. There are a number of factors which can determine the casting vote - experience and knowledge, personal risk, etc. Most often, for me it's come down to expertise.
Where things get beyond making a sensible decision by such criteria, toss a coin (or similar). If it's important, then wait. If it's important and urgent, and it's 50/50 on who should take the lead, then behave like adults and return to the coin if needsbe.
Whatever you do, no 'I told you so's - we all make bad decisions from time to time.
Posted by Snow White (# 2390) on
:
I guess what I am learning from this is that I will have to trust that my partner is in tune with God. Hopefully if we are both in tune with Him we should be both singing from the same song-sheet (as it were!)
gbuchanan - why are you against headship? It seems to me that it is a biblical concept - even taking into account the relevant cultural contexts of certain passages.
I do love and respect my fiancee and I guess marriage is about trusting someone despite their faults. I am also beginning to realise that this is something I am going to have to help him (and let him) "grow" into. It seems to me that headship is part of being male and that for him to develop into the most "Jesus like" man he can - headship (within the God given gift of marriage) is integral to this. (For him anyway - I can't speak for those that are not married!)
And perhaps submission is part of my femaleness.... but I'm struggling with that concept!!
Posted by Hagar (# 1338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snow White:
It also seems very difficult when in many areas I am the leader. He is a relatively new Christian (although I probably have more to learn from him than he does from me). I am usually better informed about finance, work issues, current events etc and often provide a rational viewpoint to his views! But that's not to say he is any less - he is a wonderful, kind caring thoughtful man who has a hungry heart for God... but if anyone was to be the natural leader - we would both say that I was!
It seems to me that the beauty of our modern society is that we stop looking to rigid sexual stereotypes and look at the person. You say that you have the talents to be the natural leader, then maybe God expects you to use them. In another post you say your finance is henpecked
Maybe, that is where you have to work, to try to lead without controling your partner.
You mention the fact that the Bible is full of male "headship" models. Well, that's true but I think that a lot of that is cultural. Our tradition comes out of a hyper-patriarchal system. Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, was rejecting a female dominated church as well. Paul then says there is no male, there is no female, we are all one in Christ.
I think that the principle involved here is that we should treat each other as individuals and not as sexes. In some relationship the woman will lead, in others the man. Each relationship has to determine its own way to act. It is much easer just to say men act this way and women act another. However, I think we are called to dig deeper than that.
This creates a special challenge to those women who find themselves in roles of authority and men in submissive roles. Each will have to learn to act faithfully and responsibly. However, I think that this is much better than denying your own character and submitting to a model that just doesnt fit.
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on
:
My own disclosure: Female, with history of 1 unsuccessful marriage, with my ex-husband & I continuing to care about each other as separate individuals - and he became a really good father to our daughter as she got older (he wasn’t into it when she was little).
I agree with gbuchanan on this. I don’t think the dominant/submissive model works at all in personal adult relationships, and I suspect it isn’t optimal even in other arenas – although it is the most practical and efficient.
I respect those who have said “The Bible says certain things, and I need to look at my motives if I can’t subscribe to those words without reservation” – but I submit there is a need to look deeper and more seriously at the Bible than that. Jesus made a point, repeatedly and habitually in His actions and words, that the primary relationship for each person is the one between the individual and God.
In cultures where there is a practical need for one person, not two, to be the head and decision-maker, as far as I know there was consensus that was the way it needed to be, basically for physical & cultural health & survival.
There is no such consensus & no such need in our culture, for good reason, IMHO. I think a major task of our culture is learning somehow to co-exist on a planet which is shrinking and sickening. All of us will need to learn graceful “mutual submission” for our own survival.
I question whether the women who are saying they subscribe to their husband being the head (simply by virtue of his gender) will still do so – if, for instance, their husband decides to do something they truly think is unwise. I appreciate Scot’s comments re: how such responsibility makes him more thoughtful (every good parent is aware of that dynamic) but I really think that applies to both partners in a marriage, and I like gbuchanan’s model of the one with more expertise being deferred to. That seems like common sense to me.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snow White:
And perhaps submission is part of my femaleness.... but I'm struggling with that concept!!
I suspect if submission were really a part of femaleness, it wouldn't be such a struggle.
As a single woman, I strongly disagree with the ideas of male headship put forward on this thread, as they seem to suggest that women need male leadership and fail to take into account the fact that women may be perfectly capable of leading happy, healthy lives without a man to cast the deciding vote. If I were to marry, there is no way on earth I'd agree to any kind of "submission" clause - I've been doing just fine all these years, thanks, and I don't see that marriage would somehow change my ability to make good choices and exercise good judgement. And what happens when a woman is widowed? Does she suddenly become more capable of making good decisions? Who is the head in that case?
I really don't see that there can be any head of household other than Christ.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And what happens when a woman is widowed? Does she suddenly become more capable of making good decisions?
No. The deceased's brother is supposed to marry her
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QUOTE]I suspect if submission were really a part of femaleness, it wouldn't be such a struggle.
<snip>
I really don't see that there can be any head of household other than Christ.
Submission is part of humanity (or at least Christianity) and I for one find it to be a real bitch.
RuthW, please don't misunderstand anything I wrote above to mean that Christ is not the head of my household. I answer to Him, as does my wife. Sorry if that part was not clear.
scot
Posted by Kerry (# 202) on
:
I am female and married and a Christian. I take my faith seriously, but I also take my own life seriously, and hence that is why I am both a Christian and a feminist. Having studied the texts in question quite carefully, I cannot honestly see any reason why the submission-obedience argument has to apply within marriage. It absolutely has to apply in our relationship with God, I completely see that, but I really DON'T get why that has to be extended to the family power structure, within what was a very very very very different kind of society! Gender relations are, I think, key to this debate, if we are not to descend into a an overly literalistic model of Bible interpretation.
Great theological thinker that he is, and great model of churchmanship that he provides, I don't take Paul's advice completely literally. That is to say, I am a woman and I don't cover my head in church. I also don't believe that I am bound to obey my husband, except in the ways in which he is also bound to obey me. How do we get around the idea of a stalemate? Well, if we ever have one, one of us will have to give way. At the moment, serious disagreements (of which there have been few) are resolved by appeals to principle. If one of us is arguing from principle and the other from convenience, then the other one wins. If we ever reached a point where we were both arguing from equally strong principles, then it would be up to us, in prayer and humility, to decide which one of us would step back and allow the other one to take the responsibility for the decision. That is not about weakness or obedience and servitude, but love. And a sense of love which recognises that both partners should have a role to play in difficult decision-making, even if it is in the simple sense of stepping back.
Women and men have a right to make this choice, they have a right to give obedience in love and they also have a right to withhold it in love. There is no more reason why the male genitalia should have a monopoly on familial authority than why they should have a monopoly in church.
Kerry
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
You won't find a model of modern democracy in the Bible either, but you wouldn't take that to mean we're all meant to live in empires sustained by military conquest and enslaving of conquered peoples.
The ancient world was intensely hierarchical in ways which we would regard as abusive today.
Ancient theories of psychology and physiology falsely degraded both women and adult males who were slaves as not being capable of reason.
St Paul tried to ameliorate the abuses of this society by stressing that masters and husbands (free adult males)should behave kindly and respectfully.
In the context of his time and the congregations to which he was giving guidance, that was radical, pragmatic and humane.
Hpwever in the centuries intervening, we have learned that high-status adult males are not the only people in a society possessed of reason, and that behaving as if they are creates grave injustices.
We have also learned that ancient theories of physiology which were used to rationalize the second class status of women (such as Aristotle's theories about conception) are simply false.
We therefore have the same good grounds for saying that women should not submit to their husbands that we have for saying that slaves should not submit to their masters.
There are no grounds for slavery and there are similarly no grounds for female submission.
Louise
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
" (verse 21)..submitting to one another in the fear of God. (verse 22) Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself." -Ephesians 5:21-28
The word "Hupotasso" (Hupo is a primary preposition meaning “under”. Tasso means “to arrange in an ORDERLY FASHION). is used here in verse 21 and 22. Same word but due to the grammer, the meaning is different in verse 21 from verse 22. Verse 21 means "yield" and verse 22 mean "subject under".
Note that men are commanded to "love their wives like Christ loved the church".
This is what the Word says and this is what I believe.
The Human reasoning of it...the bible was written too long ago and secular society is different now is not something I subscribe too.
When I first studied this...it caused me much grief. Now, I am reconciled to it. If I ever get married, it will be to a man I respect since he would have the final word on everything. Not a power hungry mongrel who barks orders and then sits on his lazy butt saying "Get me a beer now!".
If you are not an errantist, it is simple...you feel this is all rubbish. If you are an inerrantist, you study the Word to figure out how it applies to your life, not the other way around.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
I meant to say in a nutshell: if you are an inerrantist, you study the Word and figure out how to apply your life to it...rather than try to fit in only the parts you chose (like taking only what you want to eat from a cafeteria and leaving the rest).
The key word here is Heuristics...studying what really is meant, the context and everything around it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
duchess, I agree with the principle of Bible study you espouse. But, when you read Pauls letters "studying what really is meant, the context and everything around it" then the society (and the prejudices, expectations and understanding of that society) of the original recipients of those letters must be taken into account in just the way Louise and others have said. The result of such a study may well be to say that even if the letters in question are inerrant instructions to the churches they were sent that doesn't mean those same instructions are inerrant to us because our situation is so different. In this case that the husbands' headship & wifes' submission is not, in our society, the way marriage should be arranged.
That's not to say that the texts in question are meaningless today. I tend to the view that as the distinct gender roles assumed in the first century have been blurred and are almost non-existant today then so have the headship/submission roles in relationship. A husband and wife should, I think, share headship and submit to each other.
Of course, I'm single so I'm not talking from experience here at all.
Alan
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Perhaps this would be a good moment for a bit of caution and sensitivity. Let's not get into stating how one another's marriages should be arranged. I am quite happy with mine, as is the missus. I happily recommend our arrangement to one and all, but I will not presume to say that it is how you should do it. I would appreciate the same consideration from the other side of the aisle. Thanks.
scot
Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on
:
I've never understood why cultural norms of one society should be imposed on another as though they represent God's law. We'd all agree that murder is wrong. In any generation. But Paul's comments about women? Actually, for his time, he was quite caring. He forbade Christians to mistreat their wives in any way. But He was a first century Jew. Women have never had much in the way of rights in Jewish or Islamic culture.
They are ritually unclean when menstruating(what utter crap!) Their husbands can divorce them for no better reason than wanting a change, but they have no right to divorce their husbands. Jesus, admittedly loved everyone in keeping with His revelation of God's love to humanity, but one thing which stands out in the gospels is His love of women and their love of Him, and I'm not reading a sexual connotation into that.
I don't think there's much room left for headship in the modern world. Nowadays in western society, usually both partners are wage earners. They need to divide both the responsibilities and the financies for the better life.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
With respect, Snow White, I note that you are not yet married. We all go into marriage with certain ideals we hope to live up to - one of yours seems to be this ideal of headship. Whilst there is nothing wrong with ideals, it is worth noting that you never really know what marriage will be like until you live it and it changes and develops from year to year. So be prepared to be flexible and revise your ideals from time to time.
For example, your husband may be ill at some time and you will need to take over responsibility for everything; he may need to do the same for you at other times.
I am struck by the number of times you read in the paper about a couple who are celebrating a phenomenal number of years together (sometimes as many as 70!) and they all seem to say the most important element of their marriage is 'give and take' - on both sides.
Posted by wader (# 2993) on
:
I realize that there is a biblical argument for the husband being the head of the household. But, there's a biblical argument for a lot of things that I --- even though I call myself a Christian --- don't agree with (e.g. disallowing female priests, not recognizing the validity of homosexual love, selling your children into slavery, etc.).
My marriage with my wife has been a 50/50 partnership. We make decisions together, and when we don't agree, we discuss until either we agree, or someone gives in. Neither side has the cop-out of saying "I'm in charge, so we do what I say." We're forced to work out the differences if we want to stay together. And we very much want to stay together, so we always work out the differences.
Some people think that having someone appointed "in charge" helps to deal with cases where the two people simply cannot agree. I don't think so. If the two people have a truly irreconcilable (and unavoidable) difference, then that will lead to divorce, and the fact that one person agreed to "submit" to the other won't help. After all, if irreconcilable differences can get people to change their minds about "until death do us part", they are going to get people to change their minds about "submit and obey", too.
However (and this will be the more inflammable part of my post), I do think that one person promising to "submit" gives that person an excuse to get out of difficult decisions. If we have to do something that is difficult but necessary (e.g. punishing a child, putting a senile parent in a home, moving away from friends and family to get work, etc.), the submissive one has the option of not facing up to the difficult decision, but just letting the one who is "in charge" make the hard choice.
Disclaimer: I've been married for only 8 years, and although we've had an occasional disagreement, we've never had any really difficult decisions to make, nor have we had any real deep disagreements.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
Paul, I respectfully disagree with you.
I think in some cases people can sacrifice many things and not have to have both parties work.
If I go further into this...this thread will surely end up in HELL since I am aware I have an unpopular view. .
But I will say this: just because society says "this is the way it is" doesn't mean it is always right or best way. I know you know that...but I also believe that when it comes to saying "the bible doesn't apply to us since it is rather outdated." The meaning still applies in my mind.
As an inerrantist, I don't believe the Bible is just a book with some nice stories that I might get something out of. That is why I take the time to try to study more in depth and not just see what fits into my life, and throw out the rest since I don't care for it. If somebody choses to do opposite, it is their progative, but hopefully recongise that that is what they are doing.
My own father is an errantist. He gave me a book which refers to people like myself as "making the Bible an idol" and "worshipping the bible". The writer of the book is a minister of a church in the Bay Area and my father knows him personally.
What I have learned from this [the situation with my dad especially since he became friends with this minister] is if I say much more, I will open a can of worms so I will stop now.
It isn't my intent to stir things up....I was responding to the original post and what I thought bascially for snow white.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
duchess, do you seriously think those of us who don't think the Bible is inerrant believe that it is "just a book with some nice stories that [you/we/anyone] might get something out of"? Because this is a serious misrepresentation of our position.
Scot, I meant no disrespect to the way you have arranged your marriage, or to the way others have either. But I do really wonder what it says about women in general if married women are to submit to their husbands, especially considering how many single women are doing just fine without husbands exercising headship or leadership or whatever.
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
I've posted this before, but...
My vicar taught a different meaning of this concept. We are told in various places to 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ' ... 'prefer others' etc. So both husband and wife are submitting to each other. However (huge generalisation alert) many men find it hardest to exercise sacrificial love, and many women find it hardest not to nag and boss others about. So the passage alerts each of them to their greatest danger.
Now that still brings up the question of 'what if I don't fit into that generalisation', as well as sounding like some ancient version of 'Men are from Mars, Women are Gullible Enough to Buy this Book'
But I've found a grain of truth in it. To put it another way, most men I know seem to have at least a trace of Essence of Homer, and most women have something of Essence of Marge!
Posted by Birdie (# 2173) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But I do really wonder what it says about women in general if married women are to submit to their husbands, especially considering how many single women are doing just fine without husbands exercising headship or leadership or whatever.
I do see what you're getting at there. I lived (very very happily) on my own for several years before I got married. The husband has lived on his own too and, if anything, I was better at it than he was, in terms of organising my life, making decisions, etc etc. However I don't think the argument for headship/submission implies that women need husbands to exercise headship because the women can’t make decisions for themselves. I think it is a model of making a partnership work, which is very different to living on your own and not having to refer to anyone else about the way you live your life.
Maybe I have come across as though my husband having the 'final word' is something that comes up all the time. It's not - it never has yet. There is give and take, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, and there are times when we decide that I should have the casting vote because I have more experience/background knowledge/whatever than him on the subject in question. However when a stalemate arises - which it never has, and I hope it never will, as Scot and Mousethief have said - the casting vote is his.
quote:
most men I know seem to have at least a trace of Essence of Homer, and most women have something of Essence of Marge!
Brilliant!
I still maintain that if the 'deal' entails me submitting to my husband, and him loving me as Christ loves the church, I have the easier job.
bird
Posted by Snow White (# 2390) on
:
Thank you so much everyone - this is very helpful.
It is interesting that the two sides of the debate are mirroring what is going on in my head.
Duchess - I have to say that I agree with you and this is part of my struggle. The theme of headship seems too deep a theme within the Bible to be dismissed as cultural (as much as I would like to!) I too agree that we need to look at the themes of the Bible and try to live to those, regardless of our culture and situation....
But on the other hand I agree with those of you who see submission and headship as inequal. I find myself coming back to "In Christ there is no male nor female etc"
Oh dear - this is making me question so many of my views!
I hadn't realised what a hornet's nest I was opening for myself!
Chorister - I think your comment about us not being married yet is true and important. Hopefully things will become clearer once we actually get into it! But we are trying to look at the biblical models of marriage and try to have an understanding of Christian marriage before we go into it to try and build a firm foundation. But I appreciate that it is probably one of those things that you need to be in to understand!
I guess like many issues - it will be an evolving struggle to discern God's will for our marriage.
(It does seem to be for everything else!)
Posted by Astro (# 84) on
:
Proverbs 31 v16
[The Good Wife] considers a field and buys it
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
If the church through out the ages had taken more notice of that verse, women would have had better property rights and there would have been no objection to wives working and owning their own business.
So by emphasising the verse about submissiveness above the one above parts of the hierachchy have shown their own aggenda.
Posted by Kerry (# 202) on
:
There seem to be a few basic themes to the arguments being expressed here.
1) That we should ignore what we don't like in the Bible.
2) That we should accept wholesale what we don't like in the Bible.
3) That we should use the revelatory authority of our own marriage experience, and that of our friends, as a reason for making the choice.
4) That we should emphasise the cultural differentness of the Bible, and use reason and discernment as a way of making our own - Biblically guided - choice.
Guys, I'm delighted you have such happy marriages, but I personally think personal experience should be used as an argumentative illustration rather than a proving point. I'm surprised that some people are able to do either 1 or 2 with the Bible. Perhaps they don't, actually, but that's what we're accusing them of.
Anyway, I'm for four.
Posted by GreenLeaf (# 1719) on
:
Okay, this quote comes from way back in the thread, but there is something that hasn't yet been mentioned in the discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by Birdie:
I don't know, because it hasn't happened yet, but the biblical model would suggest that the 'casting vote' lies with my husband. And if he gets it wrong, it's his responsibility.
What Birdie described is a practical way of dealing with "headship" in terms of who has the final call on a particular issue. It's not wrong and can help it out if ever there is a stalemate (i too, pray that never be so in my marriage).
However, regardless who makes the final decision, someday, at the judgement seat of Christ (see 2 Cor. 5:8-11), the husband will give an account of how he led his family. We know this will occur because of the way God has set up the chain of responsibility in Ephesians 2, making the husband the head of the wife.
Now for the scary part - this accountability includes includes the decisions which the husband had the "casting vote" as well as those he trusted his wife to make. Although SnowWhite's fiancé doesn't really like the idea of headship, he will still be ultimately responsible for it before God. It's not just the husband's responsibility when he gets in wrong, but when he gets it right, and when he does nothing at all. There's no getting out of that.
That sure made my husband and I wake up to his role in our household and to mine to help him do God's will for us in every way possible. I can't imagine causing my husband to have to answer for my mistakes. As I said, scary, very scary.
Posted by Snow White (# 2390) on
:
Does anyone know any good literature on the subject?
(other than the Bible, of course!
)
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Birdie, thank you for your excellent post. I agree with you completely, especially the part about a model for a partnership.
RuthW, I have great respect for the capabilities of women (married or single). You have no idea how much I lean on my wife. Don't get the idea that she just goes along with whatever dumb idea falls out of my mouth, either. But at the end of the day, she looks to me for leadership and I look to her for support. We need each other.
Imagine a General has sent two Privates on an important mission. As they are leaving, the General points to one of the Privates and says, "By the way, I'm puting you in charge. You will answer to me personally for whatever happens on this mission." Who has the easier job? Who is more capable? (I can't tell.)
scot
Posted by GreenLeaf (# 1719) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snow White:
Does anyone know any good literature on the subject?
(other than the Bible, of course!
)
Thanks for mentioning that
, I meant to indicate that I garnered a few of the ideas for my post from this book:
Sorenson, David. Have a Heavenly Marriage. Sword of the Lord publishers. 2000. ISBN 0-87398-395-5.
I would say this was the most sensible, bible-based teaching that I have read about marriage. You can get it from http://www.swordofthelord.com/description.asp?item=PB3955.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I am concerned about the people who say 'Oh you don't need to take any notice of the bible verse which says you must wear hats in church, or women mustn't speak in church, because that's cultural. But you must take notice of the husband being head of the wife because that is the word of God for all time'. It is actually very difficult to discern what is culturally bound and therefore open to revision in the 21st century. As with all uncertain issues we are bound to disagree with each other over it. But never can any of us say, 'I am living by what it says in the bible but you're not'. It is not as simple as that.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
Snow White, I am glad you are doing some soul searching on this topic. It is rather uncomfortable. I was almost engaged to a man and that is how I studied up on this topic (unfortunately he was rather too gung ho about the submission type and not seemingly aware of the luuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvvv part, the sacrificial luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvvv part [insert Barry White here singing "Never gonna Give you Up"].
The Proverbs 31 woman ran her household. She got up at the crack of dawn to make breakfast and get the duty rouster ready to tell her servants what to do. She spent all day making sure everything in the household went smoothly. She does "She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant", but that is not all she does. She is a domestic goddess, a bibical Martha Stewart. She is not hanging out in the town, away from her household everyday. She also speaks with kindness and wisdom...she is what every single man looks for at my church, but they would like her to look like a fully clothe Britney Spears probably (modestly dressed of course).
Anyway, I must go off to another family thing.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
what I want to clarify:
Yes, she obviously went into town but did not spend her whole day and night there. (When would she have time to cook for everyone and make their clothes if she hung out in town all day long?)
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Well said, Chorister.
Reader Alexis
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on
:
Although this drifts into Kerygmania I have to argue that submission is also for husbands. Ephesians 5:21 says submit to one another that can only mean husbands submit to their wifes. It doesn't say husband are excluded from this command.
Part of the problem is the the NIV puts a title above verse 22 which separates it from the previous one. Then of course the NIV translaters are all from a conservative background.
In my opinion submission and love are opposite sides of the same coin.
*Nightlamp vanishes in a burst of sulpher*
Posted by Arietty (# 45) on
:
As I recall, the meaning of the word 'head' in the Ephesians passage equates to 'origin' - i.e. the source of a river. Man is 'head' (source) as Eve was structured from Adam's rib.
There was a fashion a few years ago in some circles to say that all-female groups in churches (like a women's bible study) had to have a man on the committee to be the 'head'.
Strangely, I never heard an example of a church saying that a Men's Breakfasts (for example) had to have a female member to be the 'body'.
Paul's injunction both preserves the status quo AND is revolutionary. Slaves, obey your master (as is expected) BUT - MASTERS......... Children, obey your parents (as is expected) BUT - PARENTS........... Wives, obey your husvands (as is expected),BUT - HUSBANDS.....
In each case, those with the 'secular' power over others are being challenged to adopt Kingdom values, not act according to current mores.
I has a big hang up about this when I became a Christian, I have thought a lot about it.
Ultimately, I agree with whoever said it is a cop-out. If I robbed a shop then said 'I am a Christian, my husband told me to do it, I have to obey him ', it would not be a defence.
Posted by Aardvark (# 2295) on
:
In our church there are many women whose husbands are not Christians, although they appear to have happy and strong marriages. They come to church week after week with their children, are fully involved in the life of the church and are committed to doing what God wants. Who is the spiritual head of their family and how does the gospel of submission apply to them?
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
That's fascinating Arietty.
And another illustration of how ancient theories about biology have underpinned this sort of thinking about women.
I'm reminded about the exercise where a teacher separated her class into blue eyed children and brown eyed children for a day and gave each a turn of being the favoured group in order to teach them about the nature of prejudice.
The distinction was based on one group falsely being declared superior by biology and thus put in charge of the other - but the realities it brought home for the participants were very uncomfortable!
There is no discernable difference in the general decision making competence of men and women, but for hundreds of years our society has acted as if there was and the result has been a very real disadvantaging of women which has only seriously been addressed in the past century or so.
Much of this disadvantaging of women was justified from the Bible using these sort of verses and models.
Now if people decide that they want to run their lives that way and that it is meaningful for them, then that's their right.
I realise that, like most models of living, that if people find it meaningful for them and they behave lovingly to each other, that it can work for them.
But I want to say that because of the kind of view of women this encourages and historically has encouraged, that it is something I find deeply disturbing. I find it more disturbing because it is derived from biological notions and concepts which have proved demonstrably false.
For me, it's like finding people willing to argue that black people should go back into slavery - to listen to people seriously arguing that women should re-embrace this sort of second class status on marriage.
( I can't find a smilie for hair standing on end)
When it come to decisions, we can all make good ones and we can all make crap ones. I think a good guide is make sure that the giving in is not all on one side or out of proportion.
cheers,
Louise
Posted by Arietty (# 45) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snow White:
The funny thing is that it is me arguing for headship and my fiance arguing against!!
Well that's easy then.
You accept his decision not to be the head.
Locust Eater has stated St Paul never married - is this true? I had the impression he was married. In fact I have read one bible commentary which stated the thorn in Paul's flesh was his nagging wife
(Now I need that hair-on-end smilie, Louise - can you pull any strings to get one?
Peter certainly was married, as it is on record that he had a mother in law. I guess once his wife had 'submitted' to him going off with Jesus she got used to being the head of the family while he pursued his ministry.
If we are going to look to the Bible for gender roles I would have thought we needed to look at how women are portrayed. There is no scriptural account of Mary submitting to anyone other than God is there - she even insisted on Jesus performing the miracle at Cana after he had said the time wasn't right!
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aardvark:
In our church there are many women whose husbands are not Christians, although they appear to have happy and strong marriages. They come to church week after week with their children, are fully involved in the life of the church and are committed to doing what God wants. Who is the spiritual head of their family and how does the gospel of submission apply to them?
The bible is clear that husbands can be won over by the good behavior of their wives if they [husbands] don't know the Lord.
The kicker is "women without a head". Women like me who are single and whose fathers don't know Christ...we are "women without heads".
We all submit to Christ of course, that is a given. Some of you may not like how I chose to handle this in my own life. I handle this by seeking council of more mature Christians in my church. I also wrote in my church membership a request that the elders of my church give a blessing to whomever decides he wants to marry me...since "I have no discernment when it comes to affairs of the heart". I did write that and my request was granted *well, when and IF the time ever comes*. If you knew some of the guys I have dated, you would understand [let's just say I have been told by more than one person that it would make a good movie]. This is my choice for my life, and it may not be right for everybody in my shoes.
Anyway, I need to get to bed. I am so addicted, I came in here after 2 AM...argggh.
Posted by frin (# 9) on
:
Snow White,
if your partner isn't feeling called to a headship role, I'm curious that you feel the need to make him accept it.
In my marriage, I know that handing over the casting vote is the cop out policy - if I make Dyfrig make the decision then he will be responsible for it if it's wrong. One of my friends' relationship has formalised this in the (trivial) example of "what do you want to eat?" - whoever asks first forces the decision making process onto the other person. They, like many couples, are both desperate not to be the one in charge of everything.
Handing over control can be easy, but it isn't always fair. I know I use it as a passive aggressive means of avoiding responsibility and keeping the moral highground.
'frin
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arietty:
Peter certainly was married, as it is on record that he had a mother in law. I guess once his wife had 'submitted' to him going off with Jesus she got used to being the head of the family while he pursued his ministry.
Not only did married men who followed Jesus around while their spouses stayed home, at least one married woman did also, as this passage in Luke's gospel shows.
quote:
Chapter 8. 1After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.
Moo
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Birdy:
I lived (very very happily) on my own for several years before I got married. The husband has lived on his own too and, if anything, I was better at it than he was, in terms of organising my life, making decisions, etc etc. However I don't think the argument for headship/submission implies that women need husbands to exercise headship because the women can’t make decisions for themselves. I think it is a model of making a partnership work, which is very different to living on your own and not having to refer to anyone else about the way you live your life.
Thanks for answering, Birdy.
That headship/submission is a model of relationship makes sense, but given women's demonstrated capabilities, I don't see why it would be preferable to equal, 50/50 partnership. I don't really buy the idea that someone has to cast the deciding vote, either. The whole notion of a deciding vote seems to me like a great way out of having to do the hard work of finding a compromise both partners can live with.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
I notice that many people are characterizing the "headship model" as an excuse for someone to cop out of making the hard decisions. Please note that those of us who have adopted this model in our marriages have all said that it has never come to the point of being invoked, and that we hope it never will.
In day-to-day practice, headship/submission is not about decision-making. It is about setting a tone of responsibility and supportiveness. If my wife and I are mindful of the roles we have accepted, we stay more concerned with practicing sacrificial love than with exerting our rights or demonstrating our independence. Again, it works in our house, YMMV.
scot
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
I just need to clear things up duchess to streamline future debating sessions with you on these boards: quote:
The kicker is "women without a head". Women like me who are single and whose fathers don't know Christ...we are "women without heads".
You mentioned before that your father is an errantist ie. he is a Christian who does not believe all parts of the bible to be literal truth. Have I understood that correctly? And in other words are you saying that people who are not inerrantists don't know Christ?
I haven't had a good repent for ages, and I've built up a goodly amount of hostility that is just dying to be dumped at the foot of the cross. quote:
If you are not an errantist, it is simple...you feel this is all rubbish. If you are an inerrantist, you study the Word to figure out how it applies to your life, not the other way around.
Neither will this quote endear you to people who study the word earnestly seeking God's guidance on how to live but who do not see the scriptures as inerrant.
However, I invite you to come to the 'Will Heaven seem less heavenly if Hell is empty' thread. We need a few more inerrantists and conservative evangelicals who will put the view for a real Hell with real people in it. Sadly at present there is just my lukewarm self, a Jesuit who died in the 1600s and a Crowleyite who wants to go there.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
quote:
If you are not an errantist, it is simple...you feel this is all rubbish. If you are an inerrantist, you study the Word to figure out how it applies to your life, not the other way around.
Neither will this quote endear you to people who study the word earnestly seeking God's guidance on how to live but who do not see the scriptures as inerrant.
I'm going to go out on a limb and take a guess that most errantists see Ephesians 5 as a passage that is in error. I didn't get the impression that duchess was questioning whether anyone was seeking God's guidance, only their likely approach to this passage
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
You mentioned before that your father is an errantist ie. he is a Christian who does not believe all parts of the bible to be literal truth. Have I understood that correctly? And in other words are you saying that people who are not inerrantists don't know Christ?
I can't speak for duchess or her father, but I have to question your definition of an errantist. Wouldn't the term apply to anyone, Christian or not who does not believe the Bible to be inerrant? And would it not be accurate to say that people who don't know Christ are errantists by definition?
scot
Posted by Arietty (# 45) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Please note that those of us who have adopted this model in our marriages have all said that it has never come to the point of being invoked, and that we hope it never will.
(......) If my wife and I are mindful of the roles we have accepted, we stay more concerned with practicing sacrificial love than with exerting our rights or demonstrating our independence. Again, it works in our house, YMMV.
scot
I really don't want to pry into how other people's relationships work, but could someone give a theoretical example of how this works? If it 'never comes to the point of being invoked' - erm - how do you know it is actually there?
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on
:
quote:
I'm going to go out on a limb and take a guess that most errantists see Ephesians 5 as a passage that is in error
Not erroneous, but "culture-bound", which we all are, inescapably.
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on
:
A church minister was asking a married couple how they practised headship; the wife answered 'that is easy I make the minor decisions he makes the major ones'
'What kind of decisions are the minor ones?' asked the minister.
' Oh the domestic ones like what time the children get up, when supper is, what school the children go to, where we go on holiday, when we should move house what kind of car we need and how to deal with our will.'
'What decisions does your husband make?'
'Oh the big ones like who should be president, whether the stock market is going to go up or down who is going to win the football and should Britain become part of the euro.'
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
The Coot,
This is a slippery slope I don't feel like stepping out on. (the whole inerrantist/errantist who are Christian thing).
First of all, it is like you are licking your chops hoping I will put my big ol' foot in trap you set forth, so you can let forth all the anger you have at whatever I represent to you. I am not walking into the trap today.
What I will say is my father believes that Jesus was a great man with much to say but he is not the only way to God. My father is not even sure if he believes in God.
I know some people who question what was meant by the bible...who don't take it as literally as I do. They do however confess in Jesus. Their relationship to Him, is a puzzle that is ndefinable by me.
Thankfully salvation belongs to our God not to me. I do not decide who is saved and I can not judge what is definitly in people's hearts.
I gather my opinion of my dad by what he has said to me for decades. There is no fruit in his walk, he does not confess Jesus, he does talk about Him, He pretty much denies His deity...my opinion is he [my dad] does not know Him.
If I want to say more about this, I will take you up on your invitation in the proper thread (don't want to turn this one into another thread).
Scot, you did say it well. Thanks for stepping in.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
note: I meant to type "Their relationship to Him, is a puzzle that is undefinable by me."
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
duchess, if you didn't want to head down that "slippery slope," here are the things you shouldn't have said:
quote:
If you are not an errantist, it is simple...you feel this is all rubbish. If you are an inerrantist, you study the Word to figure out how it applies to your life, not the other way around.
I most assuredly do not study my life and apply it to the Bible.
quote:
I meant to say in a nutshell: if you are an inerrantist, you study the Word and figure out how to apply your life to it...rather than try to fit in only the parts you chose (like taking only what you want to eat from a cafeteria and leaving the rest).
People who use a method of interpreting the Bible which is different from yours are not picking and choosing - we are reading the whole Bible, and interpreting it differently.
quote:
As an inerrantist, I don't believe the Bible is just a book with some nice stories that I might get something out of. That is why I take the time to try to study more in depth and not just see what fits into my life, and throw out the rest since I don't care for it. If somebody choses to do opposite, it is their progative, but hopefully recongise that that is what they are doing.
This I already commented upon, and you did not respond.
You are of course perfectly welcome to be an inerrantist, but if you must persist in misrepresenting the views of those of us who are not inerrantists, you had better be prepared to defend your offensive statements.
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
First of all, it is like you are licking your chops hoping I will put my big ol' foot in trap you set forth
Not at all... I'm just inviting you to be persecuted for your faith (Mt5:11).
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
duchess, do you seriously think those of us who don't think the Bible is inerrant believe that it is "just a book with some nice stories that [you/we/anyone] might get something out of"? Because this is a serious misrepresentation of our position.
Scot, I meant no disrespect to the way you have arranged your marriage, or to the way others have either. But I do really wonder what it says about women in general if married women are to submit to their husbands, especially considering how many single women are doing just fine without husbands exercising headship or leadership or whatever.
Due to your request Ruth, I will answer your post.
I honestly don't know how every errantist sees the bible. I do know that is the way one errantists sees the bible, my dad because he said so just like that.
Perhaps you might enlighten me on what those stories mean to you. How you respect them
if they are not true. Do you only see the moral at the end of the stories? That they must all be made up examples for us?
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. - Matthew 12:40
If you believe that Jonah is just a story...didn't happen, then Jesus must have not been dead for 3 days and nights before His resurrection, according to this belief.
You must have a different way of seeing this verse.
Scot has made it clear his marriage works for him. I also explained how one single woman handles this <previous post before this one>. My answer may be strange to you...but it is one explanation.
Posted by Hagar (# 1338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. - Matthew 12:40
If you believe that Jonah is just a story...didn't happen, then Jesus must have not been dead for 3 days and nights before His resurrection, according to this belief.
I think that this likely belongs on another thread, so I won't go into detail. However, I think that there are many ways to interpret the Jonah story.
For example how would you interpet: "For as Santa delivers presents to all good children on Christmas eve, so will Steve offer presents to all the chidren in his community." Does the fact that Santa never exist affect what Steve does?
This is a totally non-religious example and I don't want to compare Jonah and Santa or Jesus and Steve. The issue is how you interpret a sentence.
I also want to ad that I have every respect for your interpretation. The complaint I think some people have is how you categorize those who do not think like you.
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on
:
So my joke was treated with disdain
; no one understands me.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hagar:
The complaint I think some people have is how you categorize those who do not think like you.
Exactly.
duchess, I'm not going to go into what I think about Jonah - that's not the point at all. The point is that you have misrepresented my position and that you have continued to misrepresent my position after being told that you are wrong about what I think about the Bible and how I read it. Given that you have said that your father does not "know Christ," I don't see why you have taken his ideas about the Bible as typical of what non-inerrantist Christians think and believe.
I never made any statement on this thread about how I interpret the Bible, so I see no reason to explain or defend my views of the Bible. The issue is your having characterized "errantist" views of the Bible in inaccurate and offensive ways. Your statements are what we're talking about here, and since you don't seem to be able to back them up, you should retract them and apologize.
Posted by Aardvark (# 2295) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
So my joke was treated with disdain
; no one understands me.
I enjoyed it, Nightlamp.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
Ruth, what exactly did I say that I should apologize for?
I think you are reading into what I have written.
I never said that all errantists don't know Christ. I even said that basically I am puzzled by errantists but it is up to God who is saved and who is not, not me and that I don't know what is in people's hearts, I can only see fruit in someone's life and make a judgement (like in my dad's case) but who knows if I am right or wrong.
I explained that my father is an example in my life. I did not go into dee[ detail on other errantists who talk about Christ and so forth. Those are the ones that puzzle me. I am sure you are puzzled by me too. If that is a bad thing, I am sorry. I don't understand your position since you refuse to give any examples of it.
If you feel my statement "the bibles is basically a good bunch of stories that we can learn from" is offensive, then I am sorry to have offended you with a blanket statment. I am quoting my dad (and others in my family). If that is not the way you feel and you do not wish to explain yourself and show me why I am wrong, so be it.
I will not come back into this particular thread since it seems to me you are just lashing out at me like a power puff girl on and I am mojo jojo. This is a pretty sensitive subject and if I knew it would offend you so much, I probably would not have brought it up. Believe it or not, it is not my aim to offend you deeply, it was my motive to make you THINK. Again, you are not interested in defending your position...you just want me to apologize for the way I presented mine, and I have, as you wish.
If you wish to converse further, please e-mail me. I would honestly be glad for a little education on the subject. I am also sorry if I came across sarcastic, I must have taken must frustration with my dad's point of view out on you.
This thread is getting off onto a tangent which is somewhat my fault and I do not wish it to end up in Hell (unless Snow White would like it to which I doubt).
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
duchess, I quoted above the three statements to which I object.
quote:
If you feel my statement "the bibles is basically a good bunch of stories that we can learn from" is offensive, then I am sorry to have offended you with a blanket statment. I am quoting my dad (and others in my family). If that is not the way you feel and you do not wish to explain yourself and show me why I am wrong, so be it.
Thank you for this apology.
Since you are puzzled, I'll explain why this bothers me. It belittles my faith and my views of the Bible. If I thought the Bible were nothing more than a bunch of good stories, I would go out to brunch every Sunday instead of to church. I don't read the Bible idly; I don't apply my life to the Bible instead of the other way round (another comment to which I objected). I study the Bible regularly, I take it very seriously, I read a variety of commentaries and other books about the Bible (and not just the "liberal" ones you might expect), and I struggle all the time with what the Bible means for my life. I don't have to be an inerrantist to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
And if you really want a shock, floating in the ship's bilges is an impassioned defense of the Bible I wrote exactly two years ago.
Posted by Arietty (# 45) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aardvark:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
So my joke was treated with disdain
; no one understands me.
I enjoyed it, Nightlamp.
Yes, the old ones are the best ones!
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arietty:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Please note that those of us who have adopted this model in our marriages have all said that it has never come to the point of being invoked, and that we hope it never will.
(......) If my wife and I are mindful of the roles we have accepted, we stay more concerned with practicing sacrificial love than with exerting our rights or demonstrating our independence. Again, it works in our house, YMMV.
scot
I really don't want to pry into how other people's relationships work, but could someone give a theoretical example of how this works? If it 'never comes to the point of being invoked' - erm - how do you know it is actually there?
I've been reading this thread with interest, and have hesitated long and hard before posting this. I can give you a real example of how it worked in practice for us (I don't think a theoretical one would be easy to think up, or particularly enlightening).
Our first child suffered from 'interuterine growth retardation syndrome' i.e. she didn't grow at anything like the normal rate in the womb. I went into hospital, rested etc. and was prepared to have a pre-term delivery at 32 weeks, when the baby would have a 50/50 chance of survival. Unfortuately, at 30 weeks, the baby showed signs of serious distress, and we were told that if she were not delivered that day, she would probably die in the womb. At that time she weighed 640g and was very immature.
I said I did not want her delivered, preferring to 'let nature take its course'. I thought she was too immature to have a good chance of survival, and that in all likelihood she would eiher die or be seriously handicapped.
My husband felt strongly that we should have her delivered and given every possible chance of survival.
We prayed, we talked about it, we cried about it. But we could not agree. So I did exactly what I said I would do in my marriage vows; I obeyed him. Our daughter was delivered alive, and lived for 15 weeks. But she was never able to leave the Special Care Baby Unit, and remained on a ventilator throughout.
This is the only time we have needed to resort to the 'headship' clause, I sincerely hope we won't have to make that kind of decision again. I don't resent the fact that my husband made the final decision, nor do I think he was wrong. If she had died in the womb, it might have been easier on her, but I might have felt guilty all my life for not giving her that chance. I have never doubted that my husband was trying to make the best decision for me as well as himself and the baby, and, most importantly, that he would live with the consequences of that decision for himself - he wouldn't have run off and left me to bring up a handicapped child on my own, for example.
I am glad to say that we now have two healthy sons, both born at full term, and without any difficult decisions needing to be made!
I don't know if this takes the debate forward at all, but it is at least a real scenario in which a time-limited decision, which can't be made by 'tossing a coin', is necessary. It is also worth noting that the decision was legally mine to make - I am a competent adult, and could have refused consent to a caesarean section had I wanted.
Posted by Snow White (# 2390) on
:
Moth, thank you so much for posting your story. It was very moving and was a brilliant example of a real-life application of this concept. It certainly does help to have issues like headship/submission grounded in concrete examples.
Duchess, thank you also for your comments - they have been very helpful and I am aware that you seem to be one of the only post-ers fighting for your particular corner.
And thank you loads to everyone else!
I am being really challenged by this thread and I am very pleased I put my head above the "newbie" parapet and started it! Sorry I haven't posted much in the last few days but have been snowed under with work
I, for one, greatly appreciate everyone's views as it helps me try to tease out what I actually think about this issue! (Not there yet!
)
Frin - I'm not sure I want to try to make my partner accept the headship role (I'm not sure I could if I wanted too!
) but I am aware of the Biblical role models and want to attempt to have a Biblical based marriage - as does he. (Although what that actual means I'm not sure yet!)
I think some serious Bible study is in order (for Snow White and Mr-Snow White-to-be) as well as looking at that book that was mentioned!
Posted by Birdie (# 2173) on
:
Wow. Thank you, Moth, for posting that.
After re-reading this thread I think that the conclusion I am coming to is that this is an issue which can be abused either way. At the beginning of the thread, people warned Snow White to be very wary of anyone demanding her submission, implying that there is a risk that the husband's position of 'headship' may be abused and used to dominate and control. Later, people point out the risks of the abuse of 'submission', and the danger that a wife might use her commitment to submit to abdicate all responsibility for decision making etc.
So it seems to me there is an issue of balance here, as in so many things. And I wholeheartedly acknowledge that there is potential of either of the abuses described above. However I repeat what I said earlier, that just because a principle is open to abuse, that doesn't mean we should abandon it entirely.
All I can really say is that I think some of the posters on this thread have demonstrated that this can work. If both partners are committed to their roles and have an understanding of the implications of those roles, then this is far from a recipe for avoiding "the hard work of finding a compromise both partners can live with". Moth's story demonstrates an occasion where there could be no compromise, and it is only in situations like this that I can imagine the 'headship clause' (I don't like that phrase but it's been used previously so I'll stick with it!) being invoked.
I said at the beginning of this thread that we've only been married 10 months - so I am speaking from hardly any experience! But having read some of the other posters on this thread who have embraced the same model for their marriages, I have to say that I remain of the opinion that this is a reasonable and workable model for a healthy and loving partnership.
Snow White - all the best! I hope that this has all helped
.
bird
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Moth, thank you.
scot
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
It's interesting to read this thread and see how the headship in a modern context seems to have become sort of a 'nuclear option' in marriage - something you invoke in a heart-rendingly desperate case of last resort or never at all.
That in itself is a significant modern cultural innovation, and very different from the way in which this belief has been traditionally practised in western culture.
I think it's worth a bit of a historical re-cap here.
The belief in male headship/female submission in marriage was, until relatively recently (historically speaking), used to justify stuff like
- women being unable to instigate divorce proceedings
- the impossibility of rape within marriage - the wife being held to have given her consent and to be bound to obey
- married women being non persons in law with almost no rights
- divorced women being barred from custody and access to their children who belonged to the 'head' of the family - the husband
- women who wanted an education when their husband didn't want them to have one, being expected to shut up and give up any hopes of a job or education
- married women being considered unfit to vote
To name a few of the past applications of that principle.
Nowadays if a woman chooses to take this approach to marriage (and note the word 'chooses'), she exposes herself to few of the hazards which women of earlier generations faced. They, of course, didn't have a choice at all - they had no other models of marriage to appeal to.
If 'headship' turns nasty - today's woman has rights - she can seek a divorce, she can seek custody of her children, she can go to law without her husbands consent and seek an education or a job.
She has those rights and protections because of generations of women (and men) who rejected this concept and fought to strip its most pernicious effects from the statute book.
I suspect that the kinder gentler 'last resort' approach to the concept, seen on this thread has a great deal to do with recent improvements in the status of women which have made actually subjugating people on the basis of gender increasingly unacceptable.
So ironically, even if you argue that the concept is not culturally dependent and still valid for us, you probably still end up with a version of it which is very heavily influenced by modern cultural practices and beliefs about the rights of women.
Louise
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Louise, may I suggest that "actually subjugating people on the basis of gender" has always been completely unacceptable for a Christian? I understand that this standard has been widely disregarded at various times through history. However, the biblical account of the first-century church and of Jesus Himself show that subjugation of women has never been normal or acceptable for a believer.
By focusing on the "last resort" aspect of this discussion it is easy to overlook the daily enactment of the headship model. I am obligated daily to provide leadership for my family and to act out of sacrificial love for my wife. Her response is an active support which, incidentally, ensures that she is involved with all of the decision-making. It is more about tone and attitude than it is about some sort of "Robert's Rules" for marriage.
scot
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The ancient world was intensely hierarchical in ways which we would regard as abusive today.
...We therefore have the same good grounds for saying that women should not submit to their husbands that we have for saying that slaves should not submit to their masters.
There are no grounds for slavery and there are similarly no grounds for female submission.
Well, I'd throw in here that many or even most of us would regard the ancient hierarchies as intrinsically abusive. But not all, including me. Trying to avoid salacious jokes here, and much more on all of this can be found on my own Leather Thread, but I am one of the few who don't see things that way, and, yes, the "lifestyle" I live is much more than some sort of game, but a genuine attempt at real, albeit not legally recognised or enforced, fealty, obedience, etc. I don't want to derail this thread, however; just pointing out that not all of us think that way. I'd also say that submission is something all of us, as Christians, are called to, both to God and to earthly rulers, in my understanding. And I should add that the wife's submission to the husband within marriage is not the same as women's submission to men in general. I haven't done a lot of reading on the reign, say, of Elizabeth I, but I'd be curious to see how people handled (even as recently as that) the expected wifely submission in marriage and being obedient to a Queen. (I see no contradiction here, myself.)
David
still trying to follow his own master's teachings, but it's sure not easy
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on
:
from Louise:
quote:
To name a few of the past applications of that principle.
Nowadays if a woman chooses to take this approach to marriage (and note the word 'chooses'), she exposes herself to few of the hazards which women of earlier generations faced. They, of course, didn't have a choice at all - they had no other models of marriage to appeal to.
If 'headship' turns nasty - today's woman has rights - she can seek a divorce, she can seek custody of her children, she can go to law without her husbands consent and seek an education or a job.
She has those rights and protections because of generations of women (and men) who rejected this concept and fought to strip its most pernicious effects from the statute book.
Louise, how right you are, and your reminders so prove the point that "ignorance is bliss".
In the U.S., many women quickly forget that black men had the right to vote 50 YEARS before women (of any color) did.
Posted by Arietty (# 45) on
:
I seem to remember there was a fashion for being a 'submissive wife' on the back of a
best-selling self help book a couple of years ago. You could go on 'submissive wife' workshops. Apparently however there was a get-out clause - if your husband, once made responsible for decision making and leadership of the family, proved himself unworthy of the honour by making naff financial decisions or otherwise abusing his position of trust, the deal was off and you were encouraged trade him in for someone 'worthy' of your submission!
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The belief in male headship/female submission in marriage was, until relatively recently (historically speaking), used to justify stuff like
- the impossibility of rape within marriage - the wife being held to have given her consent and to be bound to obey
- married women being non persons in law with almost no rights
- divorced women being barred from custody and access to their children who belonged to the 'head' of the family - the husband
- women who wanted an education when their husband didn't want them to have one, being expected to shut up and give up any hopes of a job or education
- married women being considered unfit to vote
To name a few of the past applications of that principle.
Nowadays if a woman chooses to take this approach to marriage (and note the word 'chooses'), she exposes herself to few of the hazards which women of earlier generations faced. They, of course, didn't have a choice at all - they had no other models of marriage to appeal to.
If 'headship' turns nasty - today's woman has rights - she can seek a divorce, she can seek custody of her children, she can go to law without her husbands consent and seek an education or a job.
She has those rights and protections because of generations of women (and men) who rejected this concept and fought to strip its most pernicious effects from the statute book.
I suspect that the kinder gentler 'last resort' approach to the concept, seen on this thread has a great deal to do with recent improvements in the status of women which have made actually subjugating people on the basis of gender increasingly unacceptable.
So ironically, even if you argue that the concept is not culturally dependent and still valid for us, you probably still end up with a version of it which is very heavily influenced by modern cultural practices and beliefs about the rights of women.
Louise
Louise, I couldn't agree more. Whilst I gave my example above as a situation in which someone has to make a decision, and I accepted my huband's moral right to do so, I would be deeply unhappy at a return to a legal superiority of the husband over the wife.
One of the reasons I hesitated so long before posting last time is that I am essentially a feminist at heart. I am as well-educated as my husband, as well-equipped to earn my own living and we regard ourselves as an equal partnership in the challenging task of keeping a household going and bringing up two sons 'within the family of the church'.
My experience of marriage has, I am thankful to say, been wholly positive. I am married to a decent man who loves me and lives by his Christian principles to the best of his ability. I might feel vey different if I were married to someone else!
How far the law ought to reflect Christian beliefs is probably a subject for another thread.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Louise, I couldn't agree more. Whilst I gave my example above as a situation in which someone has to make a decision, and I accepted my huband's moral right to do so, I would be deeply unhappy at a return to a legal superiority of the husband over the wife.
......
How far the law ought to reflect Christian beliefs is probably a subject for another thread.
Moth,
I thank you for providing one of the very very few situations in which there really has to be a decision made, and quickly, and there isn't any compromise position. And for having the courage to post it.
Louise and you make an excellent point. To wit: we (women) have the luxury of choosing to submit in the event of an unbreakable tie. Largely because of the efforts of those who have broken free, which lends such a choice a certain irony. But it also means that the choice to submit is a much more meaningful one, since it is a free-will-based choice (at least for those posting here).
This is why it is very important for the government to get out of the business of making rules about who does what in marriage. This leaves couples free to decide the model of marriage and child-rearing they will follow.
Although my husband and I have rejected such a model for our own marriage, I think that many people tacitly have a submission-deal, and I admire those willing to go on the record for it. For us, in practice, the way it works is that there are circumstances where one or the other is a better judge of what is the best to do, or one or the other felt more strongly about the best solution to a problem. In that case, one partner defers to the other. So there is no one head, there are two, with shifting responsibilities, depending on the dispute. Of which there are happily, not many. So when a judgment call had to be made about which church to join, and it was a real toss-up, with many arguments on each side, I made it, because I felt strongly about raising the kids in the Episcopal church (and not with the Methodists
). But when we had to decide whether to go with public or private school for the kids, I bowed to his strong preference for public, and his principled argument in favor of diversity and democratic values.
As to what the Bible says about it, I think it's impossible to read Paul without taking into consideration why he said what he was saying. That doesn't mean that I find all Pauline teaching re: women to be codswallop (though I may say so after a glass or two of wine), but that God gave me a brain and I like to use it when I read the Bible, and see it not as a collection of diverting moral tales, but as the written expression of the Word through fallible men and women. Surely there's something in between "it's all literally true" and "it's all a quaint metaphor".
[ 15 July 2002, 21:45: Message edited by: Laura ]
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
see, now, as i see it, the problem with this "husband casts the deciding vote" idea is this. theres only two parties in the marriage. so if whenever theres a disagreement the husband casts the deciding vote, then what your really saying is that whatever he wants goes.
uh uh. no way.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
see, now, as i see it, the problem with this "husband casts the deciding vote" idea is this. theres only two parties in the marriage. so if whenever theres a disagreement the husband casts the deciding vote, then what your really saying is that whatever he wants goes.
It needn't be read thus. If the husband is rejecting his wife's advice and opinion on every decision they jointly make, then that's not a deciding vote, but a tyranny. "Leadership" in the church is through service, not tyranny. The headship of the husband is a headship of self-sacrifice and leading by example, not of huffy demands for obeisance. A demand for blind obedience is not Christian leadership, but its opposite.
Reader Alexis
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
The headship of the husband is a headship of self-sacrifice and leading by example, not of huffy demands for obeisance
Reader Alexis
I like the way you put thing, MT!
I broke it off with a man a few years ago whom
"huffy demands for obeisance" could have been
his mantra. He was stuck on the idea of "submission" in Eph. 5 and not down with the
idea of "sacrificial lovin'" so we both new it
was time to move on. He got engaged right away to someone else and I still pray for her when I think of the tyranny she must be going through.
[UBB fixed]
[ 16 July 2002, 22:06: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
mousethief, that is of course the point i'm making. this "husband casts the deciding vote" thing is a tyranny. the only question is, is the fist in the velvet glove, or not?
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
see, now, as i see it, the problem with this "husband casts the deciding vote" idea is this. theres only two parties in the marriage. so if whenever theres a disagreement the husband casts the deciding vote, then what your really saying is that whatever he wants goes.
uh uh. no way.
I see it very differently. The "deciding vote" is an incredibly heavy burden to bear. It does not conform to the Christian principal of loving your partner if one simply reinforces his (or her) original vote. It goes much further than that. I see it as putting on a different hat, considering afresh all the issues with each possible ramification, and agonizing over whether one argument should win over the other. The burden is that you are totally responsible for all of the outcomes of that decision. Like in Moth's case, that is a very heavy burden indeed.
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
sharkshooter, see my post above. in the case you are describing, the hand is in the velvet glove. but it is still the husband making the decisions.
unacceptable.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
sharkshooter, see my post above. in the case you are describing, the hand is in the velvet glove. but it is still the husband making the decisions.
unacceptable.
Sorry, crossed posts.
If I rewrote your position replacing "husband" with "wife" would you still consider it to be unacceptable? If not, why not? If so, how do you suggest a decision (other than "do nothing and see what happens") gets made?
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on
:
from sharkshooter:
quote:
I see it very differently. The "deciding vote" is an incredibly heavy burden to bear.
"Headship" - as you define - it still sounds more like parenting, than partnership, to me.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Perhaps some first principles would help here -- do those of you who do not believe in the husband's headship also disbelieve in non-democratic hierarchy in general?
David
believes in non-democratic hierarchy, to everyone's astonishment
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
gracia, thank you, you summed up perfectly something i was trying to express, but couldn't think of a way to phrase.
sharkshooter, of course not. its just plain wrong for one person to always be making the decisions for another person, unless that person is incompetant in some way.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
nicolemrw:
Thank you. However, it might be useful to try to find out how often, in a long-term marriage, it actually comes down to that. Probably not very often.
It is not, in my view, a way of deciding where to go for dinner, or what type of car to buy. Those matters should be decided without resort to a deciding vote - as a partnership.
It is only tyranny if there is no love.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
I am surrounded in the workplace by married women in leadership roles - do their capabilities for showing leadership somehow desert them when they get home? Do their abilities somehow become immoral when they get home?
If I went to work for an organisation and they told me leadership could only be provided by men who were 'obligated' to provide leadership, (and to lead nicely and lovingly) and that as a woman I would be allowed to be 'involved' in decision making. I know where I'd tell them to go!
On the other hand, if they said that managers of either sex should provide leadership, treating their employees with consideration and involving them in decision making - I'd think that was a good thing.
What comes to my mind is the thinking of the British Empire. As the Empire became a bit more enlightened they(eventually) let the educated 'natives' share in the decision making but it wasn't appropriate for a 'native' to show leadership - that was 'getting ideas above their station'. Leadership was something for the white man. Unsurprisingly the 'natives' didn't buy this.
Essentially the idea that men are there to show leadership - however nicely - is paternalistic, however you dress it up, and based on a sexual stereotype.
It is there because the Bible was written in a deeply sexist society with an extremely flawed view of women, which believed leadership was quite inappropriate to women who would naturally become tyrants, if given any real power. Hence they needed the husband as a head to keep them in check.
Just because an unfounded sexual stereotype is in the Bible doesn't give it any basis in reality and doesn't make it right. At least not as a far as I'm concerned.
Louise
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
quote:
It is only tyranny if there is no love.
bull*bleep* its tyranny any time one person thinks they know whats best for another person and has the authority to enforce it. no matter what spirit its entered into in. in parenting it results in repressed, smothered children. its no healthier for adults. worse in fact.
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
But surely every parent has at times to enforce something that their kids don't want. When Scrambled Eggs was seriously ill, she refused vital medication. What kind of parent would I have been if I had allowed that choice to go unchallenged. And you appear to be automatically labelling every boss a tyrant...
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
but ham n' eggs, we aren't discussing parenting, we're discussing marriage. assuming that a husband has the same authority and responsibility to his wife that a parent does to a child is demeaning and belittling. an adult is not a child.
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
oh sorry to double post, but i have to add, yes, you are right to a limited extent regarding parenting. some times there are occasions where a parent must be tyranical. what i was refering to above, i ment when that is the primary method of interaction, not when its an occasional neccesety, it results in repressed, smothered children, even when its done with love.
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
Nicole - you were discussing marriage, but then you said
bull*bleep* its tyranny any time one person thinks they know whats best for another person and has the authority to enforce it. no matter what spirit its entered into in. in parenting it results in repressed, smothered children. its no healthier for adults. worse in fact.
You appeared to be discussing adults in general. Do you mean then that this applies only to marriage, and the judiciary, officers in the armed forces and employers (who all could be argued to meet this criterion) are entitled to act as they like? Why is marriage a special case?
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
do those of you who do not believe in the husband's headship also disbelieve in non-democratic hierarchy in general?
Chast,
consider the difference between a form of hierarchy with a demonstrable reason behind it -
'You two working together on this project are both good people. Joe has more experience in this line of work and if there is a conflict of opinions you should defer to him. He will take responsibility. "
and one based on an arbitrary factor of someone's genetic makeup
" You two working on this project are both good people but Joe has testicles and you don't therefore I'm putting Joe in charge. Why? Because my manual says 'only people with testicles can show leadership'. No I have no reason to think they're any better at the job. It just says that here. If he's less experienced - tough."
There are different forms of hierarchy. Ones based on arbitrary genetic factors such as eye colour, skin colour or sex or sexual orientation are, in my opinion, unjustifiable, except on the grounds of two consenting adults deciding that they want to live their lives that way - that one voluntarily wants to submit to the other because for some personal reason, they have put a value on that otherwise arbitrary factor.
On my own part however I would never advise someone to do this for the good reason, that as I see it, leadership and stuff like sex, skin colour etc. are unconnected. I have seen nothing to prove that there is any valid connection between them.
Being of one sex or the other, for example, doesn't make you a better leader.
So for me its not to do with non democratic hierarchy, but with arbitrary hierarchy.
L.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Or now that I think of it, unjustified hierarchy.
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
And who gets to define the standard for the justification?
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
How about the person who's being asked to submit?
(so long as they would fall within the usual definitions of a competent adult who can make decisions for themselves and who doesn't have to be restrained in some way from harming others)
After all, as I've already said if people want to consent to do this, that's up to them, it's just that I wouldn't buy it and don't think it's a good idea.
L.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
What's very interesting about this thread is that no matter how many times people explain how their marriages work, and what the whole "submit" thing boils down to, the anti-submit faction insists that it doesn't mean what those people say it does, and that it's tyrannous and evil. This as I said in spite of how many times those who have some sort of "submit" understanding in their marriage reiterate that it is not tyrannous or lording-it-over.
I'm not sure there's a whole lot more this thread can do. We appear to be at the "is not" / "is so" stage.
Reader Alexis
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
How about the person who's being asked to submit?
And finally - at the end of the long, long day - we all agree?
scot
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
How about the person who's being asked to submit?
And finally - at the end of the long, long day - we all agree?
scot
Yes for me, in the last analysis, it boils down to choice and consent. I don't agree personally but I'll uphold someone else's choice to make a different decision for themselves. However differently I think about it!
L.
Posted by Arietty (# 45) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
What's very interesting about this thread is that no matter how many times people explain how their marriages work, and what the whole "submit" thing boils down to, the anti-submit faction insists that it doesn't mean what those people say it does, and that it's tyrannous and evil.
Firstly, Mousethief that is a 'straw man' and not worthy of your usual reasoned arguments. No-one has said anyone else is 'evil'. The word 'tyranny' has been used only ideologically, no-one has been called 'tyrannous' in their behaviour as described on this thread, and I and others posting an opposite view to yours (and I see we are now a 'faction' not just individuals who disagree with the best arguments you can come up with!) have been very careful NOT to say that our views should apply to anyone else's marriages, I have simply refused to accept that the model of marriage you are positing is more 'Christian' than anyone else's.
Secondly, in order to see how this works in the 'real world' you would have to do a proper survey. People posting here saying anecdotally it works fine or doesn't work fine is not proof of anything. I would imagine those whose marriages are in trouble are less likely to post their personal accounts on a public board than those who are happy.
Among the many marriages I have seen split - usually unexpectedly - there are several Christian couples where this model has been operated to everyone's apparent satisfaction and it has all ended in tears. Sometimes it is the wife who is more unhappy with this model but it has often been decided by the woman that this is how they should run their lives and the man gets fed up with the pressure! I am not saying that the model of 'headship' is what caused the split up in these cases, I am just saying it is not a recipe for a happy marriage. I also know many couples where they have set off with the headship model but the wheels have come off the bus at some point and they have re-set their relationship along different lines.
There are no recipes for happy marriages and most long marriages go through unhappy 'patches' of one sort or another, what gets the partners through those patches is commitment to the promises they made not a particular model.
When I was having my first son, very tired and feeling very weak-willed, I agreed to a procedure that was not in my original birth plan. My husband asked me if I really wanted that and reminded me what I had said while more compos mentis. I took his advice. Not because he was 'head' but I reckoned he was at that point in a better position to judge what was best for me. When I was expecting the first son, my husband was aksed to apply for a job at a very good university in another town and he turned it down without consulting me because he thought it was best for me to stay among my friends. They then rang him up after the closing date and begged him to come for an interview, at which point he told me and said 'but I am not going, it is best for you to stay'. I successfully argued him into applying, which he clearly wanted to do. He got the job and we moved. On the face of it I was supporting his career, in fact he was doing what I had told him to! In this case he recognised that I was the best person to look at the facts objectively.
Inequality between men and women is a consequence of the Fall. Eve was created as a 'helpmeet' for Adam and there is a good argument to say that proves he needed her more than she needed him! Both were partners in the Fall and Eve's subjection was part of her 'sentence' for that crime. Inequality has no place in Christian life, since in Him there is no slave or free man, Jew nor Gentile, male nor female.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Some interesting comments here. Oh well, in with both feet...
I normally have a lot of respect for C. S. Lewis, but in the case of headship and the wife's submission to the husband he completely misses the point. He says, if I remember rightly, that women should not envy their husbands' headship because it is a 'crown of thorns' - that being expected to take responsibility for another human being like that is painful and difficult. And this is true, but what he doesn't seem to notice is that full-on submission to my husband abdicates my own moral responsibility and injures my dignity as a human being with my own relationship with God. 'He for God only, she for God in him' is not a healthy attitude, but it is encouraged by the whole concept of headship. Would I agree to abort a healthy foetus if my husband ordered me to? Would I commit murder? Would I jump off a cliff?
Just for the record, I did promise to obey my husband (after making it clear that this was a conditional promise and that my duty to God would come before my duty to him, if he ever got above himself and started ordering me to chop people's heads off). But if I was getting married tomorrow, I would not. And I have a very happy marriage - a 50-50 partnership, in which either of us may have the casting vote depending on the circumstances.
Jane R
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
quote:
You appeared to be discussing adults in general. Do you mean then that this applies only to marriage, and the judiciary, officers in the armed forces and employers (who all could be argued to meet this criterion) are entitled to act as they like? Why is marriage a special case?
ham n' eggs, i don't quite understand your point here. is it your contention that members of the judiciary, officers of the armed forces, and employers have total control over the lives of the people under them? it seems to me that members of the judiciary have power over people who have been brought to them to be judged, and only have power over them in the context of the issue for which they are peing judged (and we won't even mention the issue of jury trial) and even then only in the context of written, agreed on laws and rules. members of the armed forces are under the control of their superiors only wehn they are on duty. and if an employer tried to exert headship over an employee over every aspect of their life, well, i don't think that they'd have many employees.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but why would a woman want to marry a man she is not willing to submit to? In other words, if she really thinks that, unless she is constantly vigilant to protect her own best interests, he will act in ways antithetical to them?
In these days of self-selected marriages, why marry someone you don't trust to act in your best interest?
Of course if he starts acting contrary to the dictates of Christian love, the "submission" rules are all off (as St. John Chrysostom advised in the 5th century fergoshsakes). But do you really go into marriage assuming that your husband either is, or is going to become at some unspecified future date, an ogre and a tyrant?
Reader Alexis
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
cause there is NO ONE i would be willing to grant that sort of overlordship to. being as all people are fallible.
"there wasn't ever but one perfect man ever, and they crucified him..."
i wanted to get married to a human, not join a convent and get married to the lord.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
and one based on an arbitrary factor of someone's genetic makeup
But I do believe in that, at least in the form of hereditary monarchy. Certainly I have no problem with it at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Would I agree to abort a healthy foetus if my husband ordered me to? Would I commit murder? Would I jump off a cliff?
Not any more than the obedience (to I believe we are called as Christians) would have allowed us to commit idolatry in the name of the Emperor in ancient Rome; but I believe we were to obey apart from being commanded to do wrong things, and the same in marriage. What you describe further ...
quote:
Just for the record, I did promise to obey my husband (after making it clear that this was a conditional promise and that my duty to God would come before my duty to him, if he ever got above himself and started ordering me to chop people's heads off).
... sounds to me like exactly the right kind of obedience, in those and other circumstances.
David
weird orthodox guy
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
I can, at this moment, think of at least 7 people that I trust that much. Each one of them is fallible, but not more so than I am. Each one of them I would trust with my life.
I guess that makes me a doormat.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Chastmastr wrote (re hierarchy based on an arbitrary factor of someone's genetic makeup)
quote:
But I do believe in that, at least in the form of hereditary monarchy. Certainly I have no problem with it at all.
Each to their own, Chast! But having studied the Stuart dynasty - let me tell you I think they are a great argument against that (oh dear, that'll probably start a flame war about Charles, King and Martyr!)
Mousethief,
quote:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but why would a woman want to marry a man she is not willing to submit to?
Let me rephrase that - why would a man marry a woman he is not willing to submit to?
We all generally have to let other people have their way from time to time, even when we don't like it, in order to have relationships with them.
But why, when the chips are down, should one partner's opinion be unusually privileged simply because of their sex?
That's what I find puzzling, as I see no evidence which suggests that leadership is sex-linked in humans.
As for the rest of what you said
quote:
In other words, if she really thinks that, unless she is constantly vigilant to protect her own best interests, he will act in ways antithetical to them?
To follow up Arietty - this looks like yet another straw man, nobody has mentioned or implied this view except yourself!
The question as I see it is why should leadership be a quality exercised by men, and not by men and women jointly, deferring to each other as might be appropriate in any given situation?
Louise
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Let me rephrase that - why would a man marry a woman he is not willing to submit to?
I wouldn't. I didn't. St. Paul tells us to "submit to one another" and if you don't trust a person enough to submit to them, don't marry 'em. They needn't be perfect (now THERE is a red herring). Just trustworthy, eh?
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The question as I see it is why should leadership be a quality exercised by men, and not by men and women jointly, deferring to each other as might be appropriate in any given situation?
I believe if you'll read the first posts in this thread by the headshipists (to coin a term) you will find that this is exactly what they aver happens in their marriages.
Reader Alexis
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
In other words, if she really thinks that, unless she is constantly vigilant to protect her own best interests, he will act in ways antithetical to them?
To follow up Arietty - this looks like yet another straw man, nobody has mentioned or implied this view except yourself!
I'm trying hard to keep out of this, but let me interject that I have read the same implication in a number of the posts as did Mousethief. Ditto for Arietty's comment.
scot
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Thank you, Scot. I didn't think I was going mad, but I can never be too sure.
Reader Alexis
Posted by frin (# 9) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but why would a woman want to marry a man she is not willing to submit to?
Well in my case, because I love him and trust him. But I know that my judgement outclasses his on many subjects and it is foolish leadership to hand over responsibility to the person recognised by both parties to be least capable of wielding it. When it comes down to 'where do we stand legally' on anything, I will, of course, accept his judgement. The rest is for negociation or the best suited decision maker in each case.
'frin
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
quote:
I can, at this moment, think of at least 7 people that I trust that much. Each one of them is fallible, but not more so than I am. Each one of them I would trust with my life.
so go and submit to them, sharkshooter, am i stopping you? oh, but it wasn't you submitting we were talking about, was it?
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
I'll jump in here again just to give an example (regarding Frin's last post)...
My pastor is a fine pastor when it comes to shepherding his flock, but stinks at managing his own household funds (he has said so much publically). His financially-smart wife handles the finances in that household (balances the checkbook...delegates the funds...). He is still
head of that household.
To me, it ain't about a man sitting in a chair, ordering people around "Go get me a beer!" or doing everything, on the contrary, there is delegation of duties. It is about him giving kind and loving guidance to his wife and kids, shepherding them, if you will, in accordance to God's Word and His will for that family.
I myself have not found such a man in San Jose...but if I do, I will stalk him and hunt him down since he seems to be such a scarce and rare commodity here.
<--Titus 1 man running in fear from duchess in San Jose...
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Let me rephrase that - why would a man marry a woman he is not willing to submit to?
I wouldn't. I didn't. St. Paul tells us to "submit to one another" and if you don't trust a person enough to submit to them, don't marry 'em. They needn't be perfect (now THERE is a red herring). Just trustworthy, eh?
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The question as I see it is why should leadership be a quality exercised by men, and not by men and women jointly, deferring to each other as might be appropriate in any given situation?
I believe if you'll read the first posts in this thread by the headshipists (to coin a term) you will find that this is exactly what they aver happens in their marriages.
Reader Alexis
'submit to one another' is kind of my point in what I said there -
What I'm asking is, is there an expectation that one partner should submit more than the other on grounds of their sex?
The impression I got from reading the headship posts was that the posters might defer to the other partner on many occasions, but that the man was the person supposed to give the lead and that in the event of a tie about something important the woman was supposed to give in.
I simply can't see how sex should determine who gives the lead and who should submit in the event of a 'tie'.
If you are saying sex makes no general difference as to who should show leadership or make decisions in a marriage then fine - we have no area of disagreement.
What has been pointed out repeatedly is that the concept of headship per se has been (in the past and in some cases today) abused and abused and abused against women and tied to negative stereotypes regarding a female inabilility to lead and the inadvisability of allowing women to make decisions or do responsible things.
Should we be 'constantly vigilant' against negative stereotypes which say leadership is a masculine thing not appropriate to women and that women should be the ones to give in in a stand off, just because they are women? - you betcha!
The historical results of such stereotyping have been frightening.
Saying that it's wrong to perpetuate negative stereotypes that leadership is somehow a male thing is not the same thing as saying that a woman should not trust a man in a marriage and should constantly be vigilant to protect her own best interests.
Louise
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
But having studied the Stuart dynasty - let me tell you I think they are a great argument against that (oh dear, that'll probably start a flame war about Charles, King and Martyr!)
No, just about Martha.
Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
To me, it ain't about a man sitting in a chair, ordering people around "Go get me a beer!" or doing everything, on the contrary, there is delegation of duties. It is about him giving kind and loving guidance to his wife and kids, shepherding them, if you will, in accordance to God's Word and His will for that family.
Because only those with a dick are capable of giving the kind and loving guidance to their spouse and children? Only those with balls can shepherd adequately?
Viki, who thinks that's a load of balls!
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
Girl, you know what I believe since this thread is peppered with my comments.
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on
:
In my understanding of the “rule of law” the whole concept of “lawful authority” rests on the “consent of the governed”.
It sounds to me like we all agree that if a woman consents to the "headship" of her husband, the concept is valid and to be respected, since all parties to the transaction are in agreement.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracia:
It sounds to me like we all agree that if a woman consents to the "headship" of her husband, the concept is valid and to be respected, since all parties to the transaction are in agreement.
Ummm, no, I wouldn't say so.
I'd certainly agree that "the concept" is valid; respected, well, that depends on your definition thereof. As a logical matter, I don't respect the "headship" concept. I respect *people* and not concepts. That is why I can respect many people who espouse concepts I do not respect. And so I wouldn't say it is "to be respected" in that sense. What IS to be respected is the right of free people to submit to their husbands, their dogs, or the Pope.
I can think of circumstances where I would say the submission is neither valid nor respectable. That would be where a free woman submits to a decision that imperils others. Let's say she feels that hitting for discipline is wrong, and he says it's necessary, and then he gets the deciding vote. The kids pay for her "submission". Or where the husband opposes medical treatment on religious grounds and the wife "submits", and the child doesn't get her antibiotics, and so suffers more or even dies.
Posted by troy (# 2516) on
:
Sorry guys.....I REALLY REALLY tried to read every post in detail before posting, but grey stuff started coming out of my ears and my early morning teaching committment is weighing heavily on my shoulders. So, I'm going to post my comment and if it is repetative, please answer with appropriate smack downs.....but please....not in the face.
One theme that I've seen throughout all of these posts is that the concept of what it means to be "head" and "submitting" is primarily informed by modern notions -- particularly modern corporate notions. Most people seem to work off of the idea that it has to do with a transfer of power in SOME degree, and that people have varying ways of following or not following this to idea to obtain enjoyable, working marriages.
I suggest that, as Christians, we should toss out these common ideas of viewing submission and leadership, and instead look to the life and teachings of Christ for appropriate definitions of what it means to be the "head", and what it means to be "submitting."
Of course, looking directly at Christ is not the best analogue for us people, primarily because Christ, as the head, has authority and insight that NO ONE has.
Yet, what Jesus taught about leadership/headship, and modelled for his disciples goes directly against the common notions of leadership/headship that people commonly work by.
The verses that PARTICULARLY stick in my head are
*Luke 10:48 Then he said to them, "Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all--he is the greatest."
*Matt 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
*The entire foot washing scene in John.
*Jesus on the cross.
I'm sure there are others.
Perhaps it is time to see headship and submission not in terms of power, but SOLELY in terms of responsibility and servanthood, because that's how Jesus demonstrated headship and taught his disciples.
When I read Paul's "Submit yourselves, one to another" advice to married people, I imagine Paul turning to me, and [a la Bill Lumburgh in Office Space] saying
"Hi troy...what's happening....mmm...yeah....your fiancee...she'll be submitting to you....so you're gonna need to do is discover as many of her wants and needs as you possibly can, and meet as many of them as you possibly can [without totally burning yourself out]....m'okay? Thanks a bunch"
And ditto for her to me....
Instead of Paul speaking about power in that statement, I see Paul talking more about an ideal of a person not needing to zealously advocate his/her wants and needs to his/her spouse, because the spouse is ready to do everything in his/her power to meet them -- once they are known.... and vice-versa.
I remember a fight I had with my now-fiancee, in which I scored major brownie points and conclusively ended the fight by saying, "You don't have to yell and scream for me to listen. If you tell me your needs, I'm gonna try as hard as I can to meet them." It was one of my finer moments. I'm now up to 3 (finer moments, not brownie points).
Of course, I forward these ideas with two disclaimers:
1) No model will automatically work for everyone, and those people who have a "been there, done that" attitude about this model should not immediately conclude that I'm advocating this model as being automatically superior to however they and their spouse do their marriage
2) Most of my suggestions at 12:25 am are naturally half-assed and require refinement. Refine away!
Since in 7 hours I need to be both verbal AND cheery to a group of high school students who are NOT, I should probably shut up now.
-troy
Posted by locust-eater (# 2940) on
:
quote:
Or where the husband opposes medical treatment on religious grounds and the wife "submits", and the child doesn't get her antibiotics, and so suffers more or even dies.
My parents split up over this very issue- instead of "submitting", my mom left, got my sister the antibiotics she needed, and served dad the divorce papers.
No lie.
So far as I can tell from reading all these posts the "pro-heads" seem to be advocating a headship-which-is-not: it isn't a headship in any real sense, because it turns out that, as Mousethief said above, both parties end up "submitting" to each other. Which might be headship in name but it is not headship in fact.
My wife and I wrote our own vows, because we couldn't stomach that "obediance" crap. We vowed, amongst other things, to be committed to each other's emotional and spiritual health and wholeness. Neither of us is in charge. I have no interest in a woman who obeys me. The thing that made me realize my wife was THE ONE was that she was unafraid to call me out on my mistakes and idiocies and jerk behavior-- i.e., that she would and could challenge me.
She continues to do so, and I am a better man for it.
-le
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
Well, I got married in Wales, where the 'obey' bit hasn't been in the marriage service for years. So no problem!
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
I have found this thread to be very thought-provoking. It has lead to prolonged discussions between Mr Moth and I about whether I do actually submit to him, if he is the head of the family (and if so what this means) and whether such a model can actually be defended in modern society.
I did promise to obey, as I've made clear in earlier posts. And I have been the only woman on this thread to admit to having submitted, albeit in an extreme and unusual circumstance. That is the only time I can remember the concept of submission crossing my mind until this thread started up. I can also see that my decision then could equally well have been based on the fact that I was naturally very upset at the time, was suspicious of my own motives in refusing a caesarean section, and would in any case lean heavily on the advice of someone I love dearly in reaching such a decision. In other words, it may not be very different from the examples given by those who oppose the idea of headship in marriage.
I don't think I'd go to the stake on the notion of the husband as head. But I do strongly defend the 'one flesh' principle of marriage, and the idea of sacrificial love. Unless a man is prepared to leave his father and mother (and his single life in general) and cleave to his wife, and she is prepared to put their needs as a couple before hers as an individual, then the marriage is very likely to fail. This is a deeply unfashionable view in our modern, self-fulfillment society, but I do really believe it to be true.
As for day to day decisions and leadership, only a fool would not leave those to the member of the family best equipped to make them. I reckon I make most of them in our household. I am also quite capable of telling my husband he's wrong, and could not possibly have married a man who wanted me to agree with him on everything. And in fairness to Mr Moth, he wouldn't have married me either if I had been inclined to agree with whatever he thought!
I have no experience of being married to the kind of idiot who would refuse a child antibiotics, so can't say what I'd do about that. But I suspect it would be to tell him the truth in love...
So where does this leave me? Well, I still think there is value in the description of marriage given in Ephesians 5. I do not think men are, in general, better leaders than women, and I am not oppressed by my husband. But within my own marriage, we do sort of practise the headship model, in that my husband feels that he bears the ultimate responsibility for the family before God.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
I am quite impressed that this thread has made it through three pages!
Way to go.
Fundamentally, I would like to opine that Paul was mistaken when he said:
"Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church." Ephesians 5.22
The reason that this is mistaken is that, although Christ is sometimes said to represent a Bridegroom (Matthew 25.1-13) or a Husband (Revelation 21.9), this representation does not carry over into human relationships. That is, even though the relationship between God and the human race is frequently likened in Scripture to the relationship between a husband (God) and wife (humanity or the church)(i.e. Hosea 2), this does NOT mean that a husband represents God in a marriage.
What Paul misunderstood was the fact that since a husband and a wife together make up the "bride and wife of the Lamb", neither one can be said to take the part of the Lamb (curious imagery for headship in any case!). A husband is "the bride" no less than his wife.
I do agree, however, that since husbands and wives have differentiated roles in a marriage, there is an aspect of shared leadership - each taking leadership in different ways. I have read many comments like this above.
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on
:
Thanks Freddy,
I agree with everything you wrote there, but i lack the Biblical imagery to put it that way.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
I will say that threads like this are good for making us all think things out and learn a little bit more, even if we so very much disagree with each other.
I especially like the reminder (and perhaps exhortation since I myself need it) that Jesus Himself washed His Disciples feet, that serving someone is the greatest way to glorified Christ.
I will also something that upset a Sunday morning Class in church once that I said:
"A woman's role in marriage, submission, is a walk in the park compared to men having to love her as Christ loves the church". Me this single women saying that out loud drew some protests from the married women and chuckles from the married men. They did set me straight, and I am eternally grateful, that it is "NOT a cake walk".
[tongue in cheek blurb start]A lady told me that in Gen. 2, God knew men liked to kick back and just have fun, so he made them go against their natural inclination to do (watch sports, drink beer) that and "toil all their days". Women though enjoy controlling everything, so God made them have to submit, also against their natural inclination.[/tongue in cheek blurb over].
Marriage is a beautiful symbol of Christ in his church. It is a mystery that I guess we will not fully understand until we are all other side the "dark glass".
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by locust-eater:
[QUOTE]So far as I can tell from reading all these posts the "pro-heads" seem to be advocating a headship-which-is-not: it isn't a headship in any real sense . . . headship in name but it is not headship in fact.
I'm not!
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
... I said:
"A woman's role in marriage, submission, is a walk in the park compared to men having to love her as Christ loves the church". ... it is "NOT a cake walk".
But I'm tempted to think that it ought to be. If I can (oh dear, here he goes again. Will this be short? Yes. Thanks, carry on) draw from my own experience in hierarchical relationships, being obedient to someone that you trust is vastly easier than being the "paternal authority-figure" -- if you do it right. As I say (somewhere, I'm sure, and if I didn't before, I'm saying it now) over on The Leather Thread, being the one in charge is not, or should not be, all about being able to sit back and let someone else do all the work and be treated like a king; it's about helping the other person in ways that only someone in authority can. I will also say that it does need to be a two-way street even when very real authority is present; I ventured out, as the authority-figure, really for the first time, in recent months, and it nearly burnt me out. Being the subordinate one was vastly easier, at least for me. But both parties have to try to make it work. I wonder if part of the problem for many husbands who try to exercise authority in marriage is that the husbands have never, themselves, learnt obedience. In my own community, the "old-fashioned" (but much more revered) people say that before you can exercise authority, you have to have at least a period of being under authority. This may be particularly relevant here. Perhaps the old system of hierarchy in marriage was easier to work with when society as a whole was hierarchical, and a husband as the head of the household was, himself, used to being under the authority of a chain of lords, dukes, earls, etc. up to the King (and beyond, to God)?
I hope this is helpful; at very least perhaps it puts my own notions into some context.
(That wasn't short at all, you naughty person! Sorry. De nada.)
David
working-at-obedience orthodox guy
Posted by frin (# 9) on
:
I've been doing some research. The Wife of Bath's husband had a Book of Wicked Wives and I have the modern academic equivalent*.
Submitting to ones husband meant that a wife who had made a vow of abstinence with her husband's consent could not keep that vow if her husband forbade her (Gratian, citing Augustine)
A common theme in the medieval writers cited and the church fathers they draw upon is that woman must be subject to man because 1) he was made first and 2) Eve stuffed up so badly that women should still wear the clothes of the penitent, to more fully atone for Eve's sin (Tertullian, De Cultu Feminarum.
I see several problems here. Accepting the submission doctrine removes a woman's right to not consent to sex.
Atoning for the sin of Eve through submission to men, is anachronistic for those of us who would accept that there was original sin, but who don't invest literal meaning into the early books of Genesis.
I have more to say, but my M-in-law's about to arrive so I have to stop typing.
'frin
*Woman Defamed, Woman Defended: An Anthology of Medieval Texts, A. Blamires
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
The really interesting thing about this thread is how much consensus is developing - reading through the responses from married people, they all seem to agree that in practice, the wife's submission to her husband is conditional on him ordering her to do reasonable things - so if he tells you to jump off a cliff or forbids you to feed your child antibiotics you can tell him where to stuff his headship and do what you consider to be The Right Thing. This seems to be the case *whether or not* the married person in question believes that wives should submit to their husbands. And the people who all say that they believe in headship also say that the husband's duty to his wife is to be prepared to sacrifice himself for her, as Christ sacrificed himself for the Church. The obvious extension to this is that if he is not prepared to sacrifice himself for you, then he has broken his marriage covenant and you are no longer bound to obey him... though you may still choose to do so. So, why promise to submit?
In my case, I promised to obey my husband but no longer believe in a literal interpretation of the New Testament verses which seem to support the notion of headship. However, I still consider myself to be bound by my promise to obey my husband because he hasn't done anything to break his part of the covenant.
This is the rest of your life we're talking about, Snow White. The promises you make now are binding for the next fifty or sixty years (barring accident, or Big G blowing the final whistle of course). Don't let any of us talk you into promising something you are not sure about.
Jane R
Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on
:
Just in case anyone's worried, I have retained headship in several areas, notably driving, shooting and all matters of hand/eye co-ordination - at least, I think I've retained headship...when I explained this to 'frin she smiled sweetly and said "yes, dear", which I think is an affirmative....
Anyway. A question. Does "sumbission" in the C21 mean something entirely different from, say, the C19? Is the freedom to choose to submit that is now available only exist because women in the past refused to accept the type of subjection practiced in a society that denied them property rights, legal access to their children after divorce, the right to vote, the right to be educated and a whole host of other things that we just take for granted?
Posted by Claire PB (# 1507) on
:
I have been following this thread with great interest as it in some ways reflects problems i am going through. I have been in a happy and supportive marriage for nearly seven years. i always thought that we did the equality thing pretty well, but somehow, recently, things are going wrong.
My husband is in a very stressful job and works long hours. I make most of the day-to day decisions, cook, clean, work part time, raise three young children and try to be sympathetic when he gets home. Recently though, my husband has becime very critical, and we have some harsh rows at night when he comes in. The other day we had one such row and he said that I contolled everything and that he had had enough.
I have thought long and hard about this and admit that I am a person who likes things to be ordered and organised, but cannot see that I am the person he thinks I am.
If submitting would make him happy, I would do it out of love, but I am frightened of these rows and his anger and don't want to submit as a way of avoiding dealing with other issues.
I am praying for strength and wisdom, and the ability to look at myself honestly, but feel lost and afraid.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Just in case anyone's worried, I have retained headship in several areas, notably driving, shooting and all matters of hand/eye co-ordination -
Dyfrig, remind me not to come within a hundred miles of you.
Moo
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Claire PB:
My husband is in a very stressful job and works long hours. I make most of the day-to day decisions, cook, clean, work part time, raise three young children and try to be sympathetic when he gets home. Recently though, my husband has becime very critical, and we have some harsh rows at night when he comes in. The other day we had one such row and he said that I contolled everything and that he had had enough.
[snip]
I am praying for strength and wisdom, and the ability to look at myself honestly, but feel lost and afraid.
I would strongly urge you and your husband to see a marriage counsellor.
Marriage is not a static state. Every marriage changes as the circumstances of the partners change.
Considering all the tasks you are juggling, it's not surprising you try to control things. I don't see how you could keep your head above water otherwise.
I think you both need to talk to a disinterested party who can help you figure out what's going on and what you can do about it.
Moo
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
Claire PB,
What moo said is very good. I was alarmed too and sad to read your post. There is no excuse for somebody verbally assaulting you. You don't deserve that no matter what you do!
I will ditto what moo said...pls do see somebody about this...preferably a compentant member of the elder clergy in your church.
I will be praying for you, as I am sure others in here will be as well.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Claire PB, what is it about seven years? By far the biggest crisis in my marriage came to the month at seven years. The good news is that we are at nine years now, and our marriage is much stronger for having weathered the storm. The bad news is that it was painful.
I want to echo the advice of those above and say, "Get thee hence to a marriage counselor!" The only time in my life I've been to any counselor was during that seven-year crunch, and then it was under duress. However, it was invaluable to gain that outside perspective.
I would not suggest that you should submit yourself unconditionally to whatever an out-of-balance spouse demands. However, it has been my experience that a gesture of submission/sacrificial love by an innocent person can lead to great conviction in a guilty person.
Finally, be patient. Change is often slow, but it can happen.
scot
Posted by Claire PB (# 1507) on
:
Thank you to Moo and Duchess for your advice. Unfortunately we are in a closed community here,and a little conversation goes a long way!! It is such a help to come here and be anonymous. The idea of suggesting counselling to my husband would seem to him as tho' I were making a mountain out of a molehill.
I will however try and talk to our priest,but I worry that then he will view us and our marriage in a different way, and he is the only priest we have access to.
I am sure that this will all settle down, but I just need advice on how to be different, so that I am not controlling things. If anyone can suggest some literature I'd be grateful.
Posted by Claire PB (# 1507) on
:
Sorry scot, cross posted. Thank you also for your kindness. I guess I don't want to exacerbate the situation any further by "controlling" where we go from here, because wherever it is that we go, I want it to be together.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I hope your husband is only snappy because of his difficult job situation and that it is nothing long-term. When was the last time you both took a holiday? Not knowing your situation I don't know if this is feasible, but if there is anyone who is able to look after your children for a week or two (close communities are supposed to be supportive communities)- it sounds like a holiday for just the two of you together would be a much needed chance to relax, get less tired and fraught, and maybe if you are lucky talk through the problem of what to do long-term.
Good Luck.
Thoughts and prayers.
Posted by Sarajane (# 1642) on
:
Hi all,
Successful marriage is not something I know a lot about, but one thing that has stuck with me from 'families and how to survive them' and that resonates with my own experience is that pregnant women and women with small children need to feel safe, and to have someone looking after them and 'in charge' and looking after them, preferably the father. This enables them to take time out from running the family/ corporation/ world and tune into an infant's mind and needs. At all other times, women generally are the equal of men in leadership skills, but in a biblical society where 10 children and no space between them was the norm, caring, protective, man-in-charge and nurturing, submissive wife focused on baby probably made sense, till the last one grew up, by which time they were both knackered!
Of course the transition from one stage to the other may be rocky. Nobody likes being asked to share the bridge, let alone step off it, and I guess having the position of captain foisted on you is scary too.
sarajane
Posted by Sarajane (# 1642) on
:
Hi Claire,
if you really think you (both?) need a route to behaving differently, perhaps you should try the Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus stuff.
But it sounds like you're both tired and need space and time to be nice to each other tho, perhaps away from home. Don't feel selfish in making the space ( foisting children off on friends or grandparents for a weekend a month? ) If it's with the intention of enabling you to stay sane/ together/ parents it's in everyone's interest. Of course if it was his idea.....
Do it before you get to the point when spending time alone with your husband is a chore you can't face because of the row you'll have.
Thinking and praying for you,
Sarajane
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
and sometimes it is not always feasible to go away for a week; when my children were young we would get a babysitter in for just a few hours one evening a week, so we could get away for a short break, to the pub or for a walk, as a couple. we called it our 'sanity time' and it helped keep us afloat until we could take a longer break when the kids were older.
Hope one of the above options will help you get some time together.........
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on
:
Paul had a mother-in-law???!!!
Peter certainly did, and she was healed of a fever by Jesus-and promptly got up and put on the dinner.
I am pretty sure that the available evidence indicates that Paul was unmarried. Certainly, in one of his letters he rather grudgingly allowed that if one had to marry, it was better to do so than to burn. He remarked that in his view it would be better to be like himself, who had no inclination to marry.
On the husband as head, it reminds me of my own marriage to my atheist huband. He tried to up the ante by insisting on an obedience clause during the wedding seremony, having taken the line that as a (supposed) believer that I had to take the (biblical) line of wifely submission. The severe old priest who married us (and who had already baptised our first child) replied tartly "Certainly not. You would only try to lead her against her inclination into sin".
P.S 24 years later we are still married (just). And I am convinced that the notion of headship is not only wrong but downright bloody dangerous.
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on
:
There is no scriptural reference to Paul's mother-in-law, either in Acts or in his letters.
Peter certainly did have a mother-in-law who was reported to have been cured of a fever by Jesus-and who then got up and cooked dinner.
Paul himself appears to have taken rather a dim view of marriage as being a necessary evil. He complained that he did not see why the brethren could not remain unmarried as he did-he did grudgingly allow that it was better to marry than to burn.
As has already been pointed out,the whole "headship" notion is not relevant now that we as believers live in a time ansd culture where woman are no longer regarded as chattels, breeders and bed-warmers, to be discarded on the grounds of sterility, diminished sex-appeal or worse.
If we are all made in the image of God it makes no sense in a marital relationship that possession of the dangly bits automatically confers headship.
Sounds like a threatened male to me...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Just reviving this horse to pick up a bit of discussion in Purgatory. The more relevant bits of that discussion are:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
the equally abusive though less physically so, model of "Christian marriage" where the woman is submissive to her husband).
This statement seems way over the top. What do you mean?
Exactly what it says. Any relationship where one party is considered inferior to the other based solely on their gender is IMO abusive. If there are clear differences in ability then that would be a basis for delineation of responsibility (eg: if the husband is useless at making financial decisions then it's only common sense that his wife takes up that responsibility, though not without consultation over big decisions). A marriage is a union of equals, anything else is a distortion of the gospel declaration that "in Christ there is neither male nor female", and at the very least open to considerable abuse.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A marriage is a union of equals, anything else is a distortion of the gospel declaration that "in Christ there is neither male nor female"
I agree wholeheartedly with this, and am somewhat bemused by the implication that submission implies inferiority. Doesn't God the Son submit to God the Father? Yet one is not in the least inferior to the other. And where does the abuse come in, exactly?
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Where would the abuse come in?
From hubby daring to consider himself her protector/pillar/guide/support?
Yes.
Husband and wife should protect, guide and support each other. For any one person in the relationship to usurp that role is an abuse.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Where would the abuse come in?
From hubby daring to consider himself her protector/pillar/guide/support?
Yes.
Husband and wife should protect, guide and support each other. For any one person in the relationship to usurp that role is an abuse.
Well I was happy to head down the horsey path but if you want to keep the discussion going here, fine.
In what sense does the husband protecting, guiding and supporting the wife consitute a usurpation? No limit on the wife's freedom is implied here.
(And similarly, in what sense does God the Father's behaviour towards the submissive Son usurp the Son's role?)
Now ... to continue the discussion
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In what sense does the husband protecting, guiding and supporting the wife consitute a usurpation? No limit on the wife's freedom is implied here.
It's a usurpation if it prevents the wife from exercising her role of protecting, guiding and supporting her husband. It's a mutual thing, both should do the protecting, guiding and supporting thing for each other. It's certainly a usurpation if, as is sadly far too common, if that "authority" is used by the husband to prevent his wife from using her God-given abilities - eg: in telling her to stay home and keep house rather than go out to work.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
Thanks Alan.
I will come back to this thread at some point. Right now, though, my wife has told me I need to clean up a part of the house for our new piano* - the first I've actually owned in 20 years, it's very exciting!
Catch you in about 12 hours.
*no, seriously! It's not just a thread-related joke.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Interesting that you brought up that peculiarly Sydney-ite comparison of the subordination of the Son (eternally?) to the Father which the Jensons and the Sydney Diocese have used for all sorts of ways to suppress women both in their personal relationships and the church. And some have said that that particular twist on trinitarianism smells strongly of Arius. If I hadn't even known to what sexist purposes that spin on the Trinity was being put to use, I'd had argued that Christ was necessarily subordinated to the Father in becoming human, but in his eternal divinity there is no subordination.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
My own position hasn't changed in this matter since my post on this thread of 03 July, 2002.
Just an update...
David
PS: I'm surprised at the notion that the Son is not eternally subordinated to the Father; I understand that subordination (and the Spirit likewise to the Father at least) to be the traditional and orthodox position.
[ 29. March 2005, 15:02: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In what sense does the husband protecting, guiding and supporting the wife consitute a usurpation? No limit on the wife's freedom is implied here.
It's a usurpation if it prevents the wife from exercising her role of protecting, guiding and supporting her husband. It's a mutual thing, both should do the protecting, guiding and supporting thing for each other. It's certainly a usurpation if, as is sadly far too common, if that "authority" is used by the husband to prevent his wife from using her God-given abilities - eg: in telling her to stay home and keep house rather than go out to work.
I think it's also an usurpation if the husband assumes that because he is the husband he necessarily knows what is best for his wife, regardless of her tastes, desires, aspirations, etc. There is a strong parallel there to situations of spiritual abuse in churches where church leaders "believe" they know God's will for people better than the people themselves.
To come back to something Vicki Pollard said on the Purgatory thread:
quote:
... but I am saying that it would probably be very difficult to prove it was non-consensual, because sadly, it isn't. That's one of the most difficult things to deal with when working with abuse victims.
I think that comes dangerously close to saying that the only people who get abused are those who consent to being abused. I definitely don't agree with this. The whole point is that people misuse or abuse their trust to get them into a position where they can use them anyway they like. This happens in churches by leaders saying that if they disobey they are disobeying God, and in marriages, exploits the belief that a woman should be submitted to her husband.
It can often take a long time for people to realise they are being abused and I certainly don't think it is helpful to give them the message that they are responsible for the way in which they have been abused.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
I disagree. There's a difference between being guilty of the abuse you're suffering (insane) and acknowledging that you have allowed yourself to be abused by not leaving (essential to rebuilding self-esteem). I see the latter as empowering.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
There's a difference between being guilty of the abuse you're suffering (insane) and acknowledging that you have allowed yourself to be abused by not leaving (essential to rebuilding self-esteem). I see the latter as empowering.
Had not thought of it in those terms and very thought-provoking
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I disagree. There's a difference between being guilty of the abuse you're suffering (insane) and acknowledging that you have allowed yourself to be abused by not leaving (essential to rebuilding self-esteem). I see the latter as empowering.
Where does the insanity come into it?
I still think there's a difference, and an important one between getting someone to acknowledge that they have allowed themselves to be abused by not leaving (and I still think that part of the abuse is getting them to believe that this is not an option) and making them responsible for the abuse. I don't see how piling guilt onto people empowers them.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In what sense does the husband protecting, guiding and supporting the wife consitute a usurpation? No limit on the wife's freedom is implied here.
It's a usurpation if it prevents the wife from exercising her role of protecting, guiding and supporting her husband. It's a mutual thing, both should do the protecting, guiding and supporting thing for each other. It's certainly a usurpation if, as is sadly far too common, if that "authority" is used by the husband to prevent his wife from using her God-given abilities - eg: in telling her to stay home and keep house rather than go out to work.
Alan, I think this is a mis-characterisation of the nature of biblical authority. If you believe this is how leadership operates, it's not surprising that you would have problems with its application to a marriage.
However, note the way in which the Lord Jesus exercises his rule:
quote:
originally posted by Luke:
Luke 22:24 A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
Luke 22:25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
Luke 22:26 But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.
Luke 22:27 For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.
quote:
originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Interesting that you brought up that peculiarly Sydney-ite comparison of the subordination of the Son (eternally?) to the Father which the Jensons and the Sydney Diocese have used for all sorts of ways to suppress women both in their personal relationships and the church.
This is an unsubtantiated and potentially libellous statement. The Jensen [note spelling] families are known to me personally and I completely reject your characterisation of their relationships.
As for your characterisation of Sydney trinitarian theology, you are in error if you believe this view to be anything less than classic Athanasian teaching. In fact, I consider the trinitarian question to be of far greater significance than the male-female issue, and don't even see them as necessarily linked — that is, there are scholars who believe that the Son is eternally relationally subordinate to the Father whilst insisting that there is no subordination within Male-Female relationships. The point of my appeal was to demonstrate that submission need not imply inferiority — a point which remains true of the Father and the Son even if this subordination only occurred during the earthly incarnation of the Son (a suggestion I reject and would like to see you defend).
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Gordon, I want to apologize for writing unclearly. I didn't mean to cast aspersions on the personal relationships of the Jensen men with women. I know nothing of their private lives which I'm sure are full of good relationships. I was speaking of the energetic efforts that their philosophies encourage in their flock to limit the roles of Christian women in church and home. The bar to ordination of women and the heavy-handed insistance on the submission of wives to their husbands down to minute discussions of how important it might be for women to cover their heads in church was what I was refering to. Most of the impressions I got on the Sydney culture on these things were gleaned by purusal of the discussion boards of sydneyanglicans.com last year. I stopped lurking there since it made me feel too irritated too often.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Gordon, I want to apologize for writing unclearly. I didn't mean to cast aspersions on the personal relationships of the Jensen men with women.
Hi Lyda*Rose and thanks for the apology and clarification. I think we will disagree on some of the other stuff but this is clear and helpful. Sorry for the slow response as I broke my keyboard yesterday and could read but not write — the computer equivalent of laryngitis!
quote:
minute discussions of how important it might be for women to cover their heads in church was what I was refering to.
Interesting! I know many Sydney Anglican churches and only one small one where the wearing of hats is encouraged, funnily enough not by the rector but by an influential American lay monk in the congregation. I know because I was nearly the rector there one time! Had I gone there I assure you that I would've gently suggested that lovely as the hats looked (the floppy terry-towelling one was my favourite) they were not to be seen as a biblical or Anglican imperative.
I believe the Brethren are more conservative on this, as my Brethren aunt both wore hats to church and made them for others.
I assure you that a number of the more extreme contributions re hatwearing, creationism and the usual dead horses that you might find on sydneyanglicans.net forums, while certainly believed sincerely by those who made the contributions, would not represent the mainstream thinking of the Sydney Anglican leaders I deal with.
On the other issues of headship and women's ordination that you or others raised I don't mind fielding questions as someone who writes from a conservative evangelical position as developed within Sydney Anglicanism, so long as you recognise that they are my views and that I would place myself up the more conservative end of the sydney spectrum, whilst resisting the label 'fundamentalist'.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
Where does the insanity come into it?
"insane", meaning, it would be insane to blame a person for their abuse
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
I still think there's a difference, and an important one between getting someone to acknowledge that they have allowed themselves to be abused by not leaving (and I still think that part of the abuse is getting them to believe that this is not an option) and making them responsible for the abuse. I don't see how piling guilt onto people empowers them.
Not sure why you emphasized this -- it's the very distinction I was trying to make. Of course they are not responsible for the abuse, but once they realize that they don't have to stay, they are responsible for leaving and responsible for not enabling the abuser to continue the "apologize / be sweet for a few days / start abusing again" cycle. And that is in my mind an empowering message. I've seen this in action through representing people pro bono who have fled abuse and sought asylum here. So I'm not just talking out of my hat on this one.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Back to headship: Gordon: have you actually read this thread here? It's not very long and contains many thought-provoking posts.
[ 31. March 2005, 19:04: Message edited by: Laura ]
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
I'd be really interested to hear from the people most involved in the thread back nearly 3 years ago -- how their thinking on this has gone on in the ensuing time.
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
Where does the insanity come into it?
"insane", meaning, it would be insane to blame a person for their abuse
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
I still think there's a difference, and an important one between getting someone to acknowledge that they have allowed themselves to be abused by not leaving (and I still think that part of the abuse is getting them to believe that this is not an option) and making them responsible for the abuse. I don't see how piling guilt onto people empowers them.
Not sure why you emphasized this -- it's the very distinction I was trying to make. Of course they are not responsible for the abuse, but once they realize that they don't have to stay, they are responsible for leaving and responsible for not enabling the abuser to continue the "apologize / be sweet for a few days / start abusing again" cycle. And that is in my mind an empowering message. I've seen this in action through representing people pro bono who have fled abuse and sought asylum here. So I'm not just talking out of my hat on this one.
OK, I agree with all of that. Previous posters to my mind came dangerously close to making abuse victims responsible for the abuse they suffered. This can be very subtle. I work with post abuse sufferers in a different context from the legal one, and I can tell you that years later many feel guilty for having been abused, and that it isn't at all empowering.
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
I only remark on this thread, which I've read for the first time, because it strikes me, rather ruefully, that there's more modernisation and adapting to different cultural conditions in this thread than in any of the arguments liberals have put forward in relation to St Paul's words on homosexuality.
I would suggest that the sort of headship described by many posters here - mutuality but with the man being the tie-breaker in the case of disputes - is barely recognisable as headship when set against the sort of behaviour that was expected by St Paul of a husband in first century Rome or Greece or Ephesus. "Submissive in everything" is what St Paul requires of wives and that would have been obvious from the wife's demeanour and their everyday behaviour.
I found the arguments in this article on Catholic Apologetics International a far more convincing exegesis of what St Paul was actually talking about than the pale shadow of submission that isn't really submission that's been talked about on this thread.
Now it's fine by me if you don't want to follow what St Paul was actually talking about - I don't either - but to say that he was really describing some kind of mutual submission or servanthood doesn't make any sense to me. But the article explains the arguments, and other biblical references of which I'm sure we have as many as on homosexuality, plus the views of the Church Fathers, much better than I can.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
(Warning: wild Trinitarian tangent follows)
quote:
Originally post-scripted by ChastMastr:
PS: I'm surprised at the notion that the Son is not eternally subordinated to the Father; I understand that subordination (and the Spirit likewise to the Father at least) to be the traditional and orthodox position.
Question arising from genuine ignorance: what does it mean for the Son to be eternally subordinate to the Father anyway? Surely, since Both are all-good, all-wise and all-knowing, They would have the same opinion as Each Other on any given matter anyway and there would never be a need for subordination?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Question arising from genuine ignorance: what does it mean for the Son to be eternally subordinate to the Father anyway? Surely, since Both are all-good, all-wise and all-knowing, They would have the same opinion as Each Other on any given matter anyway and there would never be a need for subordination?
I'm not sure how to explain. It's not a matter of "need" for one thing, as if God were trying to sort out the best mode of intra-Trinitarian organisation and hierarchy worked best. But the Son is eternally the self-expression of the Father, as I understand it, being eternally (time-transcendently, and/or outside of time altogether, rather than over and over again or continuously within time) "spoken" -- but while Love is eternally exchanged between all the Persons of the Trinity, the Son/Word does not "speak" the Father. (And the question of whether the Holy Spirit is expressed by the Father and the Son, or just by the Father, is the whole thing the filioque clause depends on.)
David
welcomes correction in the event of error, of course
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
The Father is the eternal cause of the Son and the Spirit in a way that neither the Son or the Spirit is the cause of the Father. The Son is eternally begotten, and the Spirit eternally proceeds. Thus the Son and Spirit are subordinate ontologically, albeit not in glory or majesty etc.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Oh. I get it now (insofar as anything to do with the Trinity can be "got"). Thanks, Chastmastr and Mousethief.
But isn't that a different kind of subordination to the husband / wife thing?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
I would suggest that the sort of headship described by many posters here - mutuality but with the man being the tie-breaker in the case of disputes - is barely recognisable as headship when set against the sort of behaviour that was expected by St Paul of a husband in first century Rome or Greece or Ephesus.
I am wondering what you think that would be exactly, Weed. But I agree to the extent that there seems to be a nervousness about putting into practice some of what Paul is suggesting, without giving away what I think that is in too much detail
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
I would suggest that the sort of headship described by many posters here - mutuality but with the man being the tie-breaker in the case of disputes - is barely recognisable as headship when set against the sort of behaviour that was expected by St Paul of a husband in first century Rome or Greece or Ephesus.
I am wondering what you think that would be exactly, Weed. But I agree to the extent that there seems to be a nervousness about putting into practice some of what Paul is suggesting, without giving away what I think that is in too much detail
I thought what I was saying was clear enough. If you hold St Paul's 1st century understanding of sexuality to be God's truth then you ought to be consistent and apply St Paul's 1st century view of what a good wife is too without any regard to, or concession to, later cultural and social understanding of the nature and role of women. That goes far, far beyond merely preventing women entering the priesthood and requires, as it plainly says, "submission in everything". The world will regard 1st century attitudes, even slightly enlightened ones like St Paul's, as oppressive but if it's what God wants...
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
I thought what I was saying was clear enough. If you hold St Paul's 1st century understanding of sexuality to be God's truth then you ought to be consistent and apply St Paul's 1st century view of what a good wife is too without any regard to, or concession to, later cultural and social understanding of the nature and role of women.
Do we actually know what the first century understanding of sexuality to be?
On the other hand, we have access to what Paul thought through his words, and his practice was so flexible as to defy easy categorisation. He would have been a thoroughly confusing person to follow around from a distance:
eg 1Cor. 9:19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.
1Cor. 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
1Cor. 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
1Cor. 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
Paul appears to have been one of the least culture-bound individuals we know of from that era, demonstrating even more flexibility of practice than Jesus (who followed the Jewish law in every detail - or so he claims in Mt 5:17).
[ 03. April 2005, 04:23: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Do we actually know what the first century understanding of sexuality to be?
We know a great deal about life in the Ancient World.
quote:
On the other hand, we have access to what Paul thought through his words, and his practice was so flexible as to defy easy categorisation. He would have been a thoroughly confusing person to follow around from a distance:
(snipped text of 1Cor. 9)
Paul appears to have been one of the least culture-bound individuals we know of from that era, demonstrating even more flexibility of practice than Jesus (who followed the Jewish law in every detail - or so he claims in Mt 5:17).
I am not playing your random prooftexts game although I will happily debate the meaning of 1 Corinthians 9 and Matthew 5:17 in Kerygmania. If, however, you are suggesting he was flexible on what constituted God-approved sexuality and male-female relationships then I have misunderstood your position on both matters.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
We know a great deal about life in the Ancient World.
Right ... enough to know that you could be monogamous, you could be polygamous, you could fornicate at random, you could be celibate, you could be homosexual, you could be incestuous, or almost any variation inbetween.
quote:
If, however, you are suggesting he was flexible on what constituted God-approved sexuality and male-female relationships then I have misunderstood your position on both matters.
But weren't you trying to link Paul's understanding to 1st century cultural norms in some way? Which I dispute. Or OK, let's be gentler and say that I still don't know what you mean.
[ 03. April 2005, 12:41: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
We know a great deal about life in the Ancient World.
Right ... enough to know that you could be monogamous, you could be polygamous, you could fornicate at random, you could be celibate, you could be homosexual, you could be incestuous, or almost any variation inbetween.
True enough if you were a man, at least in the Greco-Roman world though a good Jew would have their life more restricted. If you were a woman your choice was to be a dutiful, obedient, subservient wife to whoever your father thought would be a suitable husband.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
True enough if you were a man, at least in the Greco-Roman world though a good Jew would have their life more restricted. If you were a woman your choice was to be a dutiful, obedient, subservient wife to whoever your father thought would be a suitable husband.
I agree that that traditional options were strongly enforced in many places; its not as though the alternatives were unknown, however, even for women. Even in a tight and legalistic society such as Samaria we still find a woman who has been married five times, and the man she is with currently is not her husband (John 4). Yes, I grant that she is a pariah, but then again even the most "enlightened" Western cultures would raise their eyebrows at such a situation.
At the other end of the social spectrum we meet women of independent means (or at least, with sufficient control over resources for it not to be an issue) supporting Jesus out of their own funds (Luke 8:2-3), giving him extravagant gifts (John 12:3) or being patrons of the early church (Lydia in Acts 16:14).
Then again we are aware of temple prostitutes, and women who "were consumed with passion for one another" (Rom 1:27—of interest here too is Paul's summary statement in Rom 1:32 that this lesbian behaviour, along with a range of attitudes and actions, actually appears to meet with approval in some first century circles). And there were enough women around of dubious moral standing that they could be seen and recognised as part of a class (the woman who anoints Jesus feet with her tears in Luke 7:36f, other similar situations).
It is not my claim that every type of behaviours and lifestyles within this range of cultural options was necessarily common, or even socially endorsed in every case (although I imagine that the women with money and power of generous character would've received all the respect that usually attaches to known philanthropists).
It is my claim that this range of examples from the biblical literature were sufficiently known and recognised by first century readers so as not to appear completely risible, outrageous and literally in-credible; and sufficiently common so as not to require further explanation.
I note further that both Jesus and Paul sometimes endorse what would've been seen as a 'traditional' verdict of society on such women, and sometimes radically overhaul it, much to the scandal of their contemporaries and even, in some cases, their friends (witness the disciples' muted astonishment at Jesus' treatment of the woman of Samaria).
So again I ask: what is actually meant by the assertion that Paul had a typical first century understanding of women, their sexuality, and what was expected in terms of their submission? If we are arguing from the available cultural ooptions that we are aware of from the New testament, I don't think the answer is clear at all.
[ 03. April 2005, 20:43: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So again I ask: what is actually meant by the assertion that Paul had a typical first century understanding of women, their sexuality, and what was expected in terms of their submission?
I don't know who you think asserted that but it wasn't me.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
Hi Weed,
Possibly I was reading too much into your statement that
quote:
If you hold St Paul's 1st century understanding of sexuality to be God's truth then you ought to be consistent and apply St Paul's 1st century view of what a good wife is too without any regard to, or concession to, later cultural and social understanding of the nature and role of women.
If you weren't meaning to link Paul's understanding to a 1st century understanding, why include the words "1st century" in this statement? Especially as contrasted with "later cultural and social understanding", which seems to suggest a time-boundness to Paul's views?
Sorry if I misunderstood, but could you clarify? Ta.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So again I ask: what is actually meant by the assertion that Paul had a typical first century understanding of women, their sexuality, and what was expected in terms of their submission? If we are arguing from the available cultural ooptions that we are aware of from the New testament, I don't think the answer is clear at all.
Actually, I agree that Paul was atypical for his society (whether Greek or Jewish). There was an interesting article in Third Way a month or so back by our own Stephen Tomkins making exactly that point (I suspect you'll find more detail in his book on Paul). The point being that Paul was being extremely radical in saying "I permit women to learn in silence" - the "in silence" wouldn't have raised an eye-brow though that's where we have problems from a modern perspective, it's the whole concept of letting women learn at all that was atypical. There's a good argument to say that Paul (and Jesus) took a big step from the position of their day towards more equal treatment for women. Are we to stop where they got to, or continue what they started?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So again I ask: what is actually meant by the assertion that Paul had a typical first century understanding of women, their sexuality, and what was expected in terms of their submission? If we are arguing from the available cultural ooptions that we are aware of from the New testament, I don't think the answer is clear at all.
Actually, I agree that Paul was atypical for his society (whether Greek or Jewish).
<snip interesting theory>
There's a good argument to say that Paul (and Jesus) took a big step from the position of their day towards more equal treatment for women. Are we to stop where they got to, or continue what they started?
If they really were atypical and brilliant creative thinkers—and I agree they were—then they could've come up with the fully monty of women's rights, gay ordination, and a zillion possibilities undreamt of by us, or their contemporaries. that they didn't is at least as significant as the steps to overhaul they did take.
I mean, Jesus wasn't bothered about shooting crater-sized holes in Jewish legalism when he wanted to, eg the Sermon on the Mount.
Anyway, isn't the view you outlined at best an argument from silence?
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Hi Weed,
Possibly I was reading too much into your statement that
quote:
If you hold St Paul's 1st century understanding of sexuality to be God's truth then you ought to be consistent and apply St Paul's 1st century view of what a good wife is too without any regard to, or concession to, later cultural and social understanding of the nature and role of women.
If you weren't meaning to link Paul's understanding to a 1st century understanding, why include the words "1st century" in this statement? Especially as contrasted with "later cultural and social understanding", which seems to suggest a time-boundness to Paul's views?
St Paul was of the 1st century and had 1st century knowledge of physiology, biology, human anatomy, human behaviour and the science of the physical world. There are things about God's creation that we have discovered by simply observing it in the centuries since then that St Paul did not know. Is that such a remarkable statement?
Now you can take the line that what St Paul says both about wives and about sexuality are the universally-applicable, then, now and forever, words of God. You certainly seem to take that view with regard to the bible generally and the principle of headship in particular. But in one of your earlier contributions to this thread you said you don't hold head-covering as an imperative. I would like to know why you depart from God-breathed scripture in this way before I say any more.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If they really were atypical and brilliant creative thinkers—and I agree they were—then they could've come up with the fully monty of women's rights, gay ordination, and a zillion possibilities undreamt of by us, or their contemporaries. that they didn't is at least as significant as the steps to overhaul they did take.
There's a limit to how far even the most brilliant of thinkers can go and still have an audience listening to them. Even today visionaries for equal rights for homosexuals are painted as dangerous liberals by many parts of society. If Jesus or Paul had preached a message of equality for all in the way we'd like to see it today (ie: in more practical terms than generic platitudes about there being no differences for we are one in Christ) then they'd have lost almost all their followers (if not all of them) with them being decried as lunatics.
quote:
I mean, Jesus wasn't bothered about shooting crater-sized holes in Jewish legalism when he wanted to, eg the Sermon on the Mount.
You mean things like "I have not come to abolish the Law ... but fulfill them. Not the smallest stroke of a pen will disappear"? Rather than shoot "crater sized holes in Jewish legalism" the Sermon on the Mount actually does the opposite, it reinforces it. Now what is needed is "righteousness that purpasses that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law". No longer is it enough to simply not kill anyone, you need to avoid getting angry with them. etc
quote:
Anyway, isn't the view you outlined at best an argument from silence?
It's more an extrapolation of the evidence. Admittedly, like all extrapolations, it's into what the text doesn't explicitely say. But, it is based on the words of Christ and Paul as much as the arguments of those who wish to stay within the known words.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
Now it's fine by me if you don't want to follow what St Paul was actually talking about - I don't either - but to say that he was really describing some kind of mutual submission or servanthood doesn't make any sense to me.
Now I'd see passages like this as a clincher.
quote:
From Ephesians 5
21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
(at the start of a section where what this means is unpacked for wives, husbands, children, parents, slaves and masters).
quote:
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
...
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.
The "love" in v25 seems to be a subset of the "submit" in v21, just as the "obey" in 6v1 and 6v5 are.
Just that the way that this mutual submission works for men and women in marriage is different; it is different again for parents / children and slaves / masters. But we are all to submit to each other.
[ 04. April 2005, 09:06: Message edited by: Custard. ]
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
The "love" in v25 seems to be a subset of the "submit" in v21, just as the "obey" in 6v1 and 6v5 are.
And this is what I say is creative modern exegesis. Here's the chapter in Ephesians in full. I won't rehearse the arguments set out in the article I referred to earlier but I will point out that the traditional understanding of women submitting to men (and not vice versa) has been the biblical justification for laws in Western Europe governing the status of wives ever since the 1st century until very recently. You have to do some very dodgy interpretation of the analogy between Christ and the Church to argue that St Paul is talking about mutual submission here. That's certainly not how it's been understood for the best part of 2000 years.
But as I said earlier, it isn't the substance of the idea of headship I'm really concerned with. I am simply pointing out that whatever conservatives say, they have re-evaluated what St Paul says to take account of a modern understanding of women in society and have found a novel interpretation to justify it. This is precisely what they accuse liberals of doing on the matter of homosexuality, except that liberals are up front about the way they interpret and apply biblical teaching. Well I accuse conservatives of picking and choosing which bits of the bible to adhere to today.
Just one further point on the question of whether inequality means inferiority. Have you ever heard a man say, "And this is Miss Smith. She runs the place and I would be completely lost without her"? I have, many, many times in all sorts of situations. We are asked to believe that Miss Smith isn't inferior, she is just different. And Miss Smith, this keyworker, the lynchpin without whom the whole organisation would fall apart, is paid a pittance in comparison with the man if she's paid at all and her name will appear at the very end of any publicity about the organisation, if at all. So here's a general plea to think what you are saying if you are one of those people who goes round patronising women like that. You will be judged by your actions not your words.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
Responding to Weed:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
But in one of your earlier contributions to this thread you said you don't hold head-covering as an imperative. I would like to know why you depart from God-breathed scripture in this way before I say any more.
Really, Weed, if I hadn’t picked you as a kind and thoughtful person from reading your other posts, I could almost swear that you were trying to ask a question to make me appear confused, foolish and inconsistent
If this is your plan then quite likely you will succeed, but it will be Pyrrhic as my shortcomings are already well and truly in the public domain.
However before I stumble over my own feet may I wonder aloud as to how this issue helps your case? You’ve said that the issue for you is not that Paul was culture-bound but rather that we now know far more about
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
physiology, biology, human anatomy, human behaviour and the science of the physical world.
(which actually sounds like it’s talking somewhat about culture-boundness, but there we are)
But how, may I ask, is hat-wearing affected by greater knowledge in any of these areas? Again, it makes me wonder why you ask about the issue, as the wearing of hats doesn’t seem to be modified by being more aware of physiology, biology, anatomy, behaviour or the physical sciences.
Anyway here is my take on it FWIW. 1 Corinthians 11 doesn’t so much encourage hat-wearing as the covering of the head of the woman, and the reason given is not cultural or biological but because “kataischunei tehn kephalehn autou”, “she dishonours her head” (1 Cor 11:5), in this context, her husband: and “dia tous angelous”, “on account of the angels” [poss ‘messengers’]” (1 Cor 11:10). Without delving too deeply into what these reasons actually mean and how they work, they appear to be linked to the order of creation itself; and not to conditions prevailing in first century Corinth. Given also that the alternative to head-covering for the woman is “keirastho”; that she cut her hair or shave her head (which, Paul adds, is “aischron”, “disgraceful” — so don’t do it), the issue seems to be one of physical appearance of the woman as distinct from that of the man.
One commonly suggested interpretation amongst evangelicals is that the woman was being told not to dress like a temple prostitute (esp the head shaving). This is an appealing idea because as an instruction it makes sense, given what we know of Paul’s negative attitude to sexual immorality and its prevalence in the Corinthian church. Unfortunately the passage itself provides no evidence for this whatsoever, so it seems to me to require specialist knowledge and, because it uses a cultural reconstruction to reinterpret the text is simply theological liberalism dressed up as evangelical scholarship.
However I notice in v 16 that Paul gives as one of his reasons for insisting on this that “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” In other words, Paul now appeals to current practice within all the churches of God. From this I take it that Paul himself is appealing to conditions prevailing at the time of writing; and that were those conditions otherwise, the nature of the appeal made might be different.
I conclude from this that in the 21st century, where head covering amongst women in churches is practised almost nowhere (at least in the West), the specific application is no longer relevant. OK, so far this looks like bog-standard liberalism and twisting out from the plain meaning of the text. But I think the difference is this: that the reason for altering the contemporary application is, that Paul himself links the application to the current practice of the churches. The current practice has changed, therefore the application changes.
I think I’ve answered your question as best I can, but there remains possibly some curiosity as to what contemporary application would be. I believe that the answer is that we should retain Paul’s concern for physical signifiers in our dress of the difference between men and women: that is, that a deliberate attempt to obliterate the distinction by having women dress exactly like men in every respect is an indication that male authority is being usurped, and therefore not good. Oh, and before you ask, yes women are allowed to wear trousers or jeans on this view, and it’s not compulsory for them to wear dresses — unless the wearing of trousers or jeans signifies in that context a rebellion against the created order.
Now I may not have got the passage exactly right, but I hope I’ve at least avoided the charge of trying to find ways not to listen to what God is saying to us here — others can judge that.
Oh, and BTW I normally agree with Custard but I find myself agreeing with you, in this instance, that the reading of Ephesians 5 offered
quote:
is creative modern exegesis.
But you wanted my comment on 1 Cor 11, so I hope that is useful.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
Oh well.
I was thinking along the lines that Christ's "submission" to the church was his loving and self-sacrificial death for her, and this was the model for the husband's "submitting to" / loving their wives.
5v21 does look like it summarises/controls 5v22-6v9 though (and that's not original on my part).
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
G'day Custard,
sorry, hope my comment didn't offend you — I just think that although submission is a key idea, it doesn't mean that the husband submits to the wife any more than the parents obey the children or the masters obey the slaves.
I agree that the way Christ serves the church is the way the husband serves the wife, that seems spot on to me and obvious from the passage, solving a lot of problems with wrong ideas of authority.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
Just one further point on the question of whether inequality means inferiority.
As I have not observed anyone on this thread sugessting that women are not equal to men, I'm not sure what relevance this has.
I have seen people argue that men and women are not the same, but that, IMHO, is entirely different.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Without delving too deeply into what these reasons actually mean and how they work, they appear to be linked to the order of creation itself; and not to conditions prevailing in first century Corinth.
<snip>
unless the wearing of trousers or jeans signifies in that context a rebellion against the created order.
Both of these portions of your post appear to try and draw something from the Genesis accounts of the creation of humanity, with the implication that at the beginning women were submissive to men. Or are you simply affirming that men and women are different? Which is undeniable, and I don't see how choice of clothing, hair style etc will change that.
Interestingly the Genesis accounts don't seem to imply any subservience in the relationship between Adam and Eve. At least, not until after the Fall where God imposes such a subservient role of the woman as a penalty for her sin - and I wouldn't want to define practice between Christians based on a penalty for sin that Christ has paid for us.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
sorry, hope my comment didn't offend you — I just think that although submission is a key idea, it doesn't mean that the husband submits to the wife any more than the parents obey the children or the masters obey the slaves.
I agree that the way Christ serves the church is the way the husband serves the wife, that seems spot on to me and obvious from the passage, solving a lot of problems with wrong ideas of authority.
Agreed. The question is whether Christ's service of the church, parents' not embittering their children, and masters' good treatment of slaves count as "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ". I think they probably do - that for a husband, submitting to his wife out of reverence for Christ means exercising self-sacrificial love in headship. For a parent, submitting to their child out of reverence for Christ means not provoking them and bringing them up well.
Otherwise, v21 would seem to contradict what follows. On reflection though, it is possible that v21 is saying "submit to one another in the ways you should (wives, children, slaves)" then expanding that to show how that submission is good.
What do you understand v21 to mean?
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Interestingly the Genesis accounts don't seem to imply any subservience in the relationship between Adam and Eve. At least, not until after the Fall where God imposes such a subservient role of the woman as a penalty for her sin - and I wouldn't want to define practice between Christians based on a penalty for sin that Christ has paid for us.
I think what happened at the fall was that the relationship was twisted, so that both abused their positions - the woman desiring her husband's position and the husband ruling over the wife.
Genesis 2:23 with Adam naming his wife can be read to imply some degree of authority, although it is clear it is among equals. It is definitely interesting though that he doesn't name her "Eve" until after the curses of chapter 3.
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
Just one further point on the question of whether inequality means inferiority.
As I have not observed anyone on this thread sugessting that women are not equal to men, I'm not sure what relevance this has.
I have seen people argue that men and women are not the same, but that, IMHO, is entirely different.
I didn't express that very well, did I? In fact what I said was a nonsense. I was trying to tackle the idea that has been expressed on this thread that the fact that a woman is always under the authority of her husband doesn't mean she is inferior.
The trouble is, women have been judged as inferior in every mainstream culture in history since the year dot so the mantra "of course you are equal, you're just different and that's why you can't do the things we can do and have to submit to our authority" doesn't wash. St Paul didn't think it either. He thought that all were subject to Christ but in the woman's case there was an interim authority in the shape of a man.
Am in the process of constructing a reply to Gordon but it's taking a little while.
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
Apologies for the length of this. It has probably got a bit disjointed but I hope you can see the argument. I tried to stick to the main point I was raising but it has inevitably got into scriptural interpretation. I was deferring to the structure and content of your post.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
But in one of your earlier contributions to this thread you said you don't hold head-covering as an imperative. I would like to know why you depart from God-breathed scripture in this way before I say any more.
Really, Weed, if I hadn’t picked you as a kind and thoughtful person from reading your other posts, I could almost swear that you were trying to ask a question to make me appear confused, foolish and inconsistent
If this is your plan then quite likely you will succeed, but it will be Pyrrhic as my shortcomings are already well and truly in the public domain.
However before I stumble over my own feet may I wonder aloud as to how this issue helps your case? You’ve said that the issue for you is not that Paul was culture-bound but rather that we now know far more about
Your sweet-talking apart, the question about your own views on head-covering was on a point of information. By the way, I said neither that St Paul was culture-bound nor that he wasn't. I said that just as we speak from a background of 20th and 21st century knowledge, so he spoke from a 1st century background. That still leaves open the question of whether what he said was God's all-time, all-places truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
physiology, biology, human anatomy, human behaviour and the science of the physical world.
quote:
(which actually sounds like it’s talking somewhat about culture-boundness, but there we are)
But how, may I ask, is hat-wearing affected by greater knowledge in any of these areas? Again, it makes me wonder why you ask about the issue, as the wearing of hats doesn’t seem to be modified by being more aware of physiology, biology, anatomy, behaviour or the physical sciences.
They were two separate points. I wanted the answer to the interim point about head-covering before saying any more about the general issues.
quote:
Anyway here is my take on it FWIW. 1 Corinthians 11 doesn’t so much encourage hat-wearing as the covering of the head of the woman, and the reason given is not cultural or biological but because “kataischunei tehn kephalehn autou”, “she dishonours her head” (1 Cor 11:5), in this context, her husband: and “dia tous angelous”, “on account of the angels” [poss ‘messengers’]” (1 Cor 11:10). Without delving too deeply into what these reasons actually mean and how they work, they appear to be linked to the order of creation itself; and not to conditions prevailing in first century Corinth. Given also that the alternative to head-covering for the woman is “keirastho”; that she cut her hair or shave her head (which, Paul adds, is “aischron”, “disgraceful” — so don’t do it), the issue seems to be one of physical appearance of the woman as distinct from that of the man.
I've italicised the central bits of the above. Here's a link to 1 Corinthians 11 so everyone can see the whole text. I'm surprised that you should say the issue is the physical appearance of the women as opposed to that of the men as I haven't heard that as a possible interpretation before. Are you saying that St Paul would have been happy if the women had all worn their hair loose but red clothes and the men had worn yellow clothes?
quote:
One commonly suggested interpretation amongst evangelicals is that the woman was being told not to dress like a temple prostitute (esp the head shaving). This is an appealing idea because as an instruction it makes sense, given what we know of Paul’s negative attitude to sexual immorality and its prevalence in the Corinthian church. Unfortunately the passage itself provides no evidence for this whatsoever, so it seems to me to require specialist knowledge and, because it uses a cultural reconstruction to reinterpret the text is simply theological liberalism dressed up as evangelical scholarship.
As he's talking about all women, including the submissive wives, I would doubt that interpretation too. But what's all this about a cultural reconstruction not being evangelical? Shepherds in that region lead their flocks from the front instead of driving them from the back. That's a piece of cultural information that illuminates the text beautifully and gives quite a different view of the metaphor of Jesus as shepherd. Are you saying that evangelical interpretation means that you have to ignore that fact? The whole point of a metaphor is that it conjures an image up in your mind and you can't do that without some culturally-influenced picture. You will supply your own mental image of a shepherd and a flock which might be totally incorrect. This isn't theological liberalism, it's standard practice.
quote:
However I notice in v 16 that Paul gives as one of his reasons for insisting on this that “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” In other words, Paul now appeals to current practice within all the churches of God. From this I take it that Paul himself is appealing to conditions prevailing at the time of writing; and that were those conditions otherwise, the nature of the appeal made might be different.
I hadn't noticed that bit before. On a straight reading I see him saying the opposite, that his instructions are non-contentious because they're in line with God's natural order. "Don't argue with me, this is how things are." This is the section.
quote:
11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.
quote:
I conclude from this that in the 21st century, where head covering amongst women in churches is practised almost nowhere (at least in the West), the specific application is no longer relevant.
Erm, the fact that people have departed from St Paul's words is proof that his words aren't relevant? I think not.
quote:
OK, so far this looks like bog-standard liberalism and twisting out from the plain meaning of the text.
Objection! If this is mere vulgar abuse of liberals, please stop perpetuating a false stereotype. If it is really what you believe, you have got liberals very wrong. I have always understood the liberal approach to be to get at the meaning that was intended by the writer using whatever tools they can. It's an open-ended search that requires both intellectual and moral integrity. It never starts off with a desired interpretation and tries to "twist it out" from the plain meaning of the text. Having found what we believe the writer was saying, what we actually do with that is a different matter of course because we believe that the revelation was Christ himself, not the words written about him.
quote:
But I think the difference is this: that the reason for altering the contemporary application is, that Paul himself links the application to the current practice of the churches. The current practice has changed, therefore the application changes.
I honestly don't think this works, Gordon. St Paul doesn't talk about hats, so that's a red herring. I was fascinated by a programme some years ago where women from the Hasidic Jewish community in London were shown spending hours a week having their fabulous collections of wigs dressed by the hairdresser, all so that they wouldn't show their own hair in synagogue. Hair was a major, major issue in the Jewish tradition St Paul was familiar with.
But even if your contention is right it supports my case. You are saying that St Paul interpreted the principle in a culturally-appropriate way so we can abandon his stricture about covering the head as long as we show the underlying principle in some way. You're saying that hair doesn't matter, although St Paul says it does, because we have different views on hair today.
quote:
I think I’ve answered your question as best I can, but there remains possibly some curiosity as to what contemporary application would be. I believe that the answer is that we should retain Paul’s concern for physical signifiers in our dress of the difference between men and women: that is, that a deliberate attempt to obliterate the distinction by having women dress exactly like men in every respect is an indication that male authority is being usurped, and therefore not good. Oh, and before you ask, yes women are allowed to wear trousers or jeans on this view, and it’s not compulsory for them to wear dresses — unless the wearing of trousers or jeans signifies in that context a rebellion against the created order.
First a sharp intake of breath about male authority being usurped. Secondly, I'm not convinced that you're doing full justice to what St Paul said. I don't see him saying that women as a group should distinguish themselves from men as a group. It's far more specific than that. quote:
3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God... 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
(As an aside I can't help noticing that this is one of the many points in the epistles which falls quite a bit short of Trinitarianism, but that's another argument.) As I understand it, it's linking each woman with the man who has authority over her and not just to men generally. Let me see if I can make the argument. Society was ordered in a such a way at that time, that every woman was under the authority of a man. It would first be her father, then her husband. On another thread recently josephine made the interesting point that in the Orthodox Church even today a widow is still considered to be the wife of her deceased husband. Look at the pictures of elderly Greek widows dressed in black. They aren't signifying that they are bound by the authority of men generally but that they are the wife of a deceased husband.
In 1 Corinthians 11 I don't think St Paul can be saying that every woman has to defer to every man's authority because that would mean she had to defer to someone who might be in conflict with her husband. Aren't the strictures in Timothy about women being silent in church not just about teaching authority but about the fact that if the woman asked another man to explain a doctrine to her she might be given different information from that which her husband gives her? Better then to require her always to channel her questions through him.
In a way it links in with the argument Custard was putting forward. When St Paul talking about submitting to each other, I don't think he even has women in mind. It's the men who must submit to each other in Christian charity; the women stand in the shadow of their own particular male authority. If you like, the men are the networked computers, the women are the dumb terminals only linked to the network via their husband.
Of course there's the question of bolshie priestesses, coming to Christianity from the cults so I accept there's a secondary effect of the silence rule in that it hushes them too, just as them covering their hair shows they have become the archetypal submissive and chaste woman as recognised in Greek culture. However, as I read the passage in Corinthians St Paul not only says that a man has authority over a woman as part of the natural order but that the state of women's and men's hair is also part of the natural order too. You seem happy to accept the first but not the second, which you say is cultural and that the general idea can be conveyed in a different way – by wearing jeans with a women's cut presumably. I can't see St Paul accepting that somehow.
What I am saying is that as soon as you allow in the cultural argument in the area of headship at all, you have great difficulty in denying it with integrity with regard to what St Paul says about various forms of immorality. Do you see the parallel?
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
On another thread recently josephine made the interesting point that in the Orthodox Church even today a widow is still considered to be the wife of her deceased husband. Look at the pictures of elderly Greek widows dressed in black. They aren't signifying that they are bound by the authority of men generally but that they are the wife of a deceased husband.
Umm, Weed? Did you somehow get the impression that the Orthodox Church treats widows and widowers differently? If so, then I apologize for creating confusion. In fact, in the Orthodox Church, marriage does not end with death, either for widows or for widowers. It is true that a woman whose husband has died is still his wife. It is equally true that a man whose wife has died is still her husband.
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Umm, Weed? Did you somehow get the impression that the Orthodox Church treats widows and widowers differently? If so, then I apologize for creating confusion.
No, not at all, josephine. You are always very clear. I only mentioned the widows and not the widowers because I was thinking generally of the position of women in relation to their husbands.
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
*faints*
I agree with custard........
Posted by The Lady of the Lake (# 4347) on
:
Has anybody else read
Does Christianity Teach Male Headship ?
I found it very helpful as it addresses the reasons for the contemporary debates about this.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
Weed, thanks for your thoughtful reply to my earlier post. It will take a while to get on to it, so please don't feel I'm ignoring you if you see the usual tripe from me up in Heaven or elsewhere. I'll get back to you.
Posted by Levor (# 5711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Interesting that you brought up that peculiarly Sydney-ite comparison of the subordination of the Son (eternally?) to the Father which the Jensons and the Sydney Diocese have used for all sorts of ways to suppress women both in their personal relationships and the church. And some have said that that particular twist on trinitarianism smells strongly of Arius. If I hadn't even known to what sexist purposes that spin on the Trinity was being put to use, I'd had argued that Christ was necessarily subordinated to the Father in becoming human, but in his eternal divinity there is no subordination.
I know Gordon has already dealt with this, but can I add my two cents as well. Sorry if I go over the top - but I've gotten caught up in the public face of this debate and it's consumed a lot of my time over the last two years. It'll probably end up influencing my choice of PhD area.
The issue of the Son being 'subordinate' to the Father or 'obeys' the Father in eternity and not just in the incarnation is difficult for a number of fairly complex reasons to do with the concepts behind the Father's begetting of the Son (you can have one orthodox theologian like Greagory reject the word obedience, another theologian reject the word subordination, and yet Hilary of Potiers use both 'obedience' and 'subordination' to discuss the relationship). Historically the church spoke more of an 'order' in the relationships that reflected the fact that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit - the operations of God are from the Father, through the Son and by the Spirit. Athanasius and the Cappadocians speak freely of the Son doing the will of the Father.
The accusation that Sydney Anglicanism (and conservative evangelicalism in general) have adopted Arianism comes from Protestant theologians committed to a principle of egalitarianism who seem to think that the church's confession of the equality of the Son with the Father must then mean that there can be no hierarchy at all, in any sense. They are often quite explicit in rejecting the idea that the Son is begotten by the Father too. For them,
submission = inferiority
and so must only be true of the human nature of Jesus Christ, and
being caused = being inferior to the cause
and so the Son cannot be eternally begotten of the Father.
In my reading, I have found no Orthodox or Catholic theologian on the Trinity who denies the sort of position that Sydney has been accused of Arianism for. Whatever other sins Sydney may be guilty of, at this point it is only saying things similar to what one can find in Barth and Pannenberg among Protestants, Walter Kasper among Catholics, and expressed in the St Vladimir Journal among Orthodoxy.
It is Protestant egalitarians that are out of step, as far as I can work out.
I wonder if part of the reason why the link between the relationship of the Father and the Son and the question of headship (and women's public ministry) has only occured in conservative evangelical circles is because it hasn't been fought as strongly on egalitarian grounds in Catholic and Orthodox circles? In evangelical circles the analogy has only been brought in to refute the argument that
submission = inferiority
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
The Father is the eternal cause of the Son and the Spirit in a way that neither the Son or the Spirit is the cause of the Father. The Son is eternally begotten, and the Spirit eternally proceeds. Thus the Son and Spirit are subordinate ontologically, albeit not in glory or majesty etc.
Mousethief, I'm sure you know Orthodoxy much better than I do, but are you sure that Orthodoxy believes that the Son is subordinate ontologically? Every Orthodox theologian I've read on the topic has strongly rejected any such suggestion as something synonomous with Arianism. Isn't the homoousious intended to affirm that the Son has the same ontology (being) as the Father?
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
Every Orthodox theologian I've read on the topic has strongly rejected any such suggestion as something synonomous with Arianism. Isn't the homoousious intended to affirm that the Son has the same ontology (being) as the Father?
Well I may be using the word incorrectly. I meant it to mean that the Son's existence is caused (eternally) by the Father (as is, of course, the Spirit's). I don't mean to say they are not homoousious -- if that's how the Orthodox theologians use the term "ontologically subordinate" then I mistakenly picked the wrong phrase to say what I meant.
Posted by Levor (# 5711) on
:
Cool. I was a bit worried that either I'd really misunderstood Orthodoxy over the last couple of years, or that it would give ammunition to Western accusations that Orthodoxy has an Arian (that I think are quite unfounded and based on some of the more unhelpful bits of Augustine's legacy).
Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Arian, we're not. Semi-pelagian, well.....
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
I can't resist adding my twopennorth after Levor's interesting contribution. It's a case of fool's rushing in because I have nowhere near the theological background to justify arguing with those who've studied this more than me. My ignorance does have relevance I hope because my non-conformist, evangelical in the pre-1970s sense, upbringing wasn't very hot on developed trinitarian thinking. My ignorance also allows me to say such possibly outrageous things as that I don't think St Paul was either, at least in epistles such as the first letter to the Corinthians.
What comes across to me from that letter (and some of the others) is a Jew's understanding of monotheism coupled with a ratification of the teaching and ultimate sacrifice of Jesus by that single deity raising him from the dead. In that letter I see Paul trying to deal with some of the problems that had broken out in the Church at Corinth and bring a bit of order back and it's a much a Hosts and Admin job as anything else. Wouldn't you love to have seen the letters that the churches wrote to Paul or the reports that came back to him? Uppity women claiming their freedom in Christ means that they can freely challenge the men, including their husbands. A loss of decorum with some of the women breaking all the rules of polite society by wearing their hair loose. Men getting hot under the collar about both.
St Paul wasn't challenging the norms of what was considered ideal in 1st century Greek and Roman thought, he was appealing to the church to comply with the best of them. He did that because, as a Jew first and foremost, he had grown up with women being inferior as the natural way of things. He had seen Jesus being totally submissive to the will of God so what more obvious way to curb the riff-raff tendency in Corinth but to appeal to them to mimic what he saw as Jesus's own behaviour in relation to God.
The trouble comes, IMVHO, when, later in that 1st century with John's Gospel and beyond with the Councils, we get a quite different approach which inform the trinitarian view held over the last 1500 years or so. Please excuse my argument's lack of subtlety but I think that once people decided Jesus was divine they had a problem with how to reconcile that with a monotheistic faith and especially with a God that was unchanging. The only way to do that was to hold that Jesus was the eternal Son of God, begotten before time. Two isn't a nice number so we have to have three, so we bring in the Holy Spirit who therefore also has to have existed before time despite the fact that Jesus tells us that the Godhead is spirit anyway.
You've then got huge problems of whether the Son is subordinate or not and if so in what sense. What I see happening in the current discussions about headship is that evangelical thought has disconnected what St Paul said from his 1st century understanding of God and society. Because of our trinitarian understanding of submission of the Son to the Father which, crucially, doesn't involve inferiority, the evangelical argument is that what St Paul must have been laying down when he appealed to the people of Corinth to look to the analogy of the Son and the Father was also some kind of mutual submission between husband and wife.
What I maintain (in a more evangelical than thou tone of voice) is that the text just doesn't support this. It simply doesn't. Couple what is said in 1 Corinthians with what is said in Timothy, Ephesians and Peter and it is absolutely stark-staringly clear that all the writers thought women were inferior to men and that it was right that each of them should be under the authority of a male. (And we have far, far clearer texts on this matter, and a lot more of then, than we have on what was and was not considered a sexually immoral act amongst those with a homesexual orientation at the same period.)
What I say modern evangelicals of the Sydney approach are doing is exactly what they accuse liberals of doing, of twisting the text so that they make it support a highly developed form of trinitarianism and a modern attitude towards the relationship between husband and wife. How you find that in the plain text I don't know. You end up, as has been argued earlier in this thread, with saying that "submission" doesn't mean what everyone thought it meant until about 1970 and that Paul was telling parents to be submissive to their children and husbands to submit to their wives. To argue that robs the word of all meaning and ironically removes the whole justification for the doctrine of headship in the first place.
And that's why I'm saying that what we've seen on this thread is a wishy-washy, pale shadow of the sort of headship St Paul was talking about and that evangelicals are fooling themselves if they think it isn't. A partnership of equals in which one has the final say in cases of conflict may be more acceptable than the husband making all the decisions about the extent to which his wife could be educated or get a job or mix freely in society but it's not what St Paul was talking about. It's just not biblical!
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
Ooh, ooh, a Trinity discussion! Now this is much better and far more interesting than boring old Headship. This being Dead Horses and all, perhaps if we keep the conversation to a whisper we’ll be able to keep going for a while before anyone notices. I might call up a few friends and get them in here too.
Having said that I want to talk not about the Trinity but to go back to this question of how we use culture to read and interpret the Bible. My view is that cultural insights are not of any use at all in determining the meaning of Scripture: the only way to interpret the meaning of the Bible is by the Bible itself.
Weed, let me take your example of the shepherd. Let’s suppose that I’m only marginally more dim than I actually am, and that all my understanding of what shepherding is like derives from Australian farming practises of the late 20th and early 21st century, mediated through my time at an agricultural high school and watching snippets of docos on TV.
I am therefore convinced in my own mind that shepherding require a chief shepherd who flies a helicopter, and some helper-shepherds who ride around on motorbikes whistling and shouting to the sheepdogs such wise aphorisms as “Carn doggie” and “git over here” as they round up several thousand sheep at a time and herd 'em off to the abbatoir and thence to the refrigerated trucks; from there on to the supermarkets.
I now pick up my Bible with this picture firmly in mind, open randomly and read that “The Lord is my shepherd”. I picture God in a helmet driving his motorbike around the paddock in large circles, or possibly hovering around the place in a helicopter with all the gear. I picture him fattening me up and lining me up for the kill.
Now, under the sustained impact of regular Bible reading, how long do you think my mental image of biblical shepherding will last?
I keep reading, and I learn that he leads me by quiet waters and makes me lie down in green pastures. I flip across to Isaiah 40 and learn that he gathers the lambs in his arms, carries them in his bosom and gently leads those with young. “What”, I’m thinking, “several thousand sheep and he carries them around personally? Or just the ones that need mulesing and dipping on account of the flystrike?” I turn randomly over to Ezekiel 34 and discover that this shepherd who is God won’t even kill the fat lambs, and that he refuses to use force or harshness to keep the beasties in line.
I conclude that the Old Testament is probably dodgy anyway when it comes to advanced sheperding practices and move to the New Testament. In the New Testament I am astonished to find that shepherds actually sleep in the fields by night to watch over their sheep. “Can’t these guys build electric fences?” I think. Then I nearly fall off my chair when I reach John 10 and realise that shepherds who own their sheep seem to know them by name! Perhaps they’re microchipped!
The point being that it doesn’t take a lot of reading to work out that my mental image of a shepherd only corresponds very vaguely to what is there in the Bible, and in the end I am far better off just looking up the words “sheep” and “shepherd” in a concordance, chasing up the references, and working out what I can from there.
Now undoubtedly someone who’s done archaeology and dug up a lot of first century sheep bones will be able to tell me a bit about first century sheep and how they were microchipped, but really how will that help? The only thing that will do for me will be to throw up plausible possibilities about what the Bible verses about shepherding mean. And if there is some unknown local Galilean variant of shepherding where shepherding is done in a very different way from the rest of the Ancient Near East, then even what I do know about the first century in general terms will be of little use.
Sorry to rabbit on about sheep but the point I hope is clear. Cultural reconstructions are at best tentative and can only be used to suggest new possibilities for textual interpretation of the Bible. The Bible must ultimately be self-interpreting.
******
But a question for you Weed: I am now a bit confused as to what you mean by inferiority. You seem to believe that if Jesus is portrayed as submitting to his Father, he is necessarily not God and not ontologically of one substance with his Father. Is this so, in your opinion?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Good sheep analogy. Strongly tempted to repeat it as if it was mine...
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Ooh, ooh, a Trinity discussion! Now this is much better and far more interesting than boring old Headship. This being Dead Horses and all, perhaps if we keep the conversation to a whisper we’ll be able to keep going for a while before anyone notices. I might call up a few friends and get them in here too.
Bring 'em on! I think we can easily defend the trinitarian aspect on the grounds that it's completely tangled up with the current arguments on headship. I'm more worried about being told off for talking about things that would be better done on one of the biblical interpretation threads but it's difficult to ignore those aspects.
quote:
Cultural reconstructions are at best tentative and can only be used to suggest new possibilities for textual interpretation of the Bible. The Bible must ultimately be self-interpreting.
Then I'll accuse you of anti-incarnationalism. Jesus is the Word of God. It's an incarnationational faith. God becoming a human being and treading in the sheepshit of everyday life in a real place at a real time. The bible doesn't stand alone. To hear conservative evangelicals talk I would honestly think that the words that were written about Jesus Christ were more important than Jesus Christ himself. Was St Paul nothing until he wrote his letters and they were accepted as scripture?
The bible doesn't interpret itself. Do you think St Paul didn't use his intellect and his reason when he compose the first letter to the Corinthians? You can't even understand the words he uses unless you use your God-given brain. Can you read the NT in a foreign language you've never come across before and understand it? Of course you can't. The words aren't magical, somehow conveying meaning without any use of the brain. Why shouldn't we use our intellect and our reason and our study of the ancient history of the Middle East to try to get at what St Paul was saying? The easiest way to to that is to try as far as possible to put ourselves in his position or the position of someone listening to him in Corinth.
Under your method you are using cultural information but only that cultural information that you manage to glean from the bible. But it doesn't tell you everything about the culture because when the words were written the author could assume the common knowledge of the time. The stories Jesus told were about ordinary everyday things that his audience knew about. All the evangelical preachers I've ever known have explained the cultural significance of the various elements of the stories. If we don't understand those things we miss out on half the points Jesus was making.
Take the constant references to the bridegroom. If you've got the idea that mummy and daddy fell in love and got married and mummy was called a bride and daddy a bridegroom you don't see the significance of the use of the term in the bible. Jesus didn't fall in love with the church and go around saying, "I can't live without you, let's get married." The analogy only makes proper sense, the sense that was originally meant, in the terms of that particular society's understanding of marriage and we have to do everything we can to understand it too. Why on earth should we limit ourselves to facts that appear in the books that the church approved for use within liturgy?
OK, you disagree with that. I know you do but frankly I think the conservative evangelical method you describe is very dangerous and it's a method I had never come across before until I joined the Ship. The trouble is I am old and I didn't realise how old. As I've read this thread I've had the distinct impression that a lot of the posters have no idea what it was like to be female before feminism. When I was young (I swore I would never say that) if a husband didn't permit his wife to go out to work, she didn't. It was not uncommon for a prospective employer to ask the husband whether it was OK for his wife to be given the job. Single working women couldn't get a mortgage or a bank loan without having their father stand guarantor for them even though they earned the same as their male counterparts. The main argument against paying women the same as men was that men had families to support so it was part of the natural order of things that they should be paid more.
It wasn't nice. People didn't turn a hair if a man physically disciplined his wife because that was "a domestic matter". It's only within the last twenty years that a husband has been able to be charged with rape of his wife. Before that, the marriage vows were taken as perpetual consent to sexual intercourse whether she wanted it or not. We're not talking about some romantic fiction like the last scene of "An Officer and a Gentleman", we are talking about oppressive behaviour sanctioned by both the church and state. I am greatly disturbed by any hint that we return to those days and some of the posters here seem to have no idea of the dangers. The idea that an educated, independent modern woman in a good job is a sign of the falleness of humanity I find laughable. What was Eve before she met the snake? An empty-headed bimbo?
quote:
But a question for you Weed: I am now a bit confused as to what you mean by inferiority. You seem to believe that if Jesus is portrayed as submitting to his Father, he is necessarily not God and not ontologically of one substance with his Father. Is this so, in your opinion?
Oh I'm hopeless when it comes to the trinity. God is three and God is one and the rest is mystery is as far as I get on a good day. But my own current understanding and uncertainties are completely irrelevant to my argument. I'm trying to be biblical and true to my own evangelical roots you see.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Weed:
I think you've really hit the nail on the head with the observation that a lot of folks don't seem to realize what it was like before the feminist movement (in terms of headship).
I think if you read the first couple of pages of the thread, you apprehend fairly quickly that the only reason headship is an issue is that women may now choose to allow the man to be the head of the family. It would have been a silly discussion even a few decades ago, because the headship of the man was simply a matter of course. In that sense, today in 1st world countries the submission is much more meaningful (to give credit to those who feel prayerfully that this is how they wish to organize their family lives) than any submission years ago. But those who do so choose should not be under the impression that what they do is what women in St. Paul's time did. Women in St. Paul's time submitted because they belonged to their husbands and lived and died at their husbands' will. The current model of headship that allegedly does not presume inequality would not be recognizable to men and women living hundreds of years ago or even forty years ago in many cases.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
The trouble comes, IMVHO, when, later in that 1st century with John's Gospel and beyond with the Councils, we get a quite different approach which inform the trinitarian view held over the last 1500 years or so. Please excuse my argument's lack of subtlety but I think that once people decided Jesus was divine they had a problem with how to reconcile that with a monotheistic faith and especially with a God that was unchanging.
Yes but John's Gospel wasn't the cause of "deciding Jesus was divine" but rather the effect. The cause was twofold:
1. What he did and said while on this earth;
2. The messianic prophecies of the OT.
Both of which predate John's gospel.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
The early church was quite clear that women were inferior to men, as Ruth pointed out on the Priestly Genitalia thread not long ago:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
the_grip, I'll deal with most of your points at some later date, but this one I cannot let stand.
quote:
The tenets of the church have always upheld women. Nowhere in the church's claims have you ever found a proclaimation that women are inferior to men before God.
This is patently false. The church has for centuries consistently claimed that women are inferior to men before God. You may read here all about the church's tradition of holding that women are inferior to men. If you want context, there are plenty of links on that site to the full texts of the documents.
The church has a long and ugly history of despising women. Here's little taste: Tertullian called us "the devil's gateway". St Gregory of Nazianzum said, "Fierce is the dragon and cunning the asp; But woman have the malice of both." St. Ambrose claimed that women were not in fact made in the image of God. St. Jerome said, "Woman is the root of all evil." St. Augustine's regard for women was so low that he couldn't figure out why we were created at all, until it occurred to him that without women there would be no children. Naturally, he concluded that procreation was the sole reason women were created.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
Only just come into this thread, but Weed, I'm with you all the way on the women and inferiority thing. You must be the same generation (if not age) as me! Oh, boy! Was it hard in those days to get something that today's women just take for granted (and lightly throw away, sometimes!)
And, I might add, men of our age/generation still haven't got round to thinking women aren't inferior!!
Now you can all go back to your academic discussions. I'll try and keep up!
Nicodemia
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
This should not be only an academic discussion. It has an effect on the whole of human society and deserves both practical and academic discussion!
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Levor:
quote:
It is Protestant egalitarians that are out of step, as far as I can work out.
I wonder if part of the reason why the link between the relationship of the Father and the Son and the question of headship (and women's public ministry) has only occured in conservative evangelical circles is because it hasn't been fought as strongly on egalitarian grounds in Catholic and Orthodox circles? In evangelical circles the analogy has only been brought in to refute the argument that
submission = inferiority
I wonder. I would not rule out a theory which has been defended by the late, brilliant Colin Gunton in his wonderful "Homage to Cappadocia"* but I do feel a degree of unease with the idea of the subordination of the Son. I think the problem with it is that it imports ideas of human power relationships and status into the Godhead which is clearly beyond that sort of thing.
In the Divine Comedy Dante puts a kind of hierarchy of perfection in Heaven but then backtracks by having the souls of the Blest both in their respective layers and in the Empyrean Heaven. Dante's point is that whilst, on the one hand, there is a hierarchy in the created and redeemed order, on the other hand in the realm ruled by 'the Love that moves the sun and other stars' the concept of hierarchy is only of limited value. The souls in the heaven of the moon are clearly 'lesser' than the Blessed Virgin Mary, but, OTOH, they are loved equally. This is a paradox that Dante, with a poet's sensitivity, is unwilling to resolve because a resolution on either side would be untrue to the life of the redeemed creation.
Taking the analogy further, on the one hand, the language of subordination may be used to explain, in certain instances, the relations of the persons of the Holy Trinity but to define dogmatically (in the proper sense of the word) the son as being definitively subordinate to the Father seems wrong as I don't think that the Trinity relate to one another in that way. The relationship is one of mutual self-giving. The language of subordination, held lightly to, is one thing. To treat it as some kind of propositional reality is like inserting a head by Picasso into a landscape by Claude. It just doesn't work.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
The point being that it doesn’t take a lot of reading to work out that my mental image of a shepherd only corresponds very vaguely to what is there in the Bible, and in the end I am far better off just looking up the words “sheep” and “shepherd” in a concordance, chasing up the references, and working out what I can from there.
Now undoubtedly someone who’s done archaeology and dug up a lot of first century sheep bones will be able to tell me a bit about first century sheep and how they were microchipped, but really how will that help? The only thing that will do for me will be to throw up plausible possibilities about what the Bible verses about shepherding mean. And if there is some unknown local Galilean variant of shepherding where shepherding is done in a very different way from the rest of the Ancient Near East, then even what I do know about the first century in general terms will be of little use.
Sorry to rabbit on about sheep but the point I hope is clear. Cultural reconstructions are at best tentative and can only be used to suggest new possibilities for textual interpretation of the Bible. The Bible must ultimately be self-interpreting.
That seems vaguely obscurantist, to be honest. Abandoning shepherds for the moment - rather amusingly I have preached sermons in which I have contrasted modern and ancient ideas of shepherds with the message - 'ware the idea that the Bible is self-interpreting
- consider the use of the word 'Lord' in the Bible. For most of us we may think of "The House of Lords", "Lord's Cricket Ground", "Lord Irvine", or "Lord Hailsham", "Everyone loves a Lord", "Drunk as a Lord" or even an episode of a 1960s espionage series entitled "But He's a Lord, Mr Callan". The sheer terror and power and the connotations of more than human power behind the Greek "Kurios" is absent from any of these modern allusions. Of course, we can go to a concordance, keeping the amount of modern scholarship we rely on to a minimum - but the scholarship neutral concordance has yet to be invented. There is going to be some echo of modern thought in our reading of scripture whether we will or no. Should we take it on unknowingly and unconsciously, or should we take it on through the lens of Holy Tradition and seeking the best possible scholarship?
Actually, we're quite safe with 'Lord' because it has been safeguarded by Holy Tradition. But given that the meaning and understanding of words shift the idea that we can merely refer to the Bible without reason and Tradition seems naive. Karl Barth objected to fundamentalism on the grounds that it only allowed for the divine inspiration of the writers of scripture and not the readers. This seems to me to be deeply profound. Any interpretation of scripture will arise out of an interaction between the reader and the text and the most dangerous readers are those who are unaware of this fact.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think I’ve answered your question as best I can, but there remains possibly some curiosity as to what contemporary application would be. I believe that the answer is that we should retain Paul’s concern for physical signifiers in our dress of the difference between men and women: that is, that a deliberate attempt to obliterate the distinction by having women dress exactly like men in every respect is an indication that male authority is being usurped, and therefore not good. Oh, and before you ask, yes women are allowed to wear trousers or jeans on this view, and it’s not compulsory for them to wear dresses — unless the wearing of trousers or jeans signifies in that context a rebellion against the created order.
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?
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
Perhaps if you're wearing them underneath an alb with stole?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
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.
Posted by meow (# 9273) on
:
It seems that for weddings, the traditional dress codes still apply. Not many women seem to wear trousers for their wedding.
Posted by Levor (# 5711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
I can't resist adding my twopennorth after Levor's interesting contribution. It's a case of fool's rushing in because I have nowhere near the theological background to justify arguing with those who've studied this more than me.
Weed, I apologise. That wasn't meant to be a disempowering "I'm the expert" kind of statement - given that I tend to wax long and academic I was simply trying to explain why I was about to jump up and down about the issue. I think you can hold your own on these things quite well.
quote:
The trouble comes, IMVHO, when, later in that 1st century with John's Gospel and beyond with the Councils, we get a quite different approach which inform the trinitarian view held over the last 1500 years or so. Please excuse my argument's lack of subtlety but I think that once people decided Jesus was divine they had a problem with how to reconcile that with a monotheistic faith and especially with a God that was unchanging. The only way to do that was to hold that Jesus was the eternal Son of God, begotten before time. Two isn't a nice number so we have to have three, so we bring in the Holy Spirit who therefore also has to have existed before time despite the fact that Jesus tells us that the Godhead is spirit anyway.
It is a good argument, but it doesn't fit with what I read when I read the early church fathers. I don't get the sense that they are trying to solve an intellectual puzzle. I get the sense that they are trying to understand what Jesus Christ has done and (consequently) who he must be as a result.
They invariably argue soteriologically, not 'logically' - from the nature of salvation to the nature of God and of Jesus Christ. So your reconstruction doesn't account for what I see when I read them.
I'll pick up the men-women side later, if that's ok.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I wonder. I would not rule out a theory which has been defended by the late, brilliant Colin Gunton in his wonderful "Homage to Cappadocia"* but I do feel a degree of unease with the idea of the subordination of the Son. I think the problem with it is that it imports ideas of human power relationships and status into the Godhead which is clearly beyond that sort of thing.
Agreed. At one level, the intratrinitarian relationships are so different from human-human or human-divine ones that there can be no analogy. Athanasius has an important section in his Orations against the Arians where he argues from Genesis 1 that the Son is the Father's Word and so the Father never addresses the Son with some other word. The Son never learns the Father's will and goes and does it like an underling for the Son is the Father's Will. The Son is the Father's living Will, the agent who does what the Father wills and the Father's Word to creatures - the One through whom the Father's will is communicated.
This is an argument against 'subordination' and 'obedience' but not because of a flat relationship of authority (for Athanasius says that as soon as the Father wills the Son does it) but because the Father-Son/Word relationship has some extremely unique features. There is no other relationship where one person is the will and word of the other person.
quote:
Taking the analogy further, on the one hand, the language of subordination may be used to explain, in certain instances, the relations of the persons of the Holy Trinity but to define dogmatically (in the proper sense of the word) the son as being definitively subordinate to the Father seems wrong as I don't think that the Trinity relate to one another in that way. The relationship is one of mutual self-giving. The language of subordination, held lightly to, is one thing. To treat it as some kind of propositional reality is like inserting a head by Picasso into a landscape by Claude. It just doesn't work.
I think we're close at this point, but the difference is important. I think when the Nicene Creed says that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God that these are all attempts to make statements of propositional reality and they are all 'subordinationist' statements because they point to the Father as the Cause and Source of the Son. But they are also the reason why the Son is equal to the Father: precisely because he is true God from true God he is homousious with the Father. His "equality" is a consequence of his "subordination".
And I think the mutual self-giving talk that is common among many Protestant theologians at the moment is an attempt to replace the begetting of the Son (and the procession of the Spirit) with perichoresis as the unifying principle of the Godhead. It is an attempt to replace the early Church's view that there is a primary self-giving of the Father to the Son and the Spirit that the Son and the Spirit then give back in response with a flat, mutual self-giving. It is an attempt to redraw the Trinity on egalitarian grounds.
I think it is a different Trinitarian theology then that represented by Nicea. From what I can see, Moltmann seems to go in that direction. Millard Erickson claims that the Arians were right and if the Son was begotten then he is inferior, and Miroslav Volf tries to separate off the relationships of origin (begetting and procession) from the way the operations of the Godhead function. They are all, in their different ways rejecting classical trinitarian theology as not reflecting the kind of 'equality' they believe in.
When they then say that the Son being 'subordinate' to the Father is Arian, I'm increasingly of the view that they should come clean and say outright that the Nicene Creed is Arian. The idea that Nicea is the triumph of Arianism is well, fairly ironic.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Levor you clearly are a well-read person.
I like what you say about the moderns painting Nicea as a victory for Arianism. How ironic, indeed! How human (menschlich, allzu menschlich!) not to see how one's own presuppositions colour how one sees another's position.
ETA:
I wanted to make a more general remark concerning headship. Doesn't St. Paul say, "Submit to one another"? It's not like "mutual submission" was invented in the late 20th century. He says, "Submit to one another, wives to your husbands as to the Lord." It's all one sentence but too many translations break it in two pieces, and put the first half with the previous paragraph and the second half with the next. But it's all one sentence in the greek. We are all to submit to one another; then he emphasizes one subset of that universal mutual submission, and goes on to expand on that one bit. But the "submit to one another" stands. And it seems we have to have some idea of what mutual submission means to make sense of that command, whatever century we find ourselves in.
[ 08. April 2005, 10:36: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Am I being ignorant here? Or is this just something I've never thought about, given that my interest in marriage is never going to be a personal one? -
What has the subordination (or not) of the Son to the Father got to do with it? I was under the impression that in the NT marriage was an ikon of the relationship not between the Father and the Son, but between Christ and the Church.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
More on mutual submission:
quote:
1 Cor 7:4, NASB
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Levor:
quote:
And I think the mutual self-giving talk that is common among many Protestant theologians at the moment is an attempt to replace the begetting of the Son (and the procession of the Spirit) with perichoresis as the unifying principle of the Godhead. It is an attempt to replace the early Church's view that there is a primary self-giving of the Father to the Son and the Spirit that the Son and the Spirit then give back in response with a flat, mutual self-giving. It is an attempt to redraw the Trinity on egalitarian grounds.
I think it is a different Trinitarian theology then that represented by Nicea. From what I can see, Moltmann seems to go in that direction. Millard Erickson claims that the Arians were right and if the Son was begotten then he is inferior, and Miroslav Volf tries to separate off the relationships of origin (begetting and procession) from the way the operations of the Godhead function. They are all, in their different ways rejecting classical trinitarian theology as not reflecting the kind of 'equality' they believe in.
When they then say that the Son being 'subordinate' to the Father is Arian, I'm increasingly of the view that they should come clean and say outright that the Nicene Creed is Arian. The idea that Nicea is the triumph of Arianism is well, fairly ironic.
I think that Mousethief has said what I wanted to say about self-giving much better than I would have said it.
I don't know enough about the theolgians you have cited to comment about their Trinitarian theology (although isn't Volf a Catholic - from Croatia IIRC, rather than a protestant?) but it seems to me that Athanasius et. al. were insisting on the equality of the Persons in the Godhead in a way that Arius and his chums were rather denying. The language of eternal begetting etcetera was objected to because it went against the common sense observation that clearly a 'son' is in some fundamental sense inferior to a 'father'. Arianism is, fundamentally, an insistence on the subordination of the Son in a way in which Nicene Orthodoxy clearly isn't.
Athanasius (I think) used the analogy of a lit candle. The light is contingent on the wick and the wax but the light exists temporally at the same time as the candle. His point was that we can imagine the Son being eternally begotten of the Father. The Son is therefore subordinate, in the sense that he derives from the Father, but equal inasmuch as he exists with the Father from eternity. There was not a time when he was not. Now I suppose you could say that the flame was subordinate to the wick and the wax of a candle, but how useful or meaningful is such language? A lit candle is, in a fairly important sense, a single united entity. Imagine your candle to be eternal and... well, you get my drift.
Tangentially, I might add: Ruling out those theologians, who have gone Arian, as it were. I suspect that someone from the Plot is going to turn up and argue that a more fundamental cause of theolgians trying to sideline the notions of begetting and procession would derive from the West's following of Augustine rather than the Cappadocian Fathers. But that's another argument.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Am I being ignorant here? Or is this just something I've never thought about, given that my interest in marriage is never going to be a personal one? -
What has the subordination (or not) of the Son to the Father got to do with it? I was under the impression that in the NT marriage was an ikon of the relationship not between the Father and the Son, but between Christ and the Church.
Adeodatus: 1 Cor 11:3 and immediate context is a passage often cited to bring out the link.
For those who believe that the intra-trinitarian relationships find reflection in the relationship of male and female, it would follow that there may be a link at this point. The question telates, then, to what we mean by saying men and women are in the image of God.
Mousethief: Mutual submission as a general principle I agree with, although it is not necessarily worked out as straightforwardly as saying that wives submit to husbands and husbands submit to wives in a relational mirror-image. That all submit to all does not mean that every individual submits to every other individual
(any more than in Gal 5:15 every single individual is going to consume every other individual in the congregation)
ETA: I copied Levor's previous post into a purg thread to allow the Trinity discussion to be separated out.
[ 08. April 2005, 11:23: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Admin hat /on
In an unusual operation, this thread is determined not to be dead horse material, as it doesn't meet the requirements (subject that comes up all the time on Christian forums, generates tons of heat, causes Host headaches).
So, hang on to your hats for the upward whoosh!
Posted by Oxymoron (# 5246) on
:
Coming back to the opening question, might I suggest that a 50/50 power share in a relationship IS actually submitting?
I know for sure that if were not in a relationship I would live quite differently. If you are alone you do not have to think of anyone elses feelings, and you certainly don't have to consider anyone else in a decision.
To arrive at a 50/50 situation means you have had to give up 50%. I would call that submission. It might not exactly be headship, but it's certainly some way to conforming to the scriptures I have read (which suggest both submission on the part of the woman AND consideration on the part of the man).
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
But they are also the reason why the Son is equal to the Father: precisely because he is true God from true God he is homousious with the Father. His "equality" is a consequence of his "subordination".
Eric Mascall uses the phrase 'derived equality', which I think is better and less prejudicial to other questions. More generally, I think it is vital not to loose sense of the doctrine of analogy when talking about the Trinity. Whatever we mean by 'begetting' when we apply it to filiation is more disimilar to anything we encounter in human experience than it is similar. Thus it is not temporal (the Father's 'priority' as source of divine being cannot imply the Arian 'there was a time when he was not), nor does it imply expenditure on the Father's part, nor need it imply any secondariness of the Logos. Trinitarian theology is an 'owning a the mystery' that takes place at the edge of human language. We should attempt to derive conclusions about human affairs from it very cautiously. An idolatrous overlooking of the proper ratio of divine and human being seems to me to be implicit in much of the headship debate.
The only sound 'way in' could be through looking at the Trinity in the economy of salvation, namely at Jesus' relationship with his Abba. Nonetheless, Rahner's 'the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity' notwithstanding, we do need to remember that we are looking here at the Logos as Incarnate, and that Christ is 'equal to the Father as touching his godhead, inferior to the Father as touching his manhood.'
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oxymoron:
Coming back to the opening question, might I suggest that a 50/50 power share in a relationship IS actually submitting?
If you do look at your relationships in such a quantitative way, then yes you're right. But if I ever found myself consciously staking out my 50% share in my marriage I would be profoundly concerned. Relationships can go beyond quantitative carve ups to free relationship with the other.
Even less does the 50/ 50 thing work for the Father-Logos relationship. Whatever we mean by saying there are three '''persons''' in the godhead, we do not mean that the divinity is carved up, God has no parts. The tradition has held that the divine esse is fully instantiated in each hypostasis. The Father gives fully of his divinity to the Son, who returns the fullness of divinity back to the Father in love by the Spirit.
Posted by Oxymoron (# 5246) on
:
And if I ever started staking out my 50% share my wife would leave me on the next buss out of town. But I am simply saying that by living in a "modern" relationship, one with give and take, you already are submitting (the give).
And that some of the relevent scripture passages, which can seem incredibly sexist on first reading, actually call for just that, give and take, both female submission and male compassion.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Of course, the scriptural passages in question relate analogically to Christ's relationship as head to his body the Church (that is, a human relationship) rather than to the intra-trinitarian relationships. And I'd say that Paul is using ecclesial analogy to call for the preservation of social norms in particular circumstances. As is so often the case, I suspect this turns on how we read Scripture.
[ 08. April 2005, 15:08: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Isn't there something about....."as Christ loved the Church?"
My muddled recall of scripture leads me to the assumption that any future husband would lay down his life for me.
I could live with that............
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Am I being ignorant here? Or is this just something I've never thought about, given that my interest in marriage is never going to be a personal one? -
What has the subordination (or not) of the Son to the Father got to do with it? I was under the impression that in the NT marriage was an ikon of the relationship not between the Father and the Son, but between Christ and the Church.
As Gordon mentioned, 1 Corinthians 11:3 says quote:
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is man and the head of Christ is God.
If you can argue that the second person of the Trinity is eternally equal to but subordinate to the first person you can use what St Paul says to show that woman is eternally inferior to, sorry, did I say inferior? I meant equal to, equal to, equal but subordinate to man and therefore women can't be in authority over men and therefore women can't be priests. That's the importance of the headship and the Trinity argument. As I understand it it's the Sydney Anglican, conservative evangelical version, of FIF, or "separate but equal development". It's quite clever, really. You get to have man in a position of authority in the home and church whilst at the same time asserting that women are in every way equal to man. If that's how the Trinity works, and that's what they argue St Paul is saying in the bible verse above, it must be so.
Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on
:
Nope I don't understand that. Sounds like everyone is equal only some are more equal than others...
C
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
Hi Weed,
Back to the points you raised earlier, and a few more made since:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
I'm surprised that you should say the issue is the physical appearance of the women as opposed to that of the men as I haven't heard that as a possible interpretation before. Are you saying that St Paul would have been happy if the women had all worn their hair loose but red clothes and the men had worn yellow clothes?
Depends. Would this have signified submission? I doubt it. If it did; then yes, if it didn’t; then no. Paul thought that style of hair signified submission, so he argued for it.
quote:
What I am saying is that as soon as you allow in the cultural argument in the area of headship at all, you have great difficulty in denying it with integrity with regard to what St Paul says about various forms of immorality. Do you see the parallel?
Well yes I do, but as I’ve suggested I don’t think I’m allowing in a cultural argument beyond what Paul has already indicated that he is doing in the text; his appeal to the pracitce of “all the churches” in 11:16. Now in your earlier response you have quoted the immediate context to show that there is also a link to the natural order of things; and so there is. But the natural order of things is not just about hair-wearing! It’s about submission. So Paul supports the latter (submission), insists on the former (hair style) in a situation where all churches are following the same practice— and then leaves later readers to figure out application in their context.
quote:
In a subsequent post, Weed said:
The bible doesn't interpret itself. Do you think St Paul didn't use his intellect and his reason when he compose the first letter to the Corinthians? You can't even understand the words he uses unless you use your God-given brain. Can you read the NT in a foreign language you've never come across before and understand it? Of course you can't. The words aren't magical, somehow conveying meaning without any use of the brain. Why shouldn't we use our intellect and our reason and our study of the ancient history of the Middle East to try to get at what St Paul was saying? The easiest way to to that is to try as far as possible to put ourselves in his position or the position of someone listening to him in Corinth.
Under your method you are using cultural information but only that cultural information that you manage to glean from the bible.
No, I’ve never denied reason and intellect a role in interpreting Scripture, and cultural insights may illuminate meaning. You’re quite right, Scripture is written in human languages and will require us to understand those languages and/or place a reasonable degree of confidence in the translators. Knowing a bit about shepherds leading from the front, or arranged first-century marriages, may well illuminate the meaning; most especially by clearing away the dead wood of our own cultural presuppositions. Let’s face it, the idea about how shepherds need motorbikes is an unhelpful presupposition. Doing cultural studies will disabuse me of it and help me read the Bible with less junk in my head and a better chance of getting at the meaning. But then, just reading the Bible will quickly disabuse me of the motorbike idea too. So the cutural studies stuff is helpful but not essential, and has its own pitfalls too
(for example: one pitfall is a greater temptation to assume that I've got the culture nailed down, now that I've done my archaeology degree; thus dignifying my cultural insights with too much weight in the interpretive process)
My point is that there is enough cultural information to be found in the text for us to be getting on with. Could you name one substantial piece of interpretation that hinges on extra-biblical knowledge of how shepherds operated in first century Galilee? Could you name one substantial piece of interpretation that requires knowledge of first century marriage practices? I mean, knowledge that is not already there in the bible.
On the headship and submission question, you have cited a number of examples: women unable to obtain mortgages or employment pre-feminism; women subject to physical and sexual abuse as a direct result of the understanding of what submission meant. And I agree that feminism has brought to the forefront the invalidity of some of these assumptions about the nature of true submission.
But I would counter that no-one can pay careful attention to Ephesians 5 and the way Christ treated his church, and come away thinking that it is automatically right to deny mortgages or employment to women—much less be violent towards wives— simply and only on the grounds that they are to submit! That in itself is a textual distortion. No doubt it would be possible to argue that in Paul’s first century culture, such things were regularly practised. But at this point, the lack of cultural detail in the bible, and the epistolary nature of much of the NT, whereby we must frankly admit just how much we don’t know of the actual situation addressed, turns out to be a great blessing. We are thrown back to asking what comments the bible itself has to make on the nature of submission, and with it leadership.
Note also how we have various indications that Christian discipleship means radically standing against prevailing cultural norms, no matter how bizarre this will appear. Eg.
quote:
Luke 22:25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
Luke 22:26 But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.
Luke 22:27 For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.
If the husband is in any sense a leader in the marriage, then here is an example where the husband may not simply pick up prevailing social mores and apply them to the marriage, but must do the exact opposite.
So, we must struggle with the principles stated by Paul and how to rework them into their contemporary application. We are not free to insist that Paul was simply endorsing a slightly more enlightened version of first-century culture, as a cultural model that must be ossified into the church for all time.
I think I am still waiting for you to define what you mean by "inferiority". You have given examples; examples which I deny are what the bible had in mind when it teaches submission. But you still seem to be insisting that submission will and must equate to inferiority. True, or have I got that wrong?
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
no way. people still teach this?
Inferiority - not allowed to do certain things that men are simply because of gender. thats inferiority.
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
The basic question I would want to ask you is why does this handful of passages from St Paul matter so much? They don't seem central to the history of salvation. They've never featured heavily in the tradition. If we removed them from the New Testament it wouldn't look very different (this contrasts with, say, Jesus' teaching about and actions towards the poor). What is it about our current situation and ideological presuppositions, that makes these, apparently incidental, texts the stuff of controversy?
[aimed at gordon, not emma, whom I agree with]
[ 08. April 2005, 23:01: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
My huge problem with it is that *in context* the passages would have been hugely liberating for women.
Household codes of the time usaully had "women must, children must, slaves must.." the main point paul was making is that he was revolutionary. He was suggesting those in authority actually had a responsibilty to those they are in authority over.
As in... not only children must.. BUT ALSO parents. not just slave, BUT ALSO owners..
So that would have been the real punch of the passage.
Similarly the husband head as christ is head.. read that bit that says "ahh but i am not talking about marriage, i am talking about the church". He is using a relevant daily metaphor for his purposes, like sheep and shepherds and all that.To argue backwards is bad logic. Like arguing that sheep should be like christians...
In total, it is those teaching that women should have lesser roles than men in todays society that have missed the point of the passages and arent taking them seriously. IMHO.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
no way. people still teach this?
It's bizarre, isn't it. Positively antediluvian. And to think that I've been married for more than 20 years, that my wife and I share cooking and cleaning, that she has a university degree and that I've encouraged her to work or not, as she chooses, and that our 3 little daughters still seem fairly well adjusted. And I still think I'm trying to live out these principles, and so does my wife! Possibly we're unhappy and don't yet know it.
But I still haven't worked out how different roles in our marriage means that my wife is inferior to me, or me to her for that matter.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
That people have different roles in marriage is unexceptionable. To have those roles determined by sex is sexism.
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
Gordon, if you're willing to share more about the way you pursue your different roles, can you indicate in which spheres you exercise your husbandly authority?
What you've related seems no different to any other husband and wife. When does crunch time come?
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
exactly (agreeing wtih coot and ruth)
Im convinced men and women *are* different, personally. And any 2 people (male or female) will think differently and relate in different ways, so in a marriage obviously different roles will be taken. Surprisingly I personally would love the house"wife" role, and responsibility for kids.
However, where does leave "authority over". Are you saying you gave your wife permission to work outside the home/ you graciously decided to help her with the washing up... or is the point just academic?
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
The question here seems to have shifted to consider
"If the husband persistently does not even attempt to love his wife as Christ loved the church, should the wife still recognise his headship?"
To my (limited) mind, the best response would be to speak to him about it, or get someone else to do it. If the wife is a Christian and the husband isn't, it gets a bit trickier though.
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
Just meandering back to something else for a moment - but I hope Gordo will carry on with the above.
quote:
Gordon:
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.
I was thinking about this and remembered the situation in the 70s when groups of women got together at rallies and burnt their bras. This is the removal rather than the wearing, but the dynamic is the same.
That was most definitely a symbolic and an ideological action and a rejection of male authority - but not against the godly sort of authority (people interpret) Paul as talking about.
[btw, I don't think the wearing of bras need be an indicator of patriarchal oppression or submission to male authority... though an argument could be made for it (women wanting to look beautiful for men or even just themselves, because men have told them they don't look beautiful with saggy tits)]
[ 09. April 2005, 11:06: Message edited by: The Coot ]
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
I apologise in advance if this is a simplistic or stupid question.
If Paul gives us guidelines for managing the relationship between slaves and masters alongside guidelines for managing the relationship between husbands and wives, why do we not interperet that as indicating that we ought to keep (or be) slaves? Why is the lack of (legal) slavery in the UK not considered another sign of fallenness (as someone described uppity women)?
Or rather - even if we decide slavery is inappropriate for us, it's not compulsory after all any more than marriage! - by what authority would we assume the right to stop others from doing it?
If the social and political morality of slavery can be rethought without violating Paul, why can't the same rethinking apply to male\female relationships?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
By way of introduction:
I've been round all sides of this debate (hi Emma
)
I've read the whole thread because Mrs. E told me to
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think I am still waiting for you to define what you mean by "inferiority". You have given examples; examples which I deny are what the bible had in mind when it teaches submission. But you still seem to be insisting that submission will and must equate to inferiority. True, or have I got that wrong?
Gordon, how about 1 Timothy 2:11, 13-14:
quote:
"A woman must learn in quietness and full submission... For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner"
(tried to link to context using BibleGateway but it seems to be down)
I know this doesn't address marriage but it is held up by Grudem, Piper et al. as an "appeal to a creational principle" as a justification of male leadership which does not rely on cultural context. And it could be construed as pretty inferiorising on Eve and her descendants (who will however be saved if they bear children...)
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
hehe *waves hello to euty* (and apologises for allthe trouble that caused ho hum...)
theres a fantastic book ive got - ill see if i can find it.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Custard.......I would say the wife has a problem and one only she could resolve.
THAT is the rub with this argument,at what point does either the husband insist or the wife rufuse.
And IF it's ok for the husband to insist then surely it's ok for the wife to refuse....?
On ANY issue. Working where? how? Going out? Staying in? Holidaying in Benidorm or Birmingham... Worshipping at St Cuthberts or Cornerstone...
Where and how does anyone draw the line?
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
You know, if the reformed traditions accepted the ordained priesthood, they wouldn't need to get their knicks in a twist over Headship... because they could exclude women from positions of clerical authority by the 'imaging Christ' argument.
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
What makes variations on male headship work out IRL is when the spouses both have the same or similar underpinnings for their applications of the Scriptures/principles to daily life.
That is, in my experience, if the decision at hand can be tied into somehow mattering as regards Christian witness, Christian living, functional church life, then one isn't submitting in any sort of "inferior" way.
And if I can tie in my desires about decisions to a "Thus saith the Lord" or to an "it's better for the congregation / the family in our witness", then it's not hard for the spouse to submit himself to me. Usually.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
You know, if the reformed traditions accepted the ordained priesthood, they wouldn't need to get their knicks in a twist over Headship... because they could exclude women from positions of clerical authority by the 'imaging Christ' argument.
Except that I for one:
1) don't think the ordained priest is representing Christ
2) don't think he'd need to be male to do so (Christ as priest represented both men and women)
3) being male, and not of a transvestite persuasion, do not wear knickers
Enough dead horses already?
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on
:
Gordon Cheng: quote:
unless the wearing of trousers or jeans signifies in that context a rebellion against the created order.
(Emph. mine)
quote:
Genesis 2: [25] And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed
How can a dress code be against the created order?
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
Having just read the thread through I have various comments.
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
My huge problem with it is that *in context* the passages would have been hugely liberating for women.
Household codes of the time usaully had "women must, children must, slaves must.." the main point paul was making is that he was revolutionary. He was suggesting those in authority actually had a responsibilty to those they are in authority over.
As in... not only children must.. BUT ALSO parents. not just slave, BUT ALSO owners..
So that would have been the real punch of the passage.
Similarly the husband head as christ is head.. read that bit that says "ahh but i am not talking about marriage, i am talking about the church". He is using a relevant daily metaphor for his purposes, like sheep and shepherds and all that.To argue backwards is bad logic. Like arguing that sheep should be like christians...
In total, it is those teaching that women should have lesser roles than men in todays society that have missed the point of the passages and arent taking them seriously. IMHO.
Indeed. Reading the first three pages of the thread (i.e. the argument from 3 years ago) I was struck by the fact that people were talking about the women submitting, but very little was said about the men loving their wives as Christ loves the Church. There were a few comments about how men have the harder job, but these seemed to be thrown in from the outside rather than being an equal part of the discussion. This is also something which strikes me about the `evangelical'* fashion for `submissive wives'. It's all about the women submitting and not about the husband being Christ-like. I agree with those who see the potential for abuse in the idea of the `submissive wife' but that's because the Christ-like loving has been lost. Husbands do not have unqualified power over their wives. It is qualified by Christ!
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
I'm convinced men and women *are* different, personally. And any 2 people (male or female) will think differently and relate in different ways, so in a marriage obviously different roles will be taken. Surprisingly I personally would love the house"wife" role, and responsibility for kids.
I agree that people are different. I'm less sure about the extent to which men and women are different. Yes, I think that there are male and female tendencies but that doesn't stop individuals not fitting those tendencies. Trying to impose ideas about what's typically male and typically female on individuals seems dangerous to me. Two of my friends are married to each other and I have to say there are ways in which he's more feminine and she more masculine. It works though.
Again, I often feel I have more in common with male Cambridge friends than I did with girls at school. I've just thought about the people I know from Cambridge who I'd classify as close friends and realised that 6 of the 9 are male. That doesn't matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I'd be really interested to hear from the people most involved in the thread back nearly 3 years ago -- how their thinking on this has gone on in the ensuing time.
This struck me with one post in particular:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
duchess, I agree with the principle of Bible study you espouse. But, when you read Pauls letters "studying what really is meant, the context and everything around it" then the society (and the prejudices, expectations and understanding of that society) of the original recipients of those letters must be taken into account in just the way Louise and others have said. The result of such a study may well be to say that even if the letters in question are inerrant instructions to the churches they were sent that doesn't mean those same instructions are inerrant to us because our situation is so different. In this case that the husbands' headship & wifes' submission is not, in our society, the way marriage should be arranged.
That's not to say that the texts in question are meaningless today. I tend to the view that as the distinct gender roles assumed in the first century have been blurred and are almost non-existant today then so have the headship/submission roles in relationship. A husband and wife should, I think, share headship and submit to each other.
Of course, I'm single so I'm not talking from experience here at all.
I was wondering given that Alan is no longer single what effect that has had on his thinking!
*I put evangelical into inverted commas because it is very much a subset of evangelicalism which goes in for this, but I couldn't think of a succint way of putting this!
Carys
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
Yes, I was sorta tongue in cheek, Custard.
But is this what this whole Headship thing is about? The reformed traditions version of baulking at ovaries in orders?
I don't think it's about the ordering of the household... but I am interested to know the practicalities of how Gordon (or others who practice the biblical model) does it, if he/they wish/s to share.
[Janine, are you sure you're not Greek? It sounds out you have worked out how to wear the trousers while making the man think he is wearing the trousers]
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on
:
Am I alone in thinking that if Paul's intention was to clarify things then he choose quite possibly the most inept way of doing so?
I also think we are still waiting for someone who believes in headship to explain what it actually means or is it just something we should assent to and have no idea of how it might impact on our marriages?
At the moment it seems to me the danger is that those defending headship are divesting it of virtually all meaning. Which I think was one of Weed's initial points.
Luigi
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon:
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.
Where I live a noticeable minority of people, usually people under 30, wear clothes that appear to be make ideological statements. This is frequently a rather personal ideology, but the goths, the girl-power grrlz, the skater boiz, the hippies (yes, we've still got some floating around So Cal), the bikers all seem to me to be making ideological statements with their clothes. And some of the hip-hop clothing seems to be intended to do that as well.
Posted by HopPik (# 8510) on
:
I'm not really into the theological aspects of this thread, I'll leave the trinitarian details to people better qualified than me. I'm just talking about the notion of headship within the family.
Maybe my experience is singular. Perhaps it's just metropolitan professionals, which is what almost all of our friends are, but as far as anyone can judge what is going on in somebody else's relationship, it seems to me that - frankly without exception - the women I know who are living with / married to a man are absolutely insisting on being in control. And the men in their lives are accepting that.
Maybe this is atypical. Or maybe it's a new development, perhaps peculiar to this neck of the woods. Who knows? But it's how it seems to me. Headship here is with the woman.
In our own family - well things are unusual. Uniquely in our own circle, though it is happening more and more, we "swapped roles". I gave up paid work to look after the kids while my wife became the breadwinner. And, being at the domestic core, I found that in fact, if not entirely in control of things, I was seen as crucial... so that in the end, rather than challenge me, children, spouse, would back off. Perhaps this is as it ever was, the homekeeper finally calling the tune, in which case in a conventional family maybe male headship was always something of a fantasy. There's always been a strand in popular myth that women let men imagine they're in charge but really hold all the reins. I can believe that.
How this relates to the friends I've talked about, where typically both partners are at work, I don't know.
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
custard.. im asgreeing with you again. lots. hmmm.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
Carys points out, rightly, that when people talk about headship, they immediately start talking about whether or not a woman has to submit to her husband, what that entails, and so on and so forth. But that's the wrong place to start.
St. John Chrysostom made it very plain, in his homily on Ephesians 5, that the place where one starts talking about roles in marriage is with the husband's love for his wife. He commands husbands to treat their wives with affection, kindness, and great regard. He goes on at very great length about how, whatever they do for their wives, however much they think they love their wives, it's not enough, for no man has ever loved his wife as much as Christ loves the Church, no one has ever done as much for his wife as Christ has done for the Church, and that is the standard that is commanded.
He takes care to ensure that husbands don't think that being the head gives them the right to abuse their wives. In fact, he tells them that if their wives fear them, and give them the obedience that a slave gives a master, they have mistreated their wives and disgraced themselves. He says no husband should ever believe an accusation against his wife from a third party. He says if their wives don't think they spend enough time with them, but too much time with their work and their friends, they should spend more time with their wives.
He says that whenever a husband speaks to his wife, he should be humble, and speak with words full of grace and kindness. He says that the husband should not seek to control their material possessions, but to consider all things to be held in common. He notes Paul's statement that the husband rules over his wife's body, and the wife over her husband's, and tells the husband to say to his wife, "If I have no power over my own body, but rather you do, how much more power is yours over my material possessions?"
And if, in the face of all this love, the wife is still disrespectful, what is a husband to do? St. John gives the husband only one choice: to love his wife all the more.
As for the wife's submission, he tells the husbands that "when you hear Paul say 'fear' or 'respect,' ask for the respect due you from a free woman." He is clear that a woman's submission to her husband is and must be her free choice -- God commands it, but her husband cannot command it. He can only receive it as a free gift from her, and only if she chooses to give it.
To wives, he says they should respect their husband. But if a woman's husband doesn't love her, that doesn't free her from her responsibility to her -- but it does diminish it. He tells her that she should not stubbornly contradict him. If she does that, she's done enough.
He never tells husbands that they have done enough.
So, in the Orthodox Church, that's what it means to be the husband, the head -- to do everything you can for your wife, and to know that it still isn't enough, and will never be enough.
And in case it's not absolutely clear, during Bridegroom Matins, during Holy Week, the Church sets out an icon of Christ the Bridegroom, to make sure every man understands what it means to be the bridegroom, the husband.
Headship is not about submissive wives. It is about loving husbands.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HopPik:
In our own family - well things are unusual. Uniquely in our own circle, though it is happening more and more, we "swapped roles". I gave up paid work to look after the kids while my wife became the breadwinner. And, being at the domestic core, I found that in fact, if not entirely in control of things, I was seen as crucial... so that in the end, rather than challenge me, children, spouse, would back off. Perhaps this is as it ever was, the homekeeper finally calling the tune, in which case in a conventional family maybe male headship was always something of a fantasy. There's always been a strand in popular myth that women let men imagine they're in charge but really hold all the reins. I can believe that.
Not to say that this is how things are in your family, but in general it seems to me entirely possible that a man who is "homekeeper" might be taken more seriously than a woman in the same role.
Male headship is not a fantasy, neither now or in the past. Evidence:
- My mother is a smart, competent and level-headed woman, and while she is anything beaten down, and while they function as partners in a lot of ways, she has deferred throughout their marriage to my smart, competent but less level-headed and also unbelievably stubborn father. Because that's the way she was raised, and that's just how things are.
- My grandfather was a traveling salesman who cheated on my grandmother, and she knew it, and she just bore it, because that's the way she was raised, and that's just how things are.
- The man who is now my cousin's husband asked permission from her father before he asked her to marry him (in the mid-1980s, mind you), because in all of their minds a woman is under the authority of her father until she is under the authority of her husband.
- A few years ago I briefly dated someone whose explanation of why his non-denominational church would never have a female pastor all came down to male headship. (This was the last date I had with this guy, needless to say!)
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on
:
This article is a good summary of the biblical arguments for headship and for explaining what it is and what it isn't.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
Thanks Josephine - that was helpful, especially given that SJC predates feminism by a very long way and that he seems to have a very healthy view of headship.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
This article is a good summary of the biblical arguments for headship and for explaining what it is and what it isn't.
How would you address the view, expressed several times earlier on in this thread, that the practical outworking of Grudem's position (the husband effectively has a 'casting vote' at times of serious decision-making) only makes sense in the light of huge historical developments granting rights to women, developments which have occured in the face of traditional interpretations of the role and status of man and woman based on the passages he quotes in support of his view?
And would you like to respond to the view also posted earlier in which somemone gives the example of Miss Smith, acknowledged by an office manager 'who makes everything work round here and who I would be lost without', and who despite this verbal accolade is in actual fact treated as an inferior, 'subordinate' in every practical sense of the term? She may have an equal status in principle, but in practice she does not.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
This article is a good summary of the biblical arguments for headship and for explaining what it is and what it isn't.
How would you address the view, expressed several times earlier on in this thread, that the practical outworking of Grudem's position (the husband effectively has a 'casting vote' at times of serious decision-making) only makes sense in the light of huge historical developments granting rights to women, developments which have occured in the face of traditional interpretations of the role and status of man and woman based on the passages he quotes in support of his view?
As was discussed in my post on page 2 of this thread and the subsequent posts on that page.
L.
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Thanks Josephine - that was helpful, especially given that SJC predates feminism by a very long way and that he seems to have a very healthy view of headship.
Do you consider St John Chrysostom's views on women to be healthy? For example, quote:
And what may be the cause of his setting them under so great subjection? Because the woman is in some sort a weaker being and easily carried away and light minded. Here you see why he set over them their husbands as teachers, for the benefit of both. For so he both rendered the women orderly, and the husbands he made anxious, as having to deliver to their wives very exactly what they heard.
Would you teach a young man that?
quote:
Seest thou the wisdom of Paul, what kind of testimony he adduced, one that not only enjoins on them silence, but silence too with fear; and with as great fear as that wherewith a maid servant ought to keep herself quiet.
I don't dispute what josephine says about the instruction to men in respect of their duty towards their wives, in fact you can see it at the end of the first quote above, but the other side of the coin? Is that all right with you?
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on
:
I don't have time to read the whole thread, and I simply can't believe that this old nag has been resurrected, but there are a couple of things I'd like to say:
- Try this exercise: take a Bible concordance, for any translation, and look up the word 'headship'. I guarantee you will not find it. A tiny handful of Bible verses which use the Greek word 'kephale' in relation to marriage, have been inflated into a total system for all relations between men and women.
- Now try this: find me the verse where it says that a man is head of his household. You won't find that one either - there isn't one.
- Thirdly, ask yourself this: in the relation between Christ and the church, to which Paul is comparing marriage, who is required to make the greater sacrifice - Christ or the church?
- Fourthly, what is the ratio between the sermons you have heard exhorting wives to submit, and the sermons you have heard exhorting husbands to lay down their lives? And have you ever heard a sermon on 'Submit to one another'? If not, why not?
- And finally: it seems fairly self-evident that many of Paul's directives regarding female behaviour were designed to stop the church appearing scandalous in his society. Now, which is the scandal in today's society - equality of marriage partners, or a hierarchy over male over female? Surely it is the hierarchy, which our society is scandalized by (and so it should be, when one sees what abuse has been perpetrated in the name of hierarchy). So, what would Paul be saying today, to avoid the church becoming a scandal?
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
Do you consider St John Chrysostom's views on women to be healthy?
I don't think that he was perfect, or that what he wrote was perfect. I was merely indicating that that passage from SJC showed that the modern conservative evangelical view of headship was not a post-feminist development, as was claimed recently on this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
[*]Thirdly, ask yourself this: in the relation between Christ and the church, to which Paul is comparing marriage, who is required to make the greater sacrifice - Christ or the church?
Christ, without a doubt
quote:
[*]Fourthly, what is the ratio between the sermons you have heard exhorting wives to submit, and the sermons you have heard exhorting husbands to lay down their lives? And have you ever heard a sermon on 'Submit to one another'? If not, why not?
The ratio of the sermons is 1:1, as we preach on Bible passages, not on verses isolated from context. I can remember a good handful of talks on that bit of Ephesians, and every one of them has talked about both duties.
And yes, I have heard a sermon on "submit to one another", often included with the bit about wives and husbands, sometimes as part of the sermon before it in the series on Ephesians.
quote:
[*]And finally: it seems fairly self-evident that many of Paul's directives regarding female behaviour were designed to stop the church appearing scandalous in his society.
The question is whether this is one of them...
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Gordon, if you're willing to share more about the way you pursue your different roles, can you indicate in which spheres you exercise your husbandly authority?
What you've related seems no different to any other husband and wife. When does crunch time come?
Coot, thanks for asking and as one or two other have asked some similar questions, I thought I might give a brief answer.
As a general comment, although the question of who makes a decision when there is conflict needs to be addressed, it is one of those things where the interest in this issue seems to be unhelpfully focussed and even inimical to developing a good understanding of the nature of headship. I would compare it to two partners in an acrobatic act in a travelling circus being concerned to know where the local hospital was, and how to get there: not insignificant to be sure, but if the focus becomes obsessive and overwhelming, you worry for the safety of those involved the act.
Specifically, it is very hard for me to recall any time in our marriage where we’ve reached an impasse that hasn’t been resolvable by discussion. “I disagree but we’ll do it your way” has been said, but at least as often by me as by Fiona.
If there is an area that is more likely to generate frustration, it is that I am too passive in expressing an opinion or in showing leadership. It’s not that I don’t have an opinion on many issues, as people who’ve read my posts will know. It’s rather that there are whole sections of life where my opinion is not strong enough for me to be bothered working out what it is. Shall we drive or fly? Do you prefer blue or black? Where do you want to sit? I’ve finally realised that the answer “Dunno” may be true but it’s also unsatisfactory. And the issues are not necessarily trivial either. When Mrs Cheng was working out whether to study law, landscape architecture, history, or carpentry, or simply to get a clerical job, she would’ve preferred if I’d said something a bit more than “well they’d all be good, and you could do any of them” (she did landscape architecture).
As I reflect on our marriage, and as I return to the Bible to see what it says, I become more and more convinced that the key to headship is leading by speaking, and that the model for how to lead by speaking is seen at its best by Jesus in relationship to his disciples (hardly surprising, as in Ephesians 5 it is the relationship between Christ and his church that is analogous to husband and wife).
This style of leadership specifically excludes physical violence or coercion, and in speaking, it excludes bossiness, verbal abuse, or refusal to discuss the reasons for what is said. It includes a responsibility that the husband himself, like Christ, submit to the will of the heavenly Father and demonstrate the work of the Spirit in his life—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Because the husband is himself a man under authority, he has no authority to insist that the wife disobey God’s commands.
In my marriage I believe my most significant failure as a husband is not that I am bossy or insist on my way, but rather that I fail to speak and therefore to lead. It’s easy for me to be passive and leave matters undone or leave Mrs C to make decisions. My not speaking is not simply a matter of being uncommunicative or failing to express an opinion; it’s a failure to express my character, concerns, love for my wife (and now three daughters), failure to express desire for her wellbeing, failure to invite her to say what she thinks and feels, failure to help her by revealing what I think is important and really matters — included within that, speaking of the things of God’s character, will and actions — failure to take initiative in things that really matter for our lives and relationships and children and community.
(Can I say at this point that although Mrs C is free to take initiative in these areas, the ultimate responsibility for them is given to the husband; as I read Ephesians 5)
I don’t say that I’m a complete failure in any of those areas; simply that if I have a tendency to fail, it is not by being overly authoritarian and dictatorial (although that would be a failure); rather it is a tendency to withdraw into non-communication. I suspect, without knowing, that a lot of women would complain not that their husbands are too bossy but that they never say anything — about anything.
On the question of what to do when it comes to the crunch and a couple really have reached impasse, even here it is not clear that the husband’s will must prevail. The only biblical example I can think of is 1 Corinthians 7:1-6; which raises the possibility of a scenario where either the husband or wife wants to have sex and the other doesn’t. Here, the advice Paul gives is quite clear that if the husband would like to abstain, and the wife wouldn’t, then the husband must give way and they must have sex. “the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” (1 Corinthians 7:4). On the basis of this example, it may well be that in other matters the husband shows leadership by subordinating his desires and deciding for the good of his wife, where the dispute is unresolveable by normal discussion.
Like the acrobatic couple obsessed with the location of the nearest hospital in case things go wrong, I am not at all sure that being obsessed with who gets the final say is healthy either as a general discussion, or as a way of resolving a dispute for the good of the marriage.
Posted by Paul Mason (# 7562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It includes a responsibility that the husband himself, like Christ, submit to the will of the heavenly Father and demonstrate the work of the Spirit in his life—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
...
speaking of the things of God’s character, will and actions
This all sounds very noble but the question remains as to whether one's ability to demonstrate the work of the Spirit in the ways described, and the insights necessary to speaking of God's character, will and actions - whether these are somehow more in the grasp of men than women purely because of their gender.
To say that they are seems to fly in the face of what we experience. On the whole I don't meet more men with a better insight into the things of God, I don't find women less demonstrative of the fruits of the Spirit. Do you?
quote:
The only biblical example I can think of is 1 Corinthians 7:1-6; which raises the possibility of a scenario where either the husband or wife wants to have sex and the other doesn’t. Here, the advice Paul gives is quite clear that if the husband would like to abstain, and the wife wouldn’t, then the husband must give way and they must have sex.
But, as I'm sure you know, it's this exact logic, with the genders reversed, that's been so abused in the past with relation to rape within marriage. And although it's possible to state it as you did, it seems to me that because of certain physical considerations (not to be too crude) such a view is always more liable to be misused by the man than the woman - at least in such an extreme way.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
He goes on at very great length about how, whatever they do for their wives, however much they think they love their wives, it's not enough
...
To wives, he says they should respect their husband. But if a woman's husband doesn't love her, that doesn't free her from her responsibility to her -- but it does diminish it. He tells her that she should not stubbornly contradict him. If she does that, she's done enough.
He never tells husbands that they have done enough.
...
So, in the Orthodox Church, that's what it means to be the husband, the head -- to do everything you can for your wife, and to know that it still isn't enough, and will never be enough.
And this disparity is because...?
As a man, forgive me, but the idea of trying to live up to something that I know I'll never achieve doesn't exactly fill me with joy. In fact it's this kind of thing, unrealistic expectations, amongst other things, that is a reason why I'm not a Christian today.
And the implication for women is that they are somehow not equipped to the 'never enough' aspirations given to their husbands. Or maybe God just likes women more?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
This all sounds very noble but the question remains as to whether one's ability to demonstrate the work of the Spirit in the ways described, and the insights necessary to speaking of God's character, will and actions - whether these are somehow more in the grasp of men than women purely because of their gender.
I make no such claim! It is a point about where ultimate responsibility lies, not who's better at it. The administrator of a hospital may take ultimate responsibility for the results of brain surgery in the hospital, even if his wife the brain surgeon is better at brain surgery than the administrator is.
quote:
But, as I'm sure you know, it's this exact logic, with the genders reversed, that's been so abused in the past with relation to rape within marriage. And although it's possible to state it as you did, it seems to me that because of certain physical considerations (not to be too crude) such a view is always more liable to be misused by the man than the woman - at least in such an extreme way.
Sure, and "abused" is spot on. Jesus never used physical force to coerce people to his ends, even though:
Matt. 26:53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?
Interpreting and applying 1 Corinthians 7:1-6 correctly is about paying attention to the New Testament context, not prooftexting it as grounds for physical abuse or rape within marriage.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Jesus never used physical force to coerce people to his ends
Hmm, I seem to remember a certain incident with some money-changers and a whip.....
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Jesus never used physical force to coerce people to his ends
Hmm, I seem to remember a certain incident with some money-changers and a whip.....
Symbolism, surely. The whip is only mentioned in John 2:15, and in the same verse the reason implied for its use is "the sheep and oxen".
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The whip is only mentioned in John 2:15, and in the same verse the reason implied for its use is "the sheep and oxen".
[total tangent] sorry for this DP, but this detail is just one of many little reasons that add weight to the claim for John as eyewitness; and so an early date for authorship of John's gospel[/total tangent]
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
None to the point. He overturned their tables. That's physical force, whether you think he used the "scourge" on the people or just on the animals.
Posted by Paul Mason (# 7562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
This all sounds very noble but the question remains as to whether one's ability to demonstrate the work of the Spirit in the ways described, and the insights necessary to speaking of God's character, will and actions - whether these are somehow more in the grasp of men than women purely because of their gender.
I make no such claim! It is a point about where ultimate responsibility lies, not who's better at it.
Well I'd hoped you'd been making such a claim as that would at least make sense to me. The idea that the responsibility always goes to the man because he's better at it makes more sense than the idea that it goes to him simply because he's a man.
quote:
The administrator of a hospital may take ultimate responsibility for the results of brain surgery in the hospital, even if his wife the brain surgeon is better at brain surgery than the administrator is.
But the Administrator's responsibility is a function of his or her ability - in administrating. If the Administrator was appointed because of their gender we'd rightly be shocked. Also one hopes that in matters of medical opinion they'd defer to more knowledgeable colleagues.
Actually now that I think of it, if we apply your example then we're saying that women may be better 'doctors' (whatever the skill or ability we're discussing) but men are always better 'administrators' (better suited for responsibility).
Again this is not borne out by experience.
quote:
quote:
But, as I'm sure you know, it's this exact logic, with the genders reversed, that's been so abused in the past with relation to rape within marriage. And although it's possible to state it as you did, it seems to me that because of certain physical considerations (not to be too crude) such a view is always more liable to be misused by the man than the woman - at least in such an extreme way.
Sure, and "abused" is spot on. Jesus never used physical force to coerce people to his ends, even though:
Matt. 26:53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?
Interpreting and applying 1 Corinthians 7:1-6 correctly is about paying attention to the New Testament context, not prooftexting it as grounds for physical abuse or rape within marriage.
My point is that 1 Cor 7:1-6 is an unhelpful way to look at the relationship between our bodies and our partners. I'd be much happier if Paul had said that mutual agreement was best in decisions about love-making rather than this thing about our bodies not belonging to ourselves.
Posted by HopPik (# 8510) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not to say that this is how things are in your family, but in general it seems to me entirely possible that a man who is "homekeeper" might be taken more seriously than a woman in the same role.
Hard to tell, I mean how many families do any of us really know well enough to have an idea how things work when the doors are all closed and the curtains drawn? Very few in my case. And what little I do know of the reality of other peoples' family lives compared to what they SAY suggests to me that most people are hopelessly blinkered when it comes to telling others how things are, even when those others are close friends. And I'm sure I'm no exception, so it would probably be wise to dismiss anything I've said on this subject!
All I can say is that my own limited, imperfectly understood and very probably unrepresentative experience doesn't bear out what you say here.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
Do you consider St John Chrysostom's views on women to be healthy?
I think if we compare the views on women that were common during St. John Chrysostom's time with the views expressed in his homilies on marriage, the remarkable thing is not the occasional remark about women being weak and in need of support -- that you would expect.
But who would expect this? "A servant can be taught submission through fear; but even he, if provoked too much, will soon seek his escape. But one's partner for life, the mother of one's children, the source of one's every joy, should never be fettered with fear and threats, but with love and patience. What kind of marriage can there be when the wife is afraid of her husband? What sort of satisfaction could a husband himself have, if he lives with his wife as if she were a slave, and not with a woman by her own free will? Suffer anything for her sake, but never disgrace her, for Christ never did this with the Church."
Or "Your wife is God's creation. If you reproach her, you are not condemning her, but Him who made her."
He tells married men that, if they have sex with someone other than their wife, they are committing adultery. That seems to have amazed his listeners -- they thought it was adultery if a married woman had sex with someone not her husband, but didn't consider it so for a married man. St. John rejects the double standard, saying, "Your wife did not come to you, leaving her father and mother and her whole household, so that you could take a cheap servant girl in her place. It was not in order to start a thousand battles that you took a companion, a partner for life, a free woman with equal honor to yourself."
St. John Chrysostom wasn't thoroughly modern in his opinions regarding women -- it would be odd indeed if he had been, given that he lived in the fourth century. But if you compare his teachings to the common views of his time, especially his insistence on a woman's freedom, they were truly radical. And they do not in any way allow for an idea of "headship" that is focused on authority, on who gets the deciding vote, on who is a wimp and who is a usurper.
Marriage, in Orthodoxy, is a path of salvation. It is the place where most of us learn to love and to be loved -- which is what salvation is all about. It isn't about rights, or authority, or casting votes. It is about holiness, about becoming by grace what God is by nature.
It seems, from reading St. John Chrysostom and other Orthodox writers on marriage, that in general, a man is more likely to need to learn how to love, a woman is more likely to need to learn how to receive love. Thus the general teachings focus on that. But because marriage is a path of salvation, there aren't any hard and fast rules about how it must be. The only thing there must be is love.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
So, how does Christian headship work in practice?
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
This article is a good summary of the biblical arguments for headship and for explaining what it is and what it isn't.
How would you address the view, expressed several times earlier on in this thread, that the practical outworking of Grudem's position (the husband effectively has a 'casting vote' at times of serious decision-making) only makes sense in the light of huge historical developments granting rights to women, developments which have occured in the face of traditional interpretations of the role and status of man and woman based on the passages he quotes in support of his view?
Headship can only be properly understood in the wider context of the roles of men and women under God. There are many ways in which the church over the centuries has been unbiblical in regarding women as being of lesser status and, in the 19th and 20th centuries, treating headship as being somehow connected to women not going out to work. Society in general has inevitably been even more unbiblical in how it regarded women. This is not an argument for going back to either church or society's 'traditional' views of the roles of men and women. It is an argument that a full, rounded biblical view of men and women-treating them both as equal and both with equal gifting and callings within the context of headship-has in fact very rarely been put into practice and it is that which we need to develop.
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
Actually I've been thinking of the Col 3:18 and other verses. The 'submit' is offered from the wife's perspective. ie. It says:
quote:
Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
It doesn't say 'Wives submit to your husbands, and husbands dominate your wives'. Can anyone comment on the culture of the day - I could see this verse was so that believers didn't give cause for criticism or scandal to the unbelievers - thus not so much to be a reflection of the Divine Order. Also this verse doesn't require husbands not to consult their wives or let their wives make decisions - and in fact if they didn't allow such, they could be accused of failing to love or being harsh.
Contrast Eph 5:22
quote:
Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
That is far broader than the Col. verse. Submitting to your husbands as to the Lord - now that is *everything*, a complete surrender: 'your will not mine'. And then stated as such.
Again, of course, just because wives are required to submit, doesn't mean the husband has to make them submit in everything... or anything for that matter! It doesn't say 'Husbands exercise authority over your wives as Christ exercises authority over the Church', but only delineates the husband's duty to the wife in terms of the love of Christ for the Church.
How complete should the Christ-husband Church-wife allegory be?
I think the way you describe you and your wife's interaction sounds lovely (really); but this isn't the impression the Dr. Dobsons of the world give to the rest of us about how these verses are to be understood and practiced!
I guess this is more Kerygmania material - what of these 2 letters, can they be dated? Were there especially troubles in Ephesus were the wives were dominating the husbands to the scandal of the Church?
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
Gordon,
A reply to an earlier post I haven't been able to get around to before now. I drafted this before your description of your own marriage which I thank you for. As Coot says, it sounds lovely, but I don't quite see how it would be different without the view you take on headship. Sounds like a great Christian marriage between equals to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Now in your earlier response you have quoted the immediate context to show that there is also a link to the natural order of things; and so there is. But the natural order of things is not just about hair-wearing! It’s about submission. So Paul supports the latter (submission), insists on the former (hair style) in a situation where all churches are following the same practice— and then leaves later readers to figure out application in their context.
The natural order of things may not be "just" about hair-wearing but according to St Paul there is a natural order way of wearing your hair that is different according to whether you are a man or a woman.
quote:
So the cutural studies stuff is helpful but not essential, and has its own pitfalls too
(for example: one pitfall is a greater temptation to assume that I've got the culture nailed down, now that I've done my archaeology degree; thus dignifying my cultural insights with too much weight in the interpretive process)
My point is that there is enough cultural information to be found in the text for us to be getting on with. Could you name one substantial piece of interpretation that hinges on extra-biblical knowledge of how shepherds operated in first century Galilee? Could you name one substantial piece of interpretation that requires knowledge of first century marriage practices? I mean, knowledge that is not already there in the bible.
Of course there's always a danger in using your brain when reading but the important thing is to know when you are bringing things to the text and when the text itself supports it. Tell me, do you have a mental picture of the buildings and landscape of the bible? How much of that comes from seeing pictures and photographs?
However you ask for substantial pieces of interpretation that depend on a knowledge of shepherds or marriage practices. I thought I'd already given them and Emma has improved on my latter example but I'll go one better than that and give you an example of the extensive and crucial use of extra-biblical knowledge, and that's in translating the original text of the bible. We have dozens of translations, each one an attempt better to convey what was originally meant and to be closer to the spirit of the original. Isn't it odd if the translator is allowed to refer to other literature of the time to get at the meaning of the original but the reader of the translation isn't?
quote:
But I would counter that no-one can pay careful attention to Ephesians 5 and the way Christ treated his church, and come away thinking that it is automatically right to deny mortgages or employment to women—much less be violent towards wives— simply and only on the grounds that they are to submit! That in itself is a textual distortion.
Don't you know that for the best part of 2000 years the admonitions in the epistles have been used to justify such behaviour towards women?
quote:
Note also how we have various indications that Christian discipleship means radically standing against prevailing cultural norms, no matter how bizarre this will appear. Eg.
quote:
Luke 22:25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
Luke 22:26 But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.
Luke 22:27 For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.
If the husband is in any sense a leader in the marriage, then here is an example where the husband may not simply pick up prevailing social mores and apply them to the marriage, but must do the exact opposite.
The Pope was lauded as having been the perfect servant of the church. That doesn't mean he wasn't the boss and everyone could ignore what he said.
quote:
So, we must struggle with the principles stated by Paul and how to rework them into their contemporary application. We are not free to insist that Paul was simply endorsing a slightly more enlightened version of first-century culture, as a cultural model that must be ossified into the church for all time.
Thanks. That will do for my argument about the difference between conservative evangelical treatment of scriptural references to headship and homosexuality.
quote:
I think I am still waiting for you to define what you mean by "inferiority". You have given examples; examples which I deny are what the bible had in mind when it teaches submission. But you still seem to be insisting that submission will and must equate to inferiority. True, or have I got that wrong?
I think you're not. You asked me a question about inferiority within the Trinity and I answered as best as I could.
Inferiority is a handy word in an argument, isn't it? It can mean both a plain statement of fact as to the relationship between boss and underling (one a superior and one an inferior), or when talking about an inanimate object that has more functions than another, and both those meanings are devoid of value judgements. It can also mean of lesser worth which is why, although we may still use the word superior at work (and supervisor and superintendent) we tend not to use the word inferior in case we are mistaken as to what we mean.
To submit (= place under) means one is the boss and one is the underling. Good Christian people will deny that implies any value judgment or any inequality but that doesn't get over the fact that one can tell the other what to do and expect to be obeyed. To say that one person has all the personal qualities needed to take an authoritative decision but can't be allowed to simply because of their gender is no better than deciding the same on the basis of the colour of their skin.
There comes a point, and I thought I'd made it before, that all the words about women being the equal of men whilst at the same time being subject to them ring hollow. From what you are saying, given a local church where there are only two possible leaders, one an effective, spirit-filled female and one an ineffective male who barely knows his way round the scriptures God not only prefers the crappy man but insists on him over the woman. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Headship can only be properly understood in the wider context of the roles of men and women under God.
The Undiscovered Country, what do you mean by the "roles of men and women under God"? Do you mean you think there are fixed roles and if so what are they? Or do you mean "the roles open to men and women under God"?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Weed:
quote:
There comes a point, and I thought I'd made it before, that all the words about women being the equal of men whilst at the same time being subject to them ring hollow.
I think the arguments are an attempt to put a round peg into a square hole.
Social roles in agrarian societies are ascripted. Which means, pretty much, that you are born into your place in the pecking order and have not much chance of changing it. Within agrarian societies, generally, women are born into a subordinate role to that of men.
Most of our religious texts come from this sort of social arrangement and consequently reflect the subordination of women. They generally reflect other ascripted roles as well. Hence the notorious Biblical condonation of slavery or Luther's indignation at the peasants revolt. One could multiply examples.
Now at some point in the middle of the eighteenth century we began to move into an industrial society. Industrial societies don't do ascripted roles. This first affects social status - hence the revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and then moves on to affect gender and sexuality.
For a number of reasons societies are more conservative about gender than they are about social status and consequently religions cope better with the shift away from ascripted roles, although you can find any number of nineteenth century religious tracts from any number of churches saying that the poor should know there place.
What you get in the field of gender is a kind of 'saving of appearances' the most traditional Christian is unable to maintain the secondary status of women in the way that patristic writers (or any other denizen of the kingdom of agraria) could. Consequently you get an affirmation of the feminist tenet that women are equal, on the one hand, and a 'special' reason based on an interpretation of revelation as to why this equality should not manifest itself in the ecclesial sphere. What you have, effectively, is a kind of compromise between the values of the kingdom of agraria and the republic of industria. This allows the church (any church) to insist that it is continuing to teach what it has always taught whilst, Janus like, avoiding the appearance of being neanderthal in the sphere of gender relations.
The same applies to the "I am a feminist but..." arguments one finds on a certain thread in the Graveyard of Deceased Equines.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
To submit (= place under) means one is the boss and one is the underling. Good Christian people will deny that implies any value judgment or any inequality but that doesn't get over the fact that one can tell the other what to do and expect to be obeyed.
Weed,
It is really evident that you are absolutely determined to see this pejoratively. You may, if you wish take the idea of submission to mean inequality, despite the adherents of that position assuring you it is not. All I can say is I consider Tony Blair my equal even though I must do what he says in a far more binding way than you would see in any church or family relationship. I could choose to see the fact that I submit to Tony as a sign that he is superior to me, but only if I was determined to see my own self worth defined on the basis of the power I wield.
I don't. So he isn't.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
But that takes us back to the ascripted authority bit. Blair's authority doesn't rest on the fact that he is white, male, straight or middle class (although being realistic none of them hurt)but because he has a mandate from the British people and is first Minister of HM Queen Elizabeth II.
What Weed is objecting to is an institutionalised ascripted role for people based on their gender. All societies have people in authority, even the church. Generally, however, in industrial society, that authority derives, at least ostensibly, from merit in some kind of form. If Tony Blair continues to have the same authority on May 6 this will be because he has persuaded a large part of the electorate that this is a desirable outcome.
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?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
Gordon,
A reply to an earlier post I haven't been able to get around to before now. I drafted this before your description of your own marriage which I thank you for. As Coot says, it sounds lovely, but I don't quite see how it would be different without the view you take on headship. Sounds like a great Christian marriage between equals to me.
Well, this is something, at least. It is a marriage between equals. And I'm the head of the household. It seems to me that you acknowledge here that a conservative view of headship can work out in a way that doesn't demean the wife. Or is it your claim that I've misapplied the Bible?
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
Of course there's always a danger in using your brain when reading but the important thing is to know when you are bringing things to the text and when the text itself supports it. Tell me, do you have a mental picture of the buildings and landscape of the bible? How much of that comes from seeing pictures and photographs?
I keep seeing bitumen roads and motorbikes, and people dressed like they stepped off the set of Life of Brian
quote:
an example of the extensive and crucial use of extra-biblical knowledge, and that's in translating the original text of the bible. We have dozens of translations, each one an attempt better to convey what was originally meant and to be closer to the spirit of the original. Isn't it odd if the translator is allowed to refer to other literature of the time to get at the meaning of the original but the reader of the translation isn't?
Both translator and reader are free to range around doing their cultural studies thang, as I keep saying. It's just that their conclusions are necessarily tentative; liable to be over-ridden not just by new cultural findings but by careful re-reading of the text in the light of the rest of Scripture.
quote:
Don't you know that for the best part of 2000 years the admonitions in the epistles have been used to justify such behaviour towards women?
A problem which I explain in terms of
*sin and/or
*an over-generalisation about what has been supposed to be done in the name of Christianity while ignoring examples where Christianity has stood against the culture and/or
* 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.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by me:
So, we must struggle with the principles stated by Paul and how to rework them into their contemporary application. We are not free to insist that Paul was simply endorsing a slightly more enlightened version of first-century culture, as a cultural model that must be ossified into the church for all time.
then riposted by you:
Thanks. That will do for my argument about the difference between conservative evangelical treatment of scriptural references to headship and homosexuality.
Very naughty indeed Weed. You slid past the bit where I argued that the reason for this conclusion came from other parts of the Bible that addressed the subject of leadership; so making it appear as if I was appealing to a cultural reason for changing the interpretation of the text. Full marks for trying, though!
quote:
originally posted by Weed:
Inferiority is a handy word in an argument, isn't it? It can mean both a plain statement of fact as to the relationship between boss and underling (one a superior and one an inferior), or when talking about an inanimate object that has more functions than another, and both those meanings are devoid of value judgements. It can also mean of lesser worth which is why, although we may still use the word superior at work (and supervisor and superintendent) we tend not to use the word inferior in case we are mistaken as to what we mean.
Yes, we are certainly beginning from different ends of the definition. You believe that someone becomes inferior/superior by virtue of occupying a particular role; or having or lacking certain abilities; or having a particular level of authority; essentially a functional definition which then reflects back onto the essence of the person. I begin from the point of view that all are essentially equal in the eyes of God, and that equality can't be compromised by the having of different abilities, roles, or levels of authority.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
But that takes us back to the ascripted authority bit. Blair's authority doesn't rest on the fact that he is white, male, straight or middle class (although being realistic none of them hurt)but because he has a mandate from the British people and is first Minister of HM Queen Elizabeth II.
What Weed is objecting to is an institutionalised ascripted role for people based on their gender.
I understood Weed to be objecting to this is because it by necessity means that women are inferior. What I was pointing out is that unless one sees superiority or inferiority ontologically or otherwise based on the power one wields this isn't necessarily the case. I can see the issue of discrimination merely in terms of why some people should be denied roles that others can have. What I was objecting to was Weed's insistence that if someone tells someone what to do they are necessarily superior, cos it quacks like a duck or whatever. I just don't accept that analysis.
In short, saying "I don't see a reason for the distinction" (the ascripted authority bit) I can accept as an argument although I don't agree with it. Saying that it necessarily implies the inferiority of the submitter I don't accept, for the various implications that would have for the the people I obey every day.
On the question of - "if it's not inferiority what is it?" - I do think this is where it crosses over with the Trinity thread.
It's diversity, not inferiority, as there is within the entirely equal parts of the Godhead.
But I'm pretty sure now Weed doesn't accept that, and I know neither of you are likely to accept that that diversity is manifested in men and women's roles in creation in that way. To me that just seems self-evident, but I realise that's not an argument. Ho hum.
ETA - I have just read Gordon's last paragraph and it was exactly what I was trying to say but much better.
The valuing of someone from what they do, or are able to do, or are allowed to do, to me seems profoundly un-Christian, but I daaresay I haven't understood it properly.
[ 11. April 2005, 14:04: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
I think the way you describe you and your wife's interaction sounds lovely (really); but this isn't the impression the Dr. Dobsons of the world give to the rest of us about how these verses are to be understood and practiced!
The problem, of course, is that the Dr. Dobsons of the world are hardly the world's foremost authorities on how the Holy Scriptures are to be understood and practiced. The man is neither a bishop nor a priest nor a saint. He's a writer, a speaker, and a child psychologist. I have absolutely no respect at all for his abilities as a child psychologist -- I wouldn't let him anywhere near my children! -- and only grudging respect for his abilities as a writer and speaker. Since he can make a decent living writing and speaking, he's got to be at least fairly good at those things. But that doesn't mean that he knows what he's saying when he writes and speaks.
So forget Dr. Dobson and his ilk. They're primarily cultural conservatives, trying to defend and restore the lifestyle epitomized by the family in the "See Spot Run" books, and to defend it, they read it into the Holy Scriptures and therefore say it is God-ordained and what we all must do.
They're wrong.
Marriage is not about who's the boss. It is about holiness. The purpose of marriage is not good order. The purpose of marriage is salvation.
Laura, to answer your question and to say what Christian headship ought to look like in practice is rather like saying what Christian fasting ought to look like. I could give you a general description of how it's supposed to work (and I thought I had), but the general rules are simply a framework of what the Church has worked out as being best for most people most of the time. But because it is an ascetic labor, something undertaken for ones salvation, each person practicing it might do it a little differently -- and that wouldn't mean they were wrong, but only that they are at a different place in their life, with different needs, and a different path to walk.
The role of the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the Church. That's where headship starts. Not with who gets to rule over whom, or who gets to cast the deciding vote.
I don't know why it starts with the man. I could speculate that it's because the relationship between Christ and the Church started with Christ, and his love for us. Since marriage is an icon of the relationship of Christ and the Church, the starting point is mirrored in the relationship of the husband and wife.
And, as I said, this is given to us for our salvation. Not so that we can learn how to get our own way, but so that we can become like God.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It is a marriage between equals. And I'm the head of the household.
If it's a marriage of equals, what room is there for a head? If there is a head, then one of you is unequal. Or do you use the word "head" in a different way to the bulk of the English speaking world?
Of course, in a marriage both partners are equal but different. There may well be, and probably is, a difference in ability such that if (for example) there needs to be some wiring done then it makes sense to let the person more capable of that get on with it. But I can't think of anything bar breast feeding babies where there is an inherent difference between husband and wife that would make it normal for one sex rather than the other to fill any particular role.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
Isn't this all really a hangover from a time before "civilisation" when survival was primarily dependent on physical attributes? Men tended to be larger, women were extra vulnerable through pregnancy and while giving birth and nursing, so men were physically able to dominate and impose their will.
Now we live in a society under rule of law that forbids violent imposition of will, women have been able to demonstrate that our physical differences do not infer necessary difference in capability in any other area of personhood. That sections of Christianity still cow-tow to the I guess understandable if indefensible reaction of some men to the loss of preferential access to power, devising these bizarre justifications that somehow this is part of God's plan, is an afront to the God-ness in humanity and the nature of our Creator. It's defending the indefensible.
Time to grow up and move on, I think.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Now we live in a society under rule of law that forbids violent imposition of will, women have been able to demonstrate that our physical differences do not infer necessary difference in capability in any other area of personhood. That sections of Christianity still cow-tow to the I guess understandable if indefensible reaction of some men to the loss of preferential access to power, devising these bizarre justifications that somehow this is part of God's plan, is an afront to the God-ness in humanity and the nature of our Creator. It's defending the indefensible.
Time to grow up and move on, I think.
Yes. Indeed. I believe in headship because I find emancipated women immensely threatening.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It is a marriage between equals. And I'm the head of the household.
If it's a marriage of equals, what room is there for a head? If there is a head, then one of you is unequal. Or do you use the word "head" in a different way to the bulk of the English speaking world?
Of course, in a marriage both partners are equal but different. There may well be, and probably is, a difference in ability such that if (for example) there needs to be some wiring done then it makes sense to let the person more capable of that get on with it. But I can't think of anything bar breast feeding babies where there is an inherent difference between husband and wife that would make it normal for one sex rather than the other to fill any particular role.
I don't think I'm using the word headship differently, no — I've been at pains to sketch out what it means in previous posts. It is different only in the sense that (as Jesus said about leadership) it is not a matter of lording it over people 'like the Gentiles do'.
What I resist is the idea that equality is a function of merit or role or ability. Equality is a function, rather, of having been created by God in his image, having the same access to the gospel of salvation, and being called 'sons of God' (yes, the women too—as you would know, it's a technical term).
Thus, you and I and the late Terri Schiavo are — in every sense that actually matters — the equal of Kerry Packer, Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair, Erin the friendly editor, and George W. Bush. This is inalienably and unalterably true because we are created in the image of God. It matters not at all that some of those mentioned boss around thousands and even millions of people, and you or I boss around nobody. We are still equal to them, because God says we are.
It's ontology, not function. Thus there is room for a person to be head within marriage and for both to be equal, at the same time.
[ 11. April 2005, 17:25: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
Callan, I agree with everything you have said and I liked your post on ascripted authority a lot.
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It is really evident that you are absolutely determined to see this pejoratively. You may, if you wish take the idea of submission to mean inequality, despite the adherents of that position assuring you it is not. All I can say is I consider Tony Blair my equal even though I must do what he says in a far more binding way than you would see in any church or family relationship. I could choose to see the fact that I submit to Tony as a sign that he is superior to me, but only if I was determined to see my own self worth defined on the basis of the power I wield.
I don't. So he isn't.
How do you get the idea I'm determined to see it perjoratively? I spent so long on the paragraph about the word "inferior" trying not to give the wrong impression but it looks as though I failed. What's happening now is precisely what I was warning about. When you use the word "inferior" you must mean equal; when I use it I must mean "of less value". I'll write something at the end of this about what I actually believe.
Secondly, I don't have to do anything Tony Blair says. You may be mistaking him for Parliament.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
A reply to an earlier post I haven't been able to get around to before now. I drafted this before your description of your own marriage which I thank you for. As Coot says, it sounds lovely, but I don't quite see how it would be different without the view you take on headship. Sounds like a great Christian marriage between equals to me.
Well, this is something, at least. It is a marriage between equals. And I'm the head of the household. It seems to me that you acknowledge here that a conservative view of headship can work out in a way that doesn't demean the wife. Or is it your claim that I've misapplied the Bible?
Alan's made the point I would have made in reply to this.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng: quote:
Originally posted by Weed: an example of the extensive and crucial use of extra-biblical knowledge, and that's in translating the original text of the bible. We have dozens of translations, each one an attempt better to convey what was originally meant and to be closer to the spirit of the original. Isn't it odd if the translator is allowed to refer to other literature of the time to get at the meaning of the original but the reader of the translation isn't?
Both translator and reader are free to range around doing their cultural studies thang, as I keep saying. It's just that their conclusions are necessarily tentative; liable to be over-ridden not just by new cultural findings but by careful re-reading of the text in the light of the rest of Scripture.
I have no problem with that. All my conclusions are work in progress and I'm always ready to revise my ideas given further information. I understood you to say that the method of bible interpretation you approved of didn't allow any considerations extrinsic to the bible.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Don't you know that for the best part of 2000 years the admonitions in the epistles have been used to justify such behaviour towards women? A problem which I explain in terms of
*sin and/or
*an over-generalisation about what has been supposed to be done in the name of Christianity while ignoring examples where Christianity has stood against the culture and/or
* 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.
You take my breath away. I'll have to think how to reply to this because it seems to ignore history completely.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng: quote:
then riposted by you:
Thanks. That will do for my argument about the difference between conservative evangelical treatment of scriptural references to headship and homosexuality.
Very naughty indeed Weed. You slid past the bit where I argued that the reason for this conclusion came from other parts of the Bible that addressed the subject of leadership; so making it appear as if I was appealing to a cultural reason for changing the interpretation of the text. Full marks for trying, though!
But you had, surely? You said that the bits about hair were only relevant because in that culture they were a sign of submission in the case of women and authority in the case of men. You said that submission was the principle but that had to be interpreted according to the culture. Where have I misrepresented you?
quote:
originally posted by Weed: quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Inferiority is a handy word in an argument, isn't it? It can mean both a plain statement of fact as to the relationship between boss and underling (one a superior and one an inferior), or when talking about an inanimate object that has more functions than another, and both those meanings are devoid of value judgements. It can also mean of lesser worth which is why, although we may still use the word superior at work (and supervisor and superintendent) we tend not to use the word inferior in case we are mistaken as to what we mean.
Yes, we are certainly beginning from different ends of the definition. You believe that someone becomes inferior/superior by virtue of occupying a particular role; or having or lacking certain abilities; or having a particular level of authority; essentially a functional definition which then reflects back onto the essence of the person. I begin from the point of view that all are essentially equal in the eyes of God, and that equality can't be compromised by the having of different abilities, roles, or levels of authority.
Then you, like Leprechaun, have got me totally wrong.
This is what I believe. First, that God loves us all equally and infinitely and we all have equal worth in his eyes. We are commanded to love others as God loves us, which means that we must value everyone else equally as well. If you take women as a whole and men as a whole there are differences between the sexes. On the other hand if you take any one man and any one woman the generalities about who's better at this skill or that, who's stronger and who's weaker etc, are no use at all because there's great diversity at the individual level.
We all have a Christian duty, I believe, to make the most of the talents we have been given and to put them to use in serving others. That's the way we serve God. I believe God deserves the best we can give him and so do our fellow human beings. I believe that jobs and positions of authority should be given to the person on merit regardless of race, creed, colour or gender.
I believe that should go for positions in the church and that's what I've always been used to. In my home denomination there is a record of a church meeting over a hundred and fifty years ago at which some people objected to the fact that women were allowed to be ministers. The record simply says, "Their rendering of Timothy was not accepted", and that was that! It appears never to have been raised again in the history of the church.
I believe that within a marriage the parties should work out between themselves what roles they adopt. I cannot believe that God wants a weak and ineffectual man to be in a position of authority, overriding what his wife considers the right thing to do, simiply because he is a man. If two people want to adopt that model between themselves, fine, but please don't say that everyone must on the grounds that it is Christian doctrine. Pace josephine, how the doctrine has been described on this thread isn't how the West at least has understood the epistles for almost 2000 years. You've taken the "submission" bit out in all but name and thereby have removed all the meaning from the word. Even to retain the idea of submission, if not the reality, is, I believe, a distortion of the good news of the gospel. Jesus was a radical and his followers still haven't realised just how radical he was. The epistle writers did the best they could in their own culture and its limitations but we can do so much better and the Church ought to be out there leading from the front.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
I find it interesting that nobody has brought out the fact that when Paul says the man is the "head" of the wife, the word he is using is not arche (leader, ruler) but kephale (physical head).
In all places in the LXX where the Hebrew "Rosh" is translated as "arche" the context clearly is talking about a leader or ruler; and where it is translated as "kephale" the physical head of the body is being referred to.
According to John Temple Bristow, the only other place kephale is used metaphorically in ancient Greek writings is for the "point man" (such is the modern terminology for the same thing) in a military squadron -- someone who is of the same rank as the other people in the squad, but goes first and hence gets shot at first, is the one to step on the land mines, etc.
Not sure if this helps or hinders the convo any but felt it should be brought up.
Posted by scoticanus (# 5140) on
:
I find this thread unreal - like stepping into the pages of Alice in Wonderland!
It doesn't accord with anything in my own experience.
My family were all actively practising mainstream Christians, mainly Scottish Episcopalian and (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland. In the three generations of them I can remember on both sides, none of them spoke of, or even (as far as I'm aware) thought of, "headship". 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. It's always seemed to me about as daft and outdated an idea as most of the ritual prohibitions of Leviticus.
As I remarked on another thread, my mother (born in 1929) and my grandmother (born in 1892) would have laughed themselves silly at the very thought that they were in any way subordinate to their husbands. So, most definitely, would my wife!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I find it interesting that nobody has brought out the fact that when Paul says the man is the "head" of the wife, the word he is using is not arche (leader, ruler) but kephale (physical head).
Well, I never mentioned it because I didn't know that. It is useful bit of information.
I like the analogy with the "head" being the squaddie who takes the lead position, rather than (say) an officer. I still don't see any reason why that has to be the husband and not the wife.
Which brings me back to Gordons post ... "It's ontology, not function". But, what is the ontological difference between a man and a woman in a relationship? I can actually see some very limited possibility of functional differences due to definite physical differences (the husband can't give birth to children, nor breastfeed them) or ability and experience (that isn't gender dependant). But ontologically?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
[qb] I find it interesting that nobody has brought out the fact that when Paul says the man is the "head" of the wife, the word he is using is not arche (leader, ruler) but kephale (physical head).
Well, I never mentioned it because I didn't know that. It is useful bit of information.
I like the analogy with the "head" being the squaddie who takes the lead position, rather than (say) an officer. I still don't see any reason why that has to be the husband and not the wife.
Exactly. Some people are better fitted to take the lead position in some situations. The idea that it would always be the man makes me wonder how people advocating headship think women who never marry make it through life.
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I find it interesting that nobody has brought out the fact that when Paul says the man is the "head" of the wife, the word he is using is not arche (leader, ruler) but kephale (physical head).
I thought there had been a thread in Kerygmania on it some months back but I haven't been able to find anything either there or in Limbo. I've a vague recollection of people talking of head as in the source of a river.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
In an attempt to summarize, here are the key questions raised so far, to my mind:
1) Is there a fundamental biblical concept of a husband's headship with respect to his wife such that it should be timelessly applied independently of cultural developments?
If so
2) what discernible affect does this concept have on how marriages work?
3) does this rest on a still more fundamental concept of submission without subordination in the Trinity?
And, as a bonus (but tied up with 3) above)
4) Does submission imply or entail inferiority (being less than equal)?
To start with
3): The Godhead as an example of submission
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading the Trinity and Subordinationism thread, it would appear, somewhat to my surprise, that even the most headship-favourable Shipmates are loth to draw a direct parallel between the submission of the Son to the Father and a wife's submission to her husband (witness Gordon Cheng's declaration here on that thread):
quote:
the point of contact as regards our image-hood means that we (humans) are fundamentally relational in nature, and that relationship is ultimate reality. That's about as far as I'd want to take it with confidence[/url]
Gordon goes on to suggest that 1 Cor 11:3 might go beyond this, but so far the consensus seems to be that the Trinity is just too far beyond our understanding to form a reliable basis on which to extrapolate anything very meaningful in terms of husband/wife relationships.
In addition, don't we need to bear in mind that the Son and the Father are sinless, and we aren't? Submitting to someone perfect is a whole different deal to submitting to someone who's not – and surely that should suggest caution in using a trinity-based argument in favour of headship in marriage?
4) Submission and equality
The headshipmates
insist that submission does not compromise equality. Given that appeals to the Trinity seem to have been put on the back burner, doesn't that run into trouble right here:
quote:
Ephesians 5:24:
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Would it not follow in this case that the Church is equal to Christ?
2) What difference does headship make?
After having read the whole of this thread, I'm with those who say that I can see very little practical difference between the "egalitarians" and the "headshipmates" in terms of how their marriages work.
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. Gordon Cheng, you have had a good go at explaining why head coverings are a local cultural adaptation, the abandoning of which does not call into question the timeless headship principle. You appear to be on solid ground if one considers verses such as 1 Corinthians 11:7-9:
quote:
…man (…) is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
but what do you make of Paul suddenly going back on himself in the verses 11-12?
quote:
In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
and then throwing appeals to eternal principles to the winds with an exasperated verse 13
quote:
Judge for yourselves
before finishing with an almost sulky verse 16
quote:
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.
Just to make things worse before I leave this passage, doesn't the argument specifically in favour of head coverings in verses 9-10
quote:
neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
sound suspiciously like a "creational argument" of precisely the thought headshipmates think should not be discarded as merely "cultural"?
To conclude: I was once a staunch Grudem/Piper man on these issues. The whole story of how I came to call that into question will have to wait, but suffice it to say that I now think that to attempt build such immutable principles on such difficult passages, given the attested historical abuse of such positions by men, and a whole load of other evidence, is surely the last kind of area in which we should presume to advance with dogmatism.
[PS my kephale hurts!]
[PPS Weed, if anyone can find serious scholarly support for the idea of kephale meaning source, I'd be surprised]
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
Just a comment on "kephale", pulled from the Grudem paper that The Undiscovered Country linked (Thanks TUC, it's a good summary of the position):
quote:
Egalitarians claim the word ‘head’ doesn’t mean authority but ‘source’ (ie Adam was the source of Eve). The Greek word is ‘kephale’. I got a list on computer of a wide sample of occurrences of the word kephale in the ancient world – 2,336 examples. In most it just means physical head, such as one soldier cutting off the head of another in battle. I found at least 50 examples of one person being the head of another and it’s always an authority relationship eg the General is the head of the army, the Emperor is the head of the empire. Never in all of Greek literature is there any place where person A is said to be the head of person B and is not in authority over that person.
I have a private letter that I have had permission to publish from Peter Greer from the Bodleian Library in Oxford where he has been working as a lexicographer for 52 years. He is the greatest living expert on ancient Greek words. I met him last week. He says in this letter the meaning for kephale as ‘source’ does not exist.
Grudem is about as fussy and punctilious a scholar as they come on details like this. The source of the "kephale = source" misunderstanding was traced, possibly by him, to a single unsubstantiated footnote in the work of a leading evangelical scholar (I think I know his name but I won't take the risk of getting it wrong here), subsequently cited without checking by a large number of people since. That is, until Grudem did his thing with the 2336 examples of the word 'kephale' in ancient Greek literature. All I can imagine is that when Grudem and said scholar meet in heaven, said scholar will slap him upside of the head for being such an annoying little git for having chased this issue through
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.
I will be away on conferences for a few days and need to do some prep too, so the flow of my responses on this thread will slow down a bit — apologies in advance. Eutychus, thank you for your helpful summation of the issues to this point.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
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.
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.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
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)
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
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.
Posted by Avalon (# 8094) on
:
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.
Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on
:
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!
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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)
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
A little sufi?
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
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.
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
I mucked up that edit, and ran out of time. The single lined 2nd para should not be there!
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
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?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by scoticanus (# 5140) on
:
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!
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
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.
Posted by scoticanus (# 5140) on
:
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 . . .
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
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.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
I don't think Jesus came to teach equality. I think he came to teach, and effect, salvation.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
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. ]
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
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?
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
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.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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 ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
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?
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
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. ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
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).
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Exactly what I was wondering earlier, Alan, though perhaps since you're a man someone will respond to the point this time.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
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.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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)
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
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?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
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
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
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.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
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.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
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!
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
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. ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
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)?
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
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.)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
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)?
If you follow the links, you'll recall that Gordon Cheng was making a case for submission not necessarily implying inferiority, and calling for examples of this. I think it's difficult to read 1 Tim 2:12-14 (sorry, I didn't make the reference very clear initially) in the way headship proponents do, and not come away with the feeling that woman should be submitted because she is spiritually inferior (something I have heard some people actually claim in so many words). How do you read this passage?
Custard.:
Thanks for taking the time to look at 1 Cor 11:3. To my mind,
quote:
When "aner" is used in conjunction with "gunaikos", it tends to mean "husband"
is a plausible argument in favour of using "husband" and "wife" in this verse.
The difficulty I see with this interpretation is that it's hard to see how the relationship between husband and wife supports the context, I think we agree, is about differences between men in general and women in general.
This leads on to another difficulty to which you allude:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
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).
I suspect that the reason "husband" and "wife" is not used in 1 Tim 2:12 by, for example, the translators of the ESV, is that to do so would undermine the Danvers argument that the differences between men and women in general (not husbands and wives) are grounded in a "Creational hierarchy": the immediate context of 1 Tim 2:13 is the lynchpin of this argument.
This suggests to me that on exegetical grounds, headshippers are attempting to have their cake in 1 Cor 11:3 and eat it in 1 Tim 2:12-13.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
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.
Yep, I agree with you. There is quite a lot of that in the Old Testament. As I understand it, some Progressive Jews today even believe that it is the mission of the Jewish people to bring ethical monotheism to the world.
To me, it is A Good Thing that the message of the New Testament and the message of the Old Testament align. Given the continuity of the message that God's love is equally available to all and that God is not a respector of human status/"sociological fences", how would we read passages written in a male-dominated society that basically say "Look, your relationship with women is to be like Christ's relationship to the church"? The way I see it, the of headship as practiced by protestants in the 20th century doesn't come into it.
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on
:
Our sermon last Sunday was on Mark 7:24-30 - the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman. Here we see Jesus being corrected on God's will by a Gentile woman, and submitting to her interpretation.
In what sense is Jesus exercising 'headship' here? And don't tell me 'he was only testing her faith' - that is eisegesis - reading into the text what your presuppositions make you want to see there.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Esmerelda: You're still focusing on headship as "not listening to women's ideas" or "thinking that women can't contradict a man", when what I hear Josephine saying is that what Jesus does with the Syro-phoenician woman is loving listening of the sort that a husband is supposed to do. And at least here, I haven't seen anyone say it means women can't correct men). As far as I can tell, the Orthodox (but not Dobson et al.) have genuinely written any superiority or power out of the "headship" equation. Why they still call it "headship" is perplexing, because as I think I noted earlier, it hardly seems like any headship we (and possibly Paul) would recognize, being rather more about mutual sacrificial love.
[ 13. April 2005, 14:33: Message edited by: Laura ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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.
Not aimed particularly at you Eutychus, but this does make me wonder what life is like for women whose husbands change their minds about headship, whether they give up on the idea or embrace it after having already gotten married. Marriage is a crapshoot, to be sure, as there's no way of knowing ahead of time how one's spouse will change, but it seems to me that change on this issue could be especially problematic.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not aimed particularly at you Eutychus, but this does make me wonder what life is like for women whose husbands change their minds about headship, whether they give up on the idea or embrace it after having already gotten married.
I'll happily give my take on this (Mrs. E may have a different view!).
Yes, Mrs. E promised to obey in our wedding vows (she is constantly reminding me that I promised to cherish, and 20 years on I'm still not sure I've worked out what that means
). The nature of what we've done with our lives has indeed meant that as things stand, her life is pretty well bound up with mine, to the extent that she sacrificed her career prospects, independent pension rights, and so on, to join me in what we both felt we were called to do.
On a day-to-day level, I would like to think our relationship has mostly been one of those "diet headship" ones where really most things get decided by mutual consent.
(I think Mrs. E holds that notwithstanding this, I still tend to think, like Custard, that my decision should prevail in the end...)
As a corollary, I think I do aim to carry the can for those decisions. As a practical example of this, in the company we've recently set up, Mrs E does as much work as me but because of the way we are set up (which was really a financial consideration at the time) it's my name on the bills and everything else. This means that if someone were to sue for malpractice, for instance, it's entirely my responsibility even if the mistake was hers, and I fully accept that.
This thread has sparked off a lot of discussion in the Euty couple. For my part, I think it's fair to say that even if I pride myself on being very egalitarian-minded, I keep stumbling across huge blind spots of prejudice in my worldview, which is a humbling experience.
I think we have a good marriage, we are certainly grateful for the relationship we have when it's so hard for so many. But as our children grow up and we consider what kind of relationships they might embark on, neither of us would recommend the sacrificing of independence which Mrs E has made for the sake of our marriage, and which I think grew out of our views of headship at the time.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Being ummarried (and headless?) I've always been intrigued to see how different Christian couples, who believe in the headship of the man in the family, work it out.
For one couple it meant that the father decided which schools the kids went to; which church everyone attended; where holidays were spent (big expenditure of money, so therefore a decision for the head of the family); what kind of clothes the teenage daughter wore (because she was living under his roof).
For a couple who held the same Biblical belief in Paul's teaching it was so different. Anything to do with children - including schools - was the mother's decision (woman's work). Church concerns were also down to the mother because it was 'traditional' to follow the mother's denomination. And managing the finances, especially anything budgeted for the house was also her job, because the household was her domain and responsibility.
Yet, both couples believed absolutely that the father was the head of the household in a properly prescribed Biblical fashion.
Had the second husband sinfully abdicated his rightful headship over his family in allowing a woman to run the household and make such big decisions; or had he wisely delegated authority to his spouse? Or had he even recognized that she was better at those things than he was and simply had the common sense to let her get on with it?
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
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.
May I have another attempt at tackling this but this time from a different perspective?
One husband, one wife. Both well-brought up, educated, and who freely choose to implement the scriptures as understood by modern conservative evangelicals at the beginning of the 21st century. He will be the provider, protector, lover and he will make all the decisions in the modern manly way as described by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. She will submit to his authority, call him lord and master and dress demurely in a clearly feminine way so as not to bring disgrace upon him. They love each other dearly and would give their lives for each other.
As I've said before, that in itself is not a problem for me. If two adults choose to arrange their lives like that, fine. It's a marriage of equals in all but name. But what happens if every couple in society behave like that? What are the consequences in the culture?
First, men are going to begin to ask themselves why women who are already provided for by a husband should be given jobs when there are other husbands out of work. They will say this is greedy and unchristian. It's an argument I had constantly levelled at me in the early days of my working life when there was considerable unemployment and I was a married woman doing a job traditionally done by men.
If women accede to that argument from all the husbands, they won't go out to work, or they'll have a small part-time job for "pin money". This will be seen as good because it demonstrates that their husbands really are fulfilling their role as head of the household. But being out of work being a home-maker bringing up children also means that you can't get back into your intended career at the level you would have expected. Does it matter? Well no, unless you feel your brain has turned into wallpaper paste and you get a bit frustrated when the highlight of your day is bringing your husband his slippers every night. You still feel you're doing your Christian duty but in the dark watches of the night it occurs to you that you are now financially dependent on your husband and you couldn't leave him if you wanted to.
As far as the house they live in is concerned, if the husband is providing all the money and is the one who makes all the decisions about the property itself, there's not much point in putting it in joint names, in fact that would probably give the wrong impression altogether about whether they were truly following the headship principle, so having the house owned solely by the man is a demonstration to the world of his covenantal responsibility.
Then the men begin to say there's not much point in spending money educating women in the same way as we educate men. Everything she needs to know to live a Christian life she can learn from her husband. And her main function in God's creation is to be a wife and mother and she can learn that from the other women in the family. So men are given preference in public education and by the time the daughters of this family come to an age where they would have gone to college there are very few places for women, so they have to fall back on the only things they know how. They've been taught how to be feminine girls and that they will be fulfilling God's plan for them if they marry and have children, so education doesn't matter. That's for husbands.
And then men begin to wonder whether it's such a good idea for women to have the vote. After all, they'll vote as instructed by their husbands anyway, which is a duplication, and they haven't the education or experience of the world outside the home to make a rational, informed decision, so it's probably more in line with the doctrine of headship that they don't have the right to vote.
Fathers start to get a bit worried about what's going to happen to their adolescent daughters. They know they have to make sure their girls contract a good Christian marriage as their whole lives will depend on it, in which case it would be far more sensible for the father to arrange the marriage and for it to be a sound, rational decision of his rather than a flighty, emotional decision of hers. Better to put it on a proper commercial basis. Surely the most Christian thing is for one husband to hand over authority to another man who will take all the right decisions. As long as he's Christian and she submits to his authority everything will be fine.
Except it isn't fine. You have generations of uneducated women who are stuck with a husband they haven't chosen and who have no option but to obey him whether they want to or not because they have nowhere else to go. Why should the husband consult his wife on decisions? She doesn't know anything except how to run a house and look after children. He's responsible for her entire life and he's been given the function of running it for her. Any dissent on her part and it's his Christian duty to correct her, lovingly of course, as he corrects the children saying, as he slaps her around, that he is doing it for the sake of her immortal soul. If she complains, she is rejecting not just her husband but God himself.
Now you may accuse me of over-dramatising but all I've done is put history into reverse. In the world of the epistle-writers, very broadly, speaking, men in the eastern Mediterranean lands had the power of life or death over their wives and their slaves. Women couldn't own property except for personal possessions. If their husband died they would expect to have a guardian appointed for them who would quite often be a much younger male relative. Of course for the poor who had to eke out a living as best as they could, they weren't troubled by the laws on property and throughout history there are examples of men and women who both had to work in order to stay alive but they were still affected by the culture of the time in which it the woman was seen as a shadow of her husband by society.
Consider a woman who is passed as a chattel from a father to a husband, who is economically tied to him however he behaves, who can't leave without having to beg on the streets, who has no political status to change the culture, and tell me that isn't treating her as an inferior creature, of less worth than men in society. It's not the individual couple who work out headship in 2005 in such a way that it is loving equality in all but name who are worrying some on this thread. It's the cultural effect on society of this idea of headship. It's the fact that it has taken millennia for women (and men, because they've been strait-jacketed too) to be liberated from the old stereotypes and that some appear to want to put history in reverse without any idea of the possible consequences.
Those advocating headship seem to want to revert to a rose-tinted view of a small town, pre-1963 life that never actually existed. All the men are to be manly authority figures and all the women feminine and submissive. The children are quiet, well-behaved and obedient. Man has his little microcosm of the universe in which he is God and he may have only three or four subjects but when the crunch comes they do as he says, unquestioning, because that's how it is. It's stasis. No room for unrest or change or growth because that threatens to upset the order. It's good-mannered Christianity that's always under control. It has forgotten that great theme of the bible which is bringing people out of exile and setting people, whoever they are, free to be the best they can be for God.
Posted by Levor (# 5711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's a limit to how far even the most brilliant of thinkers can go and still have an audience listening to them. Even today visionaries for equal rights for homosexuals are painted as dangerous liberals by many parts of society. If Jesus or Paul had preached a message of equality for all in the way we'd like to see it today (ie: in more practical terms than generic platitudes about there being no differences for we are one in Christ) then they'd have lost almost all their followers (if not all of them) with them being decried as lunatics.
Are you suggesting that claiming to Greeks that there was to be a resurrection of the body would have been less outrageous? Or to Jews that God's plan was for his Messiah was to be hung on a tree?
I think this is a really long bow, Alan. When Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce because their hearts were hard (Matt 19:1-12) and then reasserted the original Genesis 2 intention for marriage I don't think he was simply indicating that culture had shifted enough to enable a 'no divorce' marriage to be intellectually entertainable. He was indicating a fundamental shift in ethics that was taking place as a result of his ministry. What Jesus did has opened up the way for God's people to be good in a way that wasn't possible before.
I don't think the Bible encourages the view that the NT is just another point along the way in humanity's growth in wisdom. There is something definitive about the ethical teaching of the NT because it is linked to the ministry of Christ Jesus.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Interestingly the Genesis accounts don't seem to imply any subservience in the relationship between Adam and Eve. At least, not until after the Fall where God imposes such a subservient role of the woman as a penalty for her sin - and I wouldn't want to define practice between Christians based on a penalty for sin that Christ has paid for us.
Actually, I think they do. There are three strands of evidence in the way the narrative works in Genesis 2-3.
1. The man is created first and the woman is created from the man, (and Paul points out, the woman is created for the man not vice versa). Man is the source of woman - a derived equality as Divine Outlaw Dwarf has suggested on the Father-Son side of the issue.
2. The man names the animals and the woman. Naming in the Bible does have an authority component to it - which is one of the reasons why the theme of God's name is so important.
3. When the temptation account is given in chapter three there is an order of animal --> woman --> man. When the judgement account is given there is an order of God --> man --> woman --> animal. It suggests a certain kind of order is built into things and sin disrupts that, like it seeks to overturn all of God's order and destroy all of God's creation and so return things back to being 'formless and void'.
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Inferiority - not allowed to do certain things that men are simply because of gender. thats inferiority.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
That people have different roles in marriage is unexceptionable. To have those roles determined by sex is sexism.
This is what has encouraged the appeal to the Trinity. There is nothing inferior about the Son. He is as powerful, 'intelligent', knowing, wise etc. as the Father. Yet there is an order where the Son works from the Father and the actions of the Godhead have their source in the Father. It has nothing to do with 'ability' in that raw sense, for the Son is everything the Father is without being Father. It has to do with the nature of the relationship of the Father and the Son.
The Trinity gets pulled in precisely to bring clarity to these kind of absolute statements by Emma and RuthW. It shows that it isn't neccessarily the case that role has to be linked to being - it can be linked to personhood and so both sides in an authority relationship can be equal, even if the relationship has more to do with their personhood than their 'merit'.
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
My huge problem with it is that *in context* the passages would have been hugely liberating for women....He was suggesting those in authority actually had a responsibilty to those they are in authority over....In total, it is those teaching that women should have lesser roles than men in todays society that have missed the point of the passages and arent taking them seriously. IMHO.
This is a great point. And it is part of what bothers me about a lot of what I hear about headship at a popular level. It feels oppresive and authoratarian and so, while it reiterates the content of what was said, it doesn't feel as though it captures the impact of it.
The two points I'd say is that:
1. The same truth can have a very different impact in different contexts. I know people for whom the idea that salvation is by grace rather than merit is one of the most awful things they have ever heard - it is a standing rejection of the self-righteousness with which they have built their lives on. I know others for whom it is the most wonderful thing they've heard - for they've given up any hope that they can be right.
In an authoratarian culture the "bite" is going to be in the idea of the fundamental equality and the servant nature of the one with the authority.
In an egalitarian culture the "bite" is going to be in the idea of a fundamental "order" to relationships that isn't simply voluntary arrangements based on ideas of abstract "merit".
In other words, your argument presupposes that the NT was endorsing a particular kind of challenge (e.g. pro-women) that then has to reiterated in every context from then on. I suspect that the NT is instead articulating a certain kind of set of ordered relationships that are going to feel 'wrong' in different places in different cultures.
2. Often when something starts to be denied, only that part of the debate gets affirmed in response. So, when all the stress is on mutuality and marriage is seen as having no particular order to it except what the couple works out for themselves, then 'headship' is affirmed only in its authoratarian dimension - because it is felt that that is the bit under attack.
It is a tendency towards reductionism that I find problematic.
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
I apologise in advance if this is a simplistic or stupid question.
If Paul gives us guidelines for managing the relationship between slaves and masters alongside guidelines for managing the relationship between husbands and wives, why do we not interperet that as indicating that we ought to keep (or be) slaves? Why is the lack of (legal) slavery in the UK not considered another sign of fallenness (as someone described uppity women)?
Or rather - even if we decide slavery is inappropriate for us, it's not compulsory after all any more than marriage! - by what authority would we assume the right to stop others from doing it?
If the social and political morality of slavery can be rethought without violating Paul, why can't the same rethinking apply to male\female relationships?
This is a great point, Rat. My quick answer would be:
1. Marriage is given in creation and slavery isn't. Slavery is never linked to our fundamental human nature in the same way that marriage is linked to our being male and female (and this is not an argument that married people are more human than single people). So slavery, like democracy, monarchy, meritocracies and the like, is far more able to introduced or removed. Marriage is a bit more 'built in' to what it means for the human race to continue.
2. No-one has to be married, so there is no problem with a certain kind of relationship not existing (either master-slave or husband-wife).
3. There are a few indications in the Bible of slavery not being the ideal. And so Christian practice, in the main, hasn't been strongly opposed to slavery per se but has tended to transform it from within (with some very bad exceptions where it has not done that) by affirming the brotherhood of the master with the slave and having slaves as church leaders. It has enabled the elimination of slavery, but hasn't required it.
As we're moving into a post-Christian world, I suspect we'll see slavery return sometime over the next century or two, so we may have to return to a closer lining up with the NT again. We will lost the moral framework that made the elimination of slavery possible.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Carys points out, rightly, that when people talk about headship, they immediately start talking about whether or not a woman has to submit to her husband, what that entails, and so on and so forth. But that's the wrong place to start.
<snip>
Headship is not about submissive wives. It is about loving husbands.
Josephine, and the other Orthodox people who have contributed to the thread so far, can I say how much I've loved the Orthodox presentation of headship.
I think it is starting in a much better place than talk about 'who calls the shots'. And it is putting the spotlight on about 90% of what has to be said - the 90% that often isn't said in this kind of debate.
My only quibble is the absolute negation "it is not about submissive wives". If it is about loving husbands, it may also be about submissive wives. Because in the Bible love and authority are often welded together and submission is the reception of both.
All authority is God's. And God is Father, is love. Christian authority is not raw power but loving responsibility and so submission is quite a different thing than being lorded over like 'among the Gentiles'. If being a 'leader' and being a slave is the same thing for Christians, after the model of Christ, then it has a radical different quality.
And if the stress on headship is on the husband loving the wife as Christ loved the church, then the parallel suggests some kind of authority being in the mix, doesn't it?
Posted by sanc (# 6355) on
:
As marriage is a partnership it has to function from the decision of that partnership. And that decision should proceed out of love and not from coersion from the strong or dominant party. Some things can be mutually decided, some deffered for future judgement when heads are cooler. But for certain things where each party is thoroughly convinced about his or her decision and both are well fortified to maintain that decision, and it is imperative that the family should take a course of action, I think this is where Paul's admonishion on submission comes in.
I think submission like respect or courtesy should be given and not solicited. To me, Paul's appeal is one sided. It is addreessed to the women. Men are not at liberty to exact it from women. When women begin to assert their decisions on issues like what I have illustrated above where there is an impasse and men begin to impose their will quoting Paul, then both are totally wrong about their marriage partnership.
The family has to function as a unit to interact with the world. It is my opinion that the father should have the tie breaking vote so that this unit will function as a united whole and not a fractured one. It is unseemly for the family to offer two contradicting platforms to confront the world, especially when the argument is done in public.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
Headship is not about submissive wives. It is about loving husbands.
quote:
My only quibble is the absolute negation "it is not about submissive wives". If it is about loving husbands, it may also be about submissive wives. Because in the Bible love and authority are often welded together and submission is the reception of both.
I'll admit I may have overstated the negation, and here's why.
In Orthodoxy, our liturgies and services are not just things we do, they are also the means by which the Holy Spirit reveals to us what it is that we're doing, they tell us what it means. And so it's important to note, I think, what we do in the marriage service.
In the first part of the service, the betrothal, the priest takes the bride's ring, and blesses the groom with it, and places it on the groom's finger, betrothing the groom to the bride. Then the priest takes the groom's ring, and blesses the bride with it, and places the ring on the bride's finger, betrothing the bride to the groom. The bride and groom then exchange rings.
Then, when they are crowned, the groom is blessed with a crown, and the priest says "The servant of God, N., is crowned unto the handmaid of God, N." and then places the crown on his head. And likewise, the bride is blessed with a crown, and she is crowned unto her groom, and the crown is placed on her head. And then the priest exchanges the crowns three times. And the crowns are tied together with ribbons.
quote:
If being a 'leader' and being a slave is the same thing for Christians, after the model of Christ, then it has a radical different quality.
Exactly.
quote:
And if the stress on headship is on the husband loving the wife as Christ loved the church, then the parallel suggests some kind of authority being in the mix, doesn't it?
Yes, it does. But the authority, and the submission, have, as you note, a radically different quality from that which is normally understood by those words. So, as is so often the case in Orthodox theology, we find it necessary to say what we mean by saying what it is not before we can say what it is.
[ 14. April 2005, 04:45: Message edited by: josephine ]
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
Sorry for the messed up code in the last post!
The new security upgrades are preventing popup windows from working at all, so I can't preview posts from this machine. If a kindly host can fix it, that would be wonderful. And if not, I'll just be embarrassed.
Posted by Levor (# 5711) on
:
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?
I'm going away for a few days, so I'll add in my thoughts on the next couple of pages of the discussion now as my window is shrinking.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And would you like to respond to the view also posted earlier in which somemone gives the example of Miss Smith, acknowledged by an office manager 'who makes everything work round here and who I would be lost without', and who despite this verbal accolade is in actual fact treated as an inferior, 'subordinate' in every practical sense of the term? She may have an equal status in principle, but in practice she does not.
I don't think an employer-employee relationship is a good model to think about husband-wife relationships. The former is primarily focused on accomplishing tasks and the relationship is simply a means to that end. The latter is more to do with a relationship that is an end in itself (here I'm thinking of Josephine's point that there is a sense in which marriage is a path of salvation - salvation is worked out in marriage).
I think that the sort of language of the illustration is patronising and I don't engage in it myself. Miss Smith may be truly essential to the running of the place, she may have every legal and ontological property of the CEO, but she isn't his equal in that context. There is a genuine sense in which she is a subordinate and that should be acknowledged. My query would be whether that is the right model to think about household relationships - parent child, or husband wife.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
But that takes us back to the ascripted authority bit. Blair's authority doesn't rest on the fact that he is white, male, straight or middle class (although being realistic none of them hurt)but because he has a mandate from the British people and is first Minister of HM Queen Elizabeth II.
What Weed is objecting to is an institutionalised ascripted role for people based on their gender. All societies have people in authority, even the church. Generally, however, in industrial society, that authority derives, at least ostensibly, from merit in some kind of form. If Tony Blair continues to have the same authority on May 6 this will be because he has persuaded a large part of the electorate that this is a desirable outcome.
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?
I think this reflects just how different our starting point has become from that of Scripture. I see the headship issue less as closely related to being CEO or elected head of state, and more like the relationship of parents and children.
Parents aren't necessarily wiser or smarter or more knowledgable than their adult children. And yet the Bible holds up a honour that the children owe their parents that is not reciprocated in the same way. I owe my father and mother honour in a way that they don't owe me. Even now, there is a way that they can disagree with me that is not there for me to do in how I indicate my disagreement with them. It has to do with something about what it means to be a in a parent-child relationship and it has little to do with merit.
I think this is a better starting analogy then the ones you are putting forward, Callan. Is there something about the nature of familial relationships that mean that children honour parents, irrespective of relative merits, and that husbands love wives (which includes an authority component) while wives receive that love (drawing on Josephine's posts again)? That is more where I think the question should start.
While you are getting off tangent with another swipe at Sydney
one might then argue that as the Church is the household of God, then Church roles might then parallel family dynamics, rather than business or country ones.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
3): The Godhead as an example of submission
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading the Trinity and Subordinationism thread, it would appear, somewhat to my surprise, that even the most headship-favourable Shipmates are loth to draw a direct parallel between the submission of the Son to the Father and a wife's submission to her husband <snip>:
quote:
the point of contact as regards our image-hood means that we (humans) are fundamentally relational in nature, and that relationship is ultimate reality. That's about as far as I'd want to take it with confidence[/url]
Gordon goes on to suggest that 1 Cor 11:3 might go beyond this, but so far the consensus seems to be that the Trinity is just too far beyond our understanding to form a reliable basis on which to extrapolate anything very meaningful in terms of husband/wife relationships.
I think rather, most of us have been saying it isn't direct and has to be done very cautiously. I don't think Gordo's statement above is probably the best thing he's said in the debate so far - although that is what most people in Sydney tend to say, from what I've observed. I think the Trinity tells us more than just what Gordo has stopped at in that statement.
I think the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is simply incompatible with an egalitarian understanding of either:
leadership must be based on merit
or
submission is inferiority
Whether we can say more than that from the Trinity is tricky. (Although I might try a thought experiment at some stage to argue that the Trinity, in light of the eternal begetting, shows us that this isn't primarily a question about how gets to call the shots but more to do with whether giving is mutual or whether there is a giving which is received and then responded to.) But at least that can be said, I think.
quote:
In addition, don't we need to bear in mind that the Son and the Father are sinless, and we aren't? Submitting to someone perfect is a whole different deal to submitting to someone who's not – and surely that should suggest caution in using a trinity-based argument in favour of headship in marriage?
Well, only if it is argued that we submit in the same way. If it is simply used to argue that certain claims about 'submission' and 'authority' are inconsistent with our knowledge of God then that still leaves a fair bit of room to indicate what sort of submission is appropriate from one creature to another, and from one sinner to another.
quote:
4) Submission and equality
The headshipmates
insist that submission does not compromise equality. Given that appeals to the Trinity seem to have been put on the back burner, doesn't that run into trouble right here:
quote:
Ephesians 5:24:
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Would it not follow in this case that the Church is equal to Christ?
No. Because it also doesn't compromise inequality either. I submit to God and I'm unequal to God. Animals are subject to me, and they are unequal to me.
It also doesn't necessarily apply to the relationship between Christ and the Church. This is where it gets into some very tricky (and potentially very fruitful) Christological questions about the relationships of the two nature and one person of Christ - the sorts of things that I suspect led to the Orthodox view of divinisation.
Christ is head over the church because of his humanity not his divinity (at least primarily). It is become we are united to him in his humanity that he is our head - otherwise the Father and Spirit would be head of the Church too. And Christ's humanity is exactly the same as ours. So Ephesians 5 doesn't necessarily indicate any inferiority of the Church to Christ as its primary reference. (Except that the statements are attributed to the person, not just the nature, so it gets complicated - and that may have to be qualified a bit).
quote:
2) What difference does headship make?
After having read the whole of this thread, I'm with those who say that I can see very little practical difference between the "egalitarians" and the "headshipmates" in terms of how their marriages work.
Partly that may be because when Matthew 20:25-28 is your model of leadership, it all looks very topsy-turvy anyway.
I think it does make a very profound difference - but you mightn't see it if you are primarily looking at who gets to overrule whose will in which circumstances. Josephine's posts have, I thought indicated a profoundly different view of marriage than an egalitarian one. Add a bit of explicit authority into the mix and I think the difference is quite significant.
quote:
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.
Moving to the exegetical points you raise:
quote:
...but what do you make of Paul suddenly going back on himself in the verses 11-12?
quote:
In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
I think Paul is indicating some very important qualifications to the point he's just established. It is similar to the arguments that Athanasius and others used to show how the Father's begettig of the Son is different from ours and so the homoousious is different from a creaturely one. The way in which the man is the source of the woman is, in very important ways, fundamentally different from the way in which the Father is the source of the Son. It is the source that befits a creature - with a dependence on the woman for existence in return, and with an ultimate dependence on God.
I fail to see how this undercuts his first point.
quote:
and then throwing appeals to eternal principles to the winds with an exasperated verse 13
quote:
Judge for yourselves
I think that sort of language is fairly common with Paul and in line with the Bible's tendency to persuade rather than simply require an unthinking submission. Seeing it as exasperated seems a bit unnecessarily 'hermeneutic of suspicion' to me. And to see it as a putting to one side of everything he's said so far also doesn't seem warranted.
quote:
before finishing with an almost sulky verse 16
quote:
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.
Again, I'm not sure how this is sulky. It is only sulky if you think Paul wasn't committted to a principle of catholicity. If he saw these issues as related to key points of Christian affirmation (as at points you're suggesting he does) then the sort of conviction expressed in Eph 4:1-6 would lead to this sort of supporting argument.
quote:
Just to make things worse before I leave this passage, doesn't the argument specifically in favour of head coverings in verses 9-10
quote:
neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
sound suspiciously like a "creational argument" of precisely the thought headshipmates think should not be discarded as merely "cultural"?
I think so. My issue is about the symbolic nature of clothing. Different types of dress indicate different things in different contexts. Head covering is hardly a visible expression of the point these days. If it was, then it might well be appropriate. If not, then maybe there is another way that the relationship can be seen to be in place.
The principle is transcultural, 'cause of its linking to symbolism it may be expressed quite differently.
quote:
To conclude: I was once a staunch Grudem/Piper man on these issues. The whole story of how I came to call that into question will have to wait, but suffice it to say that I now think that to attempt build such immutable principles on such difficult passages, given the attested historical abuse of such positions by men, and a whole load of other evidence, is surely the last kind of area in which we should presume to advance with dogmatism.
The problem for me with how you've outlined this is two fold.
Some passages are always difficult (baptism for the dead). Some passages seem to be difficult at particular times and places (like these ones are now). In the latter case it is often because of fundamental shifts in our cultural logic. In these cases I think we have to strive for a bold (and humble) reception of what the texts are saying - because either our cultural logic has put us in a much better position to understand them and the Christian tradition needs to be overhauled, or our cultural logic needs to radically overhauled. That is, this is a really important debate for our situation precisely because these passages have become difficult for us. And so we have to move towards boldness, not back away from it.
On the other side, it is part of the nature of humanity's sinfulness that we pervert every good gift God gives us. To show that something has been abused does not tell us whether there is truth there or not. It can go either way - either it's a sign of a fundamentally wrong idea, or it's a sign of an abused right idea. The same argument is used against the truth of the whole Christian faith - every generation has misused Christianity somewhere or other, does that mean that Christianity isn't true?
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.
And, if anything, I think our society now has less room for children than it did before these big changes came through. As Father Gregory has stated in his The Father and Feminism webpage, there is an anti-life element that seems to be connected to egalitarianism. So I think the argument from the real world cuts both ways.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's a limit to how far even the most brilliant of thinkers can go and still have an audience listening to them. Even today visionaries for equal rights for homosexuals are painted as dangerous liberals by many parts of society. If Jesus or Paul had preached a message of equality for all in the way we'd like to see it today (ie: in more practical terms than generic platitudes about there being no differences for we are one in Christ) then they'd have lost almost all their followers (if not all of them) with them being decried as lunatics.
Are you suggesting that claiming to Greeks that there was to be a resurrection of the body would have been less outrageous? Or to Jews that God's plan was for his Messiah was to be hung on a tree?
No, I think those were also outrageous claims. And, I'm sure that the Church lost many potential converts because they simply couldn't accept those claims. But, they're claims which are supported by evidence - Jesus was crucified, and did rise (or, at least, there's sufficient data to support the claim), and his disciples did experience renewal and a chance for a fresh start because of it. When Jesus and his followers started to treat women differently from others in that culture there was no corresponding event to point to and say "that happened, so this is OK".
quote:
I think this is a really long bow, Alan. When Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce because their hearts were hard (Matt 19:1-12) and then reasserted the original Genesis 2 intention for marriage I don't think he was simply indicating that culture had shifted enough to enable a 'no divorce' marriage to be intellectually entertainable. He was indicating a fundamental shift in ethics that was taking place as a result of his ministry. What Jesus did has opened up the way for God's people to be good in a way that wasn't possible before.
I largely agree (not about the low blow, which to me seems a perfectly reasonable approach to the Scriptures, but the rest of it). I think there was probably a similar shift in ethics in many areas not just divorce. Not least in the whole of inter-human relationships. There is something fundamentally different about a first century Rabbi who has long theological discussions with a woman (a Samaritan, and woman of questionable domestic relationships, at that) or encourages a woman to sit at his feet listening to his teaching even though there are important chores to be done. Yes, there is a fundamental shift here - a shift from women being mere property of their fathers or husbands to their being individual, valuable people in their own right. A shift so fundamental that it's taken the rest of society two millenia to catch up.
Was this a result of Jesus ministry? I believe so. Just as he "opened up the way for God's people to be good in a way that wasn't possible before", so he also opened up the way for God's people to view each other, and those outside the Church, in a renewed way, the way God sees us, the way he created us, as men and women both in his image, both equally valued and loved by him. "There is neither male nor female ... for we are all one in Christ".
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Interestingly the Genesis accounts don't seem to imply any subservience in the relationship between Adam and Eve. At least, not until after the Fall where God imposes such a subservient role of the woman as a penalty for her sin - and I wouldn't want to define practice between Christians based on a penalty for sin that Christ has paid for us.
Actually, I think they do. There are three strands of evidence in the way the narrative works in Genesis 2-3.
Strands that don't seem to appear in the Genesis 1 version, where we are told that God created humans, male and female, in his own image. Nothing there about anything different about men and women in the sight of God. But, nevertheless, lets have a look at your three strands ...
quote:
1. The man is created first and the woman is created from the man, (and Paul points out, the woman is created for the man not vice versa). Man is the source of woman - a derived equality as Divine Outlaw Dwarf has suggested on the Father-Son side of the issue.
Well, creation order doesn't seem all that relevant. After all, humanity is created last - does that mean we're inferior to the rest of creation that came first? Though, of course, you first need to reconcile Genesis 1 (humanity created last) with Genesis 2 (the man created first, then the animals, then woman). Taking Genesis 2 to its logical conclusion following your argument from order, women are inferior to the cattle of the field.
Or, there's a good argument that as men are born of women that women are the source of men - does that make them superior? Of course not. The argument simply doesn't work.
quote:
2. The man names the animals and the woman. Naming in the Bible does have an authority component to it
Yes, this argument has potential. Though, again, the Genesis 1 account simply has God giving humanity, male and female, authority over everything else. Unless you can satisfactorily reconcile the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts, any argument from one chapter will be very weak.
quote:
3. When the temptation account is given in chapter three there is an order of animal --> woman --> man. When the judgement account is given there is an order of God --> man --> woman --> animal.
Which is my original point, the suggestion of superiority of man over woman comes in with the account of the Fall. It relates to sin, not the original order.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
Parents aren't necessarily wiser or smarter or more knowledgable than their adult children. And yet the Bible holds up a honour that the children owe their parents that is not reciprocated in the same way.
What does it mean to "honour your father and your mother"? I agree with you that it's a commandment about adult children and their parents, rather than the "little children obey your parents" that it is too commonly reduced to (though there is an element of that there too). But, does it really mean that as adults we can't ever disagree with our parents? Seeing as when his mum came to visit Jesus and tell him to come home and stop being a silly boy (my paraphrase of some Gospel passage or other) he wasn't inclined to just obey her I'd say adults obeying their children isn't the best interpretation of this passage. And, if it's not that simple for parent-child relationships then I'd hesitate to apply that to husband-wife.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, does it really mean that as adults we can't ever disagree with our parents?
Of course not.
quote:
Seeing as when his mum came to visit Jesus and tell him to come home and stop being a silly boy (my paraphrase of some Gospel passage or other) he wasn't inclined to just obey her I'd say adults obeying their children isn't the best interpretation of this passage. And, if it's not that simple f. or parent-child relationships then I'd hesitate to apply that to husband-wife.
You're right, absolutely. Neither honoring your parents nor respecting your husband is about unthinking, or unwilling, obedience. That's what I've been saying, and Levor, too, as far as I can tell. It's not that at all.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Neither honoring your parents nor respecting your husband is about unthinking, or unwilling, obedience.
Which is why "submission" is the wrong English word to use for those relationships.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
You're right, absolutely. Neither honoring your parents nor respecting your husband is about unthinking, or unwilling, obedience. That's what I've been saying, and Levor, too, as far as I can tell. It's not that at all.
I was well aware that you were syaing something different. The impression I got from what Levor posted was that children honouring parents and wives submitting to husbands were analogous, and that honouring parents involved not disagreeing or disobeying (which would, as ken noted, correspond to the normal english usage of the word "submit"). I don't actually agree that hnouring of parents means obedience to them or not disagreeing with them. And, I also think that parent-child and husband-wife relationships have sufficient differences that the analogy doesn't work anyway.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The impression I got from what Levor posted was that children honouring parents and wives submitting to husbands were analogous, and that honouring parents involved not disagreeing or disobeying
That's not how I read it at all. He said:
quote:
And yet the Bible holds up a honour that the children owe their parents that is not reciprocated in the same way. I owe my father and mother honour in a way that they don't owe me. Even now, there is a way that they can disagree with me that is not there for me to do in how I indicate my disagreement with them.
The italics are mine, not his -- it reads to me like he's saying that a grown child would express his disagreement with his parents in one way, and the parents would express their disagreement with their grown child in a different way. Not that the grown child is obliged not to disagree or disobey. Bill Gothard would say that -- but I don't think Levor did. I don't see that at all.
quote:
I don't actually agree that hnouring of parents means obedience to them or not disagreeing with them.
Nor do I. Nor, I think, does Levor. It's not there in what he said, as I read it, anyway.
As for the word submission not meaning, when we use it, what it ordinarily means in English, and the word head carrying unwanted connotations, I'll confess freely the truth of that complaint. I think in Greek, the word head is less problematic, because it's clearly "your head that's part of your body" and not "the top person in the organization" -- they have another word for head that means that.
There's also the point that, in Jewish thought, many of the things that we think of as proper to the physical head, to the brain, were properties of the body, the heart. From the Jewish Encyclopedia:
quote:
The three special functions, knowing, feeling, and willing, ascribed by modern psychologists to the mind, were attributed to the heart by the Biblical writers (comp. Assyrian "libbu" = "heart," in Delitzsch, "Assyrisches Handwörterb." p. 367). In the Book of Daniel intellectual functions are ascribed not to the head only (Dan. ii. 28; iv. 2, 7, 10 [A. V. 5, 10, 13]; vii. 1, 15), but also to the heart (ib. ii. 30).
So, putting the man as the head of his wife does not mean he's the one thinking for both of them. Given that Paul was Jewish, I think if you were to push that, you'd end up saying that the wife did the thinking for them both. But clearly, given what was meant by the heart, the head can't mean what some modern conservative evangelical Christians think it means.
Maybe we need a different word in modern English, but I think we're stuck with the word, since it's the one in Holy Scriptures. We just have to explain what we mean by it. And, as this discussion clearly shows, that isn't easy.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It wouldn't be the first time I've totally misread what someone has said. Apologies to Levor for reading something into his post that wasn't there.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
But clearly, given what was meant by the heart, the head can't mean what some modern conservative evangelical Christians think it means.
Who are these people, and what do they think it means? I went and looksed at James Dobson's site, and I searched for head and headship, and couldn't find it, and the only reference to submission (apart from "how do i submit my huge gift to this organisation"?
) was with regard to parents and children.
Laura asserted earlier that what "Dobson et al" believe about headship is different from the Orthodox as Josephine described it. I'm not disputing it, but I would like to read for myself what they teach on the issue. Can anyone find me a summary? All I can find are people disagreeing with him.
Or Josephine, are you talking about Piper/Grudem who we discussed above?
[ 14. April 2005, 14:45: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Laura asserted earlier that what "Dobson et al" believe about headship is different from the Orthodox as Josephine described it. I'm not disputing it, but I would like to read for myself what they teach on the issue. Can anyone find me a summary? All I can find are people disagreeing with him.
Try, for example, this article (I know, it's part of a larger series of articles addressing some problems common in marriages rather than directly teaching about headship) in which Dobson writes quote:
Hardly a day passes when the traditional values of the Judeo-Christian heritage are not blatantly mocked and undermined
and goes on to list some of those attacks on traditional values, such as quote:
And the idea that wives should yield to the leadership of their husbands, as commanded in Ephesians 5:21-33 is considered almost medieval in its stupidity
(implying, it seems to me, that Dobson considers that wives "should yield to the leadership of their husbands, as commanded in Ephesians 5:21-33")
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
implying, it seems to me, that Dobson considers that wives "should yield to the leadership of their husbands, as commanded in Ephesians 5:21-33")
Which, if you accept the definition of yield or submit that Jospehine and Levor have been furnishing us with, doesn't define his position as against theirs at all.
In fact later in the article he actually encourages wives to rebel against their husbands authority if they are not putting their wives interests first: quote:
To the wives of all the world’s punkin eaters, I say, “Go to the Bible study class anyway!” Submission to masculine leadership does not extend, in my opinion, to behaviors that will be unhealthy for the husband, the wife and the marriage. Nor should a woman tolerate child abuse, child molestation or wife-beating.
Thee's other stuff in the last para extended to the man that I don't want to quite in case I breach copyright.
I'm not trying to be facetious, but I just want to know what it is that people are disagreeing with here - because it seems like it may be the caricature of a position. I have seen little, if anything in Josephine's description of headship that Piper/Grudem (and now add Dobson) would seem to disagree with.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Well, he's pretty clear that traditional gender roles are the way to go (if you look at the stuff on the site, including the page from which yours and Alan's quotes come) -- and I don't hear that from the Orthodox. As the Orthodox view is stated, it doesn't have anything to do with having the traditional working man/stay at home wife model. I read each of the marriage articles on the Dobson site and they all assume or encourage traditional gender roles as if that were a key part of how God wants marrried men & women to be.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I read each of the marriage articles on the Dobson site and they all assume or encourage traditional gender roles as if that were a key part of how God wants marrried men & women to be.
God's favourite sitcom was "Leave it to Beaver" because the gender roles were so proper and right.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm not trying to be facetious, but I just want to know what it is that people are disagreeing with here - because it seems like it may be the caricature of a position. I have seen little, if anything in Josephine's description of headship that Piper/Grudem (and now add Dobson) would seem to disagree with.
I'm not familiar with Piper/Grudem, and I'll have to be honest and say I haven't read anything by Dobson since I got rid of all his books years ago, so I may be mis-remembering his position.
But I'm not mis-remembering the position of Bill Gothard. I don't think you can get his writings online, but you can certainly find out what he teaches. For example,
a news report on a "character curriculum" in public schools in Detroit says this:
quote:
The minister behind Character First! is Bill Gothard, 65, whose Institute for Basic Life Principles is based in Chicago. Gothard says more than 2.5 million people nationwide have attended his seminars.
Gothard has centered his teachings on the aspect of authority. He instructs his followers to obey all authority figures -- parents, bosses and political leaders -- because those figures are ordained by Christ.
And, of course, if you attend one of his seminars or talk to those who have, he explicitly teaches that husbands are one of those authorities who must be obeyed, no matter what.
You can find similar teachings in a variety of books about marriage that were widely read and taught from in the Assembly of God church I attended years ago. Look up "Me? Obey Him?" on Amazon, and follow the links to similar books, and you'll get the idea.
Posted by scoticanus (# 5140) on
:
quote:
He instructs his followers to obey all authority figures -- parents, bosses and political leaders -- because those figures are ordained by Christ.
Ah yes! Romans 13, 1-7! I remember spending many undergraduate hours on that, in a course on the History of Political Thought. We dealt with Duplessis-Mornay's Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos of 1579, a remarkable bit of special pleading which justified the Calvinists in rebelling against the King (whom they didn't like) under the leadership of the inferior magistrates (whom they did like).
I remember not being impressed at the time. First decide what you want to do, then show from Scripture that it's God's command . . .
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
As the Orthodox view is stated, it doesn't have anything to do with having the traditional working man/stay at home wife model.
As a male evangelical, I don't know any men who hold (and say they hold) the traditional "working man / stay at home wife" model. I cannot recall ever having heard it taught. We tend to read Proverbs 31 too often...
I do know quite a few (Oxbridge educated) evangelical women who really do want to be housewives.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Custard: I'm not addressing your views, but Dobson's, who states quite clearly that that's the desirable model. Because you asked about him. What the heck does the fact that some liberal women wish to be homemakers have to do with it?? I'm not even addressing the merits of that position. I was simply saying that I hear Dobson saying that this is the correct model and I don't hear the Orthodox saying this. That's all.
[ 14. April 2005, 17:05: Message edited by: Laura ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Custard: I'm not addressing your views, but Dobson's, who states quite clearly that that's the desirable model.
I think that was me? (who asked about Dobson, not who said that this was a desirable model) Anyway, I'd just never been aware of Dobbo before, but by searching around found he does have an article on submission here Addressed to husbands though, not commanding wives. It doesn't sound that different to what Levor and Josephine described to my uneducated ear, but I agree about the "traditional model" stuff - I hadn't noted that earlier.
[ 14. April 2005, 17:41: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
Having located a copy of Dr Dobson's book Life on the Edge in a neglected corner of a bookshelf, I thought I'd summarise the chapter on marriage, etc. He describes the book as "my lifework"...
- Divorce is messy and bad, especially for the kids.
- Pray about stuff.
- Be careful - don't rush into marriage. Lots of refs to Desmond Morris (not exactly a pro-headship person).
- Emotional "bonding" is important during courtship.
- Stages of intimacy in relationship (with some guidelines as to what is appropriate pre-marriage).
- Importance of taking time over relationships.
- Suggestions for how to decide who to marry (if anyone)
- Importance of deciding beforehand to keep marriage vows (but still no mention of headship or obedience).
I was surprised. I was genuinely expecting something about gender roles in relationships, but there was absolutely nothing....
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
er - so not only do I agree with custard... but agree with dobson too?!!
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Custard:
I really don't understand the argument you're making. I think anyone can agree with that summary you got from Dobson's other book. But that's not all that Dobson has written about the subject. I'm referring to the articles on the website linked to on this thread. They are clear that the traditional model is assumed. And that's all I'm saying.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Inferiority - not allowed to do certain things that men are simply because of gender. thats inferiority.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
That people have different roles in marriage is unexceptionable. To have those roles determined by sex is sexism.
This is what has encouraged the appeal to the Trinity. There is nothing inferior about the Son. He is as powerful, 'intelligent', knowing, wise etc. as the Father. Yet there is an order where the Son works from the Father and the actions of the Godhead have their source in the Father. It has nothing to do with 'ability' in that raw sense, for the Son is everything the Father is without being Father. It has to do with the nature of the relationship of the Father and the Son.
The Trinity gets pulled in precisely to bring clarity to these kind of absolute statements by Emma and RuthW. It shows that it isn't neccessarily the case that role has to be linked to being - it can be linked to personhood and so both sides in an authority relationship can be equal, even if the relationship has more to do with their personhood than their 'merit'.
Sorry, but bringing the Trinity into it doesn't help, IMO, because it doesn't justify assigning roles based on sex alone, whether you're going to call it "being" or "personhood".
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
I see the headship issue less as closely related to being CEO or elected head of state, and more like the relationship of parents and children.
Parents aren't necessarily wiser or smarter or more knowledgable than their adult children. And yet the Bible holds up a honour that the children owe their parents that is not reciprocated in the same way. I owe my father and mother honour in a way that they don't owe me. Even now, there is a way that they can disagree with me that is not there for me to do in how I indicate my disagreement with them. It has to do with something about what it means to be a in a parent-child relationship and it has little to do with merit.
This is an awful analogy--the implied infantalization of women is appalling. When you disagree with your parents about how you should live your life, do you defer to their judgement? Parents start out wiser, smarter, and more knowledgeable than their children, but eventually children grow up and become self-determining adults. I honor my parents, but I don't submit to them or consider them to have any kind of leadership role in my life.
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
As the Orthodox view is stated, it doesn't have anything to do with having the traditional working man/stay at home wife model.
And yet from what little I know of modern Greece - an overwhelmingly Orthodox country - the man is treated as a god and a king first by his mother and then by his wife (on the insistence of his mother). The home is firmly a woman's domain and everything else belongs to men. I don't know whether there's been a shift away from this in recent years or in the cities but my impression is that there has been a very strong emphasis on traditional roles.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
As the Orthodox view is stated, it doesn't have anything to do with having the traditional working man/stay at home wife model.
And yet from what little I know of modern Greece - an overwhelmingly Orthodox country - the man is treated as a god and a king first by his mother and then by his wife (on the insistence of his mother). The home is firmly a woman's domain and everything else belongs to men. I don't know whether there's been a shift away from this in recent years or in the cities but my impression is that there has been a very strong emphasis on traditional roles.
I suspect this is as much a cultural phenomenon as a religious one. As I said before, it seems to me based on what's been said here that the traditional roles are not inherent in the Orthodox understanding. They may not be inherent in the Right-Wing Nutjob Version(TM) either, but I'm just going on what's been posted here and some small amount of stuff read offline about what Dobson teaches and what the OCA teaches.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
And yet from what little I know of modern Greece - an overwhelmingly Orthodox country - the man is treated as a god and a king first by his mother and then by his wife (on the insistence of his mother). The home is firmly a woman's domain and everything else belongs to men. I don't know whether there's been a shift away from this in recent years or in the cities but my impression is that there has been a very strong emphasis on traditional roles.
Rural Greece is still very much an agrarian community, and clearly defined and prescribed roles are common in agrarian societies, and for good reason. If everyone knows who does what, and does it, it's more likely that everyone will have enough to eat.
But the roles are cultural and social, not theological. To learn what the Church teaches about marriage, you have to look where the Church expresses her thoughts on it -- in the liturgies, and in the lives of the saints. There's a wonderful book of called Marriage as a Path to Holiness by John and Mary Ford, which is a collection of lives of married saints. That's where you see what Orthodox marriage, lived out, looks like.
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I suspect this is as much a cultural phenomenon as a religious one. As I said before, it seems to me based on what's been said here that the traditional roles are not inherent in the Orthodox understanding.
But if you are talking about a country where approaching 100% of the people are Orthodox Christians you would expect the Church to be the main factor in determining the culture, wouldn't you?
By the way, I wouldn't want it to be thought that I think any less of people who choose traditional roles because I don't at all. (Personally I've always loved being at home just as much as going out to work.) What I am quibbling about is the idea that it is God's will that everybody sticks to an eternally-ordered role. Mrs Alexander, who wrote
"Christian children all must be
Mild, obedient, good as he."
also wrote
"The rich man in his castle
The poor man at his gate
God made them high and lowly
And ordered their estate."
That's what this discussion reminds me of. The verses may be very much of their culture and times but both were eagerly adopted by the church. They didn't have to because these ideas aren't inherent in Christianity but they were glad to because it suited them.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
Don't worry Emma - I don't agree entirely with Dobson. I have found him helpful in the past, especially an interview he published with a serial killer and rapist. But that's another story...
OTOH, he tends to write primarily for a large, not especially educated, American audience, so most of what he writes is to be understood in that light.
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I really don't understand the argument you're making. I think anyone can agree with that summary you got from Dobson's other book.
My point is that, when Dobson is writing in "his lifework" a 22 page summary of what he thinks is important in romantic relationships and marriage, he does not mention headship issues once. Nor are they mentioned in the addendum "Thirty-eight values to live by". He clearly does not think they are anywhere near the most important thing in male / female relationships.
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.
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
Sorry, josephine. I wasn't ignoring your post but simply hadn't seen it before I replied to Laura. As always, the way you describe Orthodoxy is beautiful but the way it gets interpreted by some societies isn't always as pretty. If the Church (any Church) feels that the culture is unfair on women one would expect it to speak out.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
And in regards to being referred to the lives of the saints or any other book, written works are not where we find anything lived out. When roles are assigned solely on the basis of sex, women generally get the short end of the stick. It doesn't matter how lovely the theory is if it almost never works out well in practice.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
But if you are talking about a country where approaching 100% of the people are Orthodox Christians you would expect the Church to be the main factor in determining the culture, wouldn't you?
I don't think so. I would expect the Church to influence everything about the culture, but not to determine it. I mean, in some places, you eat out of communal dishes, using your right hand. No implements allowed. In other places, you eat sitting at a table, with your own plate, your own knife and fork and spoon. Those are cultural matters. The Church isn't the main factor in determining it. The Church would tell you to bless the food and give thanks for it, and to share it with the poor. But what you eat, and how you eat it, the Church doesn't say.
It's the same way with who does what in a marriage. The Church doesn't say who washes the dishes, or who cooks the vegetables, or who balances the checkbook. Those may be culturally determined, or they may be personally determined. It doesn't matter. What the Church does say is for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, sacrificing themselves for their wives, and for wives to return their husbands love.
quote:
"The rich man in his castle
The poor man at his gate
God made them high and lowly
And ordered their estate."
That's what this discussion reminds me of. The verses may be very much of their culture and times but both were eagerly adopted by the church. They didn't have to because these ideas aren't inherent in Christianity but they were glad to because it suited them.
The Church adopted these little rhymes? What do you mean by that? From an Orthodox POV, that would have to mean that the Church began using them liturgically, and that's clearly nonsense. You can't mean that, but I'm not sure what you do mean.
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
It's the same way with who does what in a marriage. The Church doesn't say who washes the dishes, or who cooks the vegetables, or who balances the checkbook. Those may be culturally determined, or they may be personally determined. It doesn't matter. What the Church does say is for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, sacrificing themselves for their wives, and for wives to return their husbands love.
Well I wasn't exactly thinking that a church would tell people who was to cook the vegetables. I have, however, heard many an instruction to husbands to help their wives with the housework as an example and that sends out the message that it's her duty to do the housework which he puts himself out to help her with. Maybe spiritual directors in the Orthodox Church don't go into the practical application of the church's teaching in the way I'm familiar with.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
"The rich man in his castle
The poor man at his gate
God made them high and lowly
And ordered their estate."
That's what this discussion reminds me of. The verses may be very much of their culture and times but both were eagerly adopted by the church. They didn't have to because these ideas aren't inherent in Christianity but they were glad to because it suited them.
The Church adopted these little rhymes? What do you mean by that? From an Orthodox POV, that would have to mean that the Church began using them liturgically, and that's clearly nonsense. You can't mean that, but I'm not sure what you do mean.
OK. Point taken. Use of the word church in a response to an Episcopalian without specifying which church, although I did deliberately give it a lower case "c". I have slapped my wrists.
The first quote comes from Once, in Royal David's City, the second from All things bright and beautiful which I would have thought were common across many churches and cultures.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
Maybe spiritual directors in the Orthodox Church don't go into the practical application of the church's teaching in the way I'm familiar with.
Spiritual directors do go into the practical application of our teaching, but it might not be the way you're familiar with. It's often in the context of sacramental confession, or in other one-on-one situations. In the homily, we tend to get a discussion of the Gospel appointed for the day, or the significance of whatever feast or saint is commemorated that day, not personal spiritual direction.
Personal spiritual direction tends to be very specifically tailored -- not what husbands need to do, or what wives need to do, but what you need to do.
quote:
The first quote comes from Once, in Royal David's City, the second from All things bright and beautiful which I would have thought were common across many churches and cultures.
I'm familiar with them, certainly, but I'd hardly consider them common across many churches and cultures. And I'd be loathe even to say they were adopted by the Anglican Church -- they may have been popular among Victorian Anglicans, but they are not doctrinal or theological works. They are works of popular culture. Vapid and sweet, but hardly the teaching of any church.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And in regards to being referred to the lives of the saints or any other book, written works are not where we find anything lived out.
Sorry, RuthW, I didn't mean to ignore you; I just missed seeing your post.
You're right, of course, that it's not on the pages of the Lives of the Saints that we see the Christian life lived out -- it's in the real lives of real people. But I can't point you to real people around you and say, "Look, see? That's what a Christian marriage looks like!" I don't know the people you know; I don't have any way of making that judgment in the first place, or of pointing it out to you if I did.
So I turn to the written records of the lives of saints, which give us a glimpse, even if from a distance, of what those lives looked like. It's a pale image, granted, just as photos of the Grand Canyonn can't possibly catch what it's like to be there. But if you can't be there, it gives the idea as well as anything else I can think of.
quote:
When roles are assigned solely on the basis of sex, women generally get the short end of the stick. It doesn't matter how lovely the theory is if it almost never works out well in practice.
I'm not arguing that social roles should be assigned solely on the basis of sex, though. I don't think anyone here is. People like Bill Gothard argue that, but people like him are just plain wrong.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
My understanding is the advocates of headship on this thread are saying the role of leader belongs to the husband. And I'm saying that once you assign headship or leadership to men just because they are men, women are bound to suffer. It may not be what's intended, but these things become cultural, and when they do, women get the lesser, more tightly restricted roles.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
My understanding is the advocates of headship on this thread are saying the role of leader belongs to the husband. And I'm saying that once you assign headship or leadership to men just because they are men, women are bound to suffer. It may not be what's intended, but these things become cultural, and when they do, women get the lesser, more tightly restricted roles.
I'd be interested to hear what those advocates also have to say about single women. Are single women leaderless - or are they leaders of themselves by default? And if they are leaderless, by virtue of not having a husband, doesn't that imply some lesser state of being, which grounds the cultural assumptions that lead to those "lesser, more tightly restricted roles"?n drive
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
My understanding is the advocates of headship on this thread are saying the role of leader belongs to the husband.
I suppose I'm an advocate of headship, but I have not said that the role of leader belongs to the husband. In fact, I've said as plainly as I know how (which is clearly not plainly enough) that marriage is not about who's in charge. Let me try one more time.
husband is to wife as head is to body
husband is to wife as lover is to beloved
husband is NOT to wife as CEO is to corporation
husband is NOT to wife as general is to army
husband is NOT to wife as leader is to follower
husband is NOT to wife as owner is to property
husband is NOT to wife as master is to slave
It is true that in some places and at some times, wives have been regarded as property, as little more than slaves. But that isn't what it means to say that the husband is the head of his wife.
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.
Whatever marriage is, the service makes it clear that they're in it together.
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
I'd be interested to hear what those advocates also have to say about single women. Are single women leaderless - or are they leaders of themselves by default?
Single women are husbandless. That's what it means to be single. But they are only leaderless if the only possible leader a woman can have is her husband -- which is nonsense. In fact, the one whom we regularly address as the Champion Leader is a woman, the Theotokos:
quote:
To Thee, the Champion Leader, we Thy servants dedicate a feast of victory and of thanksgiving as ones rescued out of sufferings, O Theotokos: but as Thou art one with might which is invincible, from all dangers that can be do Thou deliver us, that we may cry to Thee: Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride!
quote:
And if they are leaderless, by virtue of not having a husband, doesn't that imply some lesser state of being,
No.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Age old question asked by: Duo Seraphim
I'd be interested to hear what those advocates also have to say about single women. Are single women leaderless - or are they leaders of themselves by default? And if they are leaderless, by virtue of not having a husband, doesn't that imply some lesser state of being, which grounds the cultural assumptions that lead to those "lesser, more tightly restricted roles"?n drive
I wrote on this thread some years ago (wow how time flies!) and kind of cringe remembering how I upset RuthW and we had our exchanging of our views. I kind of shut up after that but then ahhhh, Duo just put forth in big neon lights that age old question...What to do? A woman without a head?
Opening my steel-plated bible *THUMP!* I might add before I pontificate about the headless single woman...that the word "Helpmeet" came up in the 1600s according to one Genesis 2:18. Nowadays this might be translated more as "adequate helper", not assistant or slave. God said he created a suitable helper for the man is a more the gist of it.
She is not his competition, she is more his completor! A little bit on this word click here
Now to answer that age old question...
What is a woman without a head supposed to do?
I will now gladly use my own life as an example since I am strong-willed single woman.
I would submit to my father's guidance gladly expect that he is totally uninterested in that role. I once brought a man to my father who wanted to ask my dad if he could marry me. My father hid out, refused to speak with him. Later on, my dad admitted he was not interested in that, that I could make my own decisions. This ironically was the turning point of a very baaad relationship that went South...anyone interested in reading that saga? Nope...didn't think so...moving on...
My mom...could I submit to her will for my life? NOPE. I love my mom...and try to respect her. But well...
My mother's approval is good to have however she is just happy if the guy looks like he won't abuse me and looks like he would make her some good grandkids. So she's out.
So I picked my church elders. Yes, I filled out my membership packet with a paragraph that says "I have no discernment when it comes to men. When I see a pair of pretty blue eyes, I am a stark raving stupid idiot, so please help me by making sure the young man would get your blessings first." Yes, I did write that. They accepted this responsibility.
I also have asked my pastor how to handle things in my life and other elders. I have been given a lot of caring advice from an elder's wife in my church, Carol. And she has kicked me in the hiney when needed...my tongue is sometimes out of control and she forced me to go through a lesson plan on the tongue (in the bible). I was pretty humbled when I learned babbling is sinful much as gossip. Idle talk, trash talk etc...anyway, I disgress.
You have met me Duo and know I am a pretty strong personality in person. I earn a living, I own my place (thank God! No roomate to scream at me for eating hot dogs or as some of you all may remember, get on me for having tempting ice cream in the house). I choose to submit since I trust these people and hold them in very high regard. They aren't perfect but they are very dear to my heart and very smart.
I think I am a better person than I was years ago but there is a lot of room for improvement. To say I am a Proverbs 31 woman would be laughable right now to myself but at least I have people looking out for me and I have people who can also help me with accountability (like I think you ought to apologize for that).
I am grieved that our society has a lot of stupid people in it who are swollen up with pride and consequently, these views look pretty bad with great reason. Redneck men and bitchy women both have ruined it.
"Go get me a beer and submit beetch!"
[*fart* *belch*] "Then give me some sugar baby..."
"Why Billy Joe Bob, kiss my grits and go to hell butthead! The only sugar you'll be getting is mah fist, jackass!"
[*snap finger* muttering...slam slam, neighbor cusses at them through wall...in the background, baby cries and dog barks...]
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
My understanding is the advocates of headship on this thread are saying the role of leader belongs to the husband.
I suppose I'm an advocate of headship, but I have not said that the role of leader belongs to the husband. In fact, I've said as plainly as I know how (which is clearly not plainly enough) that marriage is not about who's in charge. Let me try one more time.
husband is to wife as head is to body
husband is to wife as lover is to beloved
husband is NOT to wife as CEO is to corporation
husband is NOT to wife as general is to army
husband is NOT to wife as leader is to follower
husband is NOT to wife as owner is to property
husband is NOT to wife as master is to slave
It is true that in some places and at some times, wives have been regarded as property, as little more than slaves. But that isn't what it means to say that the husband is the head of his wife.
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.
Whatever marriage is, the service makes it clear that they're in it together.
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
I'd be interested to hear what those advocates also have to say about single women. Are single women leaderless - or are they leaders of themselves by default?
Single women are husbandless. That's what it means to be single. But they are only leaderless if the only possible leader a woman can have is her husband -- which is nonsense.
As has been observed elsewhere on this thread - the Orthodox position on headship appears to be different.
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?
duchess - sister, I don't need a man in order to exercise headship. I'll take advice or guidance from those whose opinion I respect and after prayer - I'll make up my own mind.
Pardon me, all, for saying this - but the cultural assumptions about how women are meant to live their lives are coming through loud and clear.
[ 15. April 2005, 04:48: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on
:
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".
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
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.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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
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.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on
:
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.
"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.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
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?
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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 ]
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on
:
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. ]
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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?
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
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.
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
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
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
...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???
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
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.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
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.
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on
:
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
Posted by scoticanus (# 5140) on
:
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
Posted by mancunian mystic (# 9179) on
:
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.
Posted by Paul Mason (# 7562) on
:
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
)
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
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.
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on
:
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.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by scoticanus (# 5140) on
:
quote:
Believe me, there are those who do.
OMG, the culture shock I'm encountering in this thread is unbelievable!
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
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.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
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 ]
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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?
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
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.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
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.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
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.
Posted by scoticanus (# 5140) on
:
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.
)
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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?
Posted by Paul Mason (# 7562) on
:
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.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
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.
[Lord help me with my grammar]
[ 17. April 2005, 22:15: Message edited by: duchess ]
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
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....
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
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.
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
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.
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on
:
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
Posted by scoticanus (# 5140) on
:
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!
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by scoticanus (# 5140) on
:
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.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
I think this marriage & household I live in works under a form of the male headship thing.
But I still haven't seen either before my own eyes or in statistics that there's any more chance for spousal abuse, man-against-woman, in "our" homes than in any other type. The mechanics of that developing and actually happening are so individual.
The FG occasionally tells a joke, something like "Yeah, I hit my wife once, and then didn't see her for two weeks. It took that long for my swelling to go down and my eyes to re-open."
Speaking as one who lives within a form of man-as-head-of-the-home, I can tell you there's some submitting going on, but it ain't all me doing it, and if beatings ever happened, it wouldn't be me meekly accepting them -- I'd give as good as I got before I left him.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Anselmina sighed,
quote:
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.
What can I say.... if perseverance is part of your spiritual discipline, keep trying?
Leetle M.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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.
Hmmm. I'm glad you put that last sentence in. I do some work as part of my job with a charity that supports domestic abuse survivors, and I remember saying to the chair a while back, "the government say incidences are falling."
She said "well...they would say that wouldn't they?"
It's hard to comment on the Economist article because I can't link to it, but certainly according to this lady she notes a number of different reasons why reporting of domestic violence is falling. It's partly to do with police practice actually improving so assaults are recorded as plain assaults not "domestics" which used to be pushed to the bottom of the pile of importance. The line between domestic and non-domestic has also become much greyer of the last 10 years because family units have become so much more fluid.
Furthermore she thinks that the incidences are increasing in communities who are less like to report (BME communities esepcially) and partly, as we talked about it, she thought the emacipation of women was actually counter-productive to women reporting incidences of truly domestic violence because there is a greater shame factor to admitting having been in an abusively dependent relationship.
All that's kind of by the by. What is doesn't establish is that there is a link between the teaching of headship and the physical abuse, or general belittling of women. If there was any way of finding out, I'd be pretty sure that you would find that the instance of such things is much more common in society in general than it is in the church communities where headship as it has been explained here is taught.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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.
Well yes, complex indeed. We are talking about situations where something has gone seriously wrong, whether the view being espoused is "egalitarian" or "headship". So you suggest, on the basis of the Econ article, that violence is more likely where the marriage is long-term with a headship+anti-divorce model operating.
In response (and not necessarily disagreeing with you at every step), here are some observations:
First: The fact is that you simply cannot establish from Scripture that domestic violence is condoned under any circumstances, no matter whether you approach the question as an egalitarian or as a proponent of male headship. The problem of domestic violence is a problem of sin, not a problem of scriptural interpretation. Anyone who insists otherwise has a bigoted axe to grind, IMHO.
Second: If domestic violence occurs, the male headship+anti-divorce model would still allow for separation. I personally would encourage it, and so I believe (without having checked in a detailed way with everyone) would every person I know who teaches male headship. So I am not sure that it would be right to link earlier statistics on domestic violence with a belief in male headship.
Third: Yes, I would grant that economic independence, together with the greater ease and acceptability of divorce, means that it is prima facie more likely that where domestic violence became an issue, the person offended against (usually the woman) would leave; thus halting the immediate violence problem in its tracks. And this is a good thing (see point 2).
Fourth: It's not as simple as that, however, is it? Divorce too is linked to violence, crime, poverty and all manner of social ills; just that these negative consequences are more likely to involve people other than just the original husband and wife. eg stepfathers who beat their de factos and abuse children; children who suffer the trauma of divorce and consequent poverty, reduced educational opportunity, and so forth.
So, fifth: Just as someone might argue that there is a link of sorts between domestic violence and a distorting of the male headship + anti-divorce model; so too one could observe that there is a link of sorts between a rejecting of the male headship+ anti-divorce model, and greater divorce with the associated bad consequences.
I think I'm going to end up saying that the way we weigh the various downsides of either headship or egalitarianism, once we begin to number-crunch about likely societal outcomes, will be skewed by the prior ideological commitment that has been made. Possibly that prior commitment can be taken into account as these things are worked out; I don't want to be entirely pessimistic about being able to work things out by sociological and statistical methods.
But for me, the prior question of which model of male-female relationships is right in the eyes of God is also the more important; and I will want to be answering that by recourse to the teaching of the Bible. I remain optimistic that it is possible to discover, understand and apply what the Bible says about this important subject. I really think that pointing out abuses of the biblical pattern of headship is to damn by association and innuendo. (Not that you were necessarily doing this, Euty)
[fixed code]
[ 18. April 2005, 15:10: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The fact is that you simply cannot establish from Scripture that domestic violence is condoned under any circumstances, no matter whether you approach the question as an egalitarian or as a proponent of male headship. The problem of domestic violence is a problem of sin, not a problem of scriptural interpretation. Anyone who insists otherwise has a bigoted axe to grind,
True.
But I cannot see how you can guarantee that one party to a marriage (or any other human relationship) is subordinate or submissive to the other without at least the thread of violence.
As violence is, as you say, morally ruled out, we should be talking about equality, not submission.
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But for me, the prior question of which model of male-female relationships is right in the eyes of God is also the more important; and I will want to be answering that by recourse to the teaching of the Bible.
Welcome back! Perhaps I could ask a couple of questions – addressed to you and other conservative evangelicals.
I am unclear as to why the doctrine states that women shouldn't be in authority in the home or the church but, from my reading at least, allows women to be in authority everywhere else. Could you please explain the biblical justification for this distinction when on a plain reading it says that women should not be in authority over men full stop and that's how it has been understood for a couple of millennia?
The second question is about single women. Could you explain how they fit into the modern doctrine of headship please? It hasn't been made clear on this thread yet from a doctrinal point of view as far as I know. Should they have a male authority figure to take decisions for them?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But I cannot see how you can guarantee that one party to a marriage (or any other human relationship) is subordinate or submissive to the other without at least the thread of violence.
I don't think one can guarantee it; and therefore I think any submission, subordination, headship, etc. must be voluntary and freely chosen.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
But I still haven't seen either before my own eyes or in statistics that there's any more chance for spousal abuse, man-against-woman, in "our" homes than in any other type. The mechanics of that developing and actually happening are so individual.
It may be that there is no greater or lesser risk for a first instance of domestic violence in such homes -- it's been a long time since I've looked at the research data, and I'm not sure whether that question was even addressed.
However, there is a greater risk of ongoing violence if the victim (rightly or wrongly) believes any of the following:
(a) divorce is possible for a Christian only in the case of adultery; to divorce for any other reason is to sin deliberately against an explicit command of our Lord Jesus, and is completely unacceptable
(b) since God hates divorce, God also must hate people who get divorced
(c) seeking a divorce would cause you to be ostracized by the members of your church, resulting in the loss of whatever support network you may have
(d) when you made your marriage vows, you promised "for better or for worse" -- so it's worse than you thought it would be, but you acknowledged, as part of the vows, that it could be worse, so that fact is no justification for breaking the vows you made before God
(e) most problems in a marriage relationship are caused by the woman not being submissive enough; if she were more submissive, her husband would love her and treat her right
(f) if your husband repents and says he's truly sorry and asks your forgiveness, you have to forgive him and give him another chance (70 times 7 and all that)
Of these, the last two are most problematic, because the dynamics of an abusive relationship are such that submission to abuse generates more abuse, and because the abuser being sorry and asking forgiveness is part of the cycle of abuse.
But all of these things, not just the last two, make it harder for conservative Christian women who believe these things to leave their husband in the event of an initial incident of abuse. And because of the psychological damage abuse causes, each time an incident occurs, it becomes harder and harder for the woman to leave.
So, while those mechanics triggering abuse may indeed be extremely individual, the beliefs of many women in conservative churches will tend to keep them in abusive relationships longer than would otherwise be the case.
It's important for anyone in a pastoral role to be sensitive to the fact that their answer to seemingly innocuous questions can reinforce these beliefs and can push a woman who is trying to find her way out of an abusive relationship back into it. So, if a woman asks you whether she has to forgive her husband if he hurts her feelings, before you say, "yes, of course," find out exactly how her feelings were hurt, what triggered the question, and realize that she may feel that she has to defend her husband's image (or protect her own) and may minimize what's been going on in describing it to you. Asking about hurt feelings may be her way of easing into a discussion of more serious injuries (e.g., "Well, when he got mad at me the other day, he smashed the dishes I inherited from my grandmother, and then when I got upset about it, he told me that I was being selfish to put material things ahead of him. That really hurt my feelings. I don't think I was being selfish, do you?")
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think I'm going to end up saying that the way we weigh the various downsides of either headship or egalitarianism, once we begin to number-crunch about likely societal outcomes, will be skewed by the prior ideological commitment that has been made
As you will have noticed, it was both Leprechaun and Levor, both I would say proponents of the cons. evo view of headship, who first made assertions suggesting a link between the decline of headship as they understand it and an increase in domestic violence. It's usual practice here to provide support for such assertions. Whatever else the Economist article proves or doesn't prove, I think it demonstrates that such an assertion is right off the mark and so has no place in their argument. I can see how one might like to think that such a view and practice of headship should indeed lead to less abuse, but the fact is that no-one has produced a shred of evidence to support this view.
quote:
The fact is that you simply cannot establish from Scripture that domestic violence is condoned under any circumstances, no matter whether you approach the question as an egalitarian or as a proponent of male headship.
I think the issue is rather what happens when it occurs. I'm beginning to think the more a structure is focused on the outworking of authority within its ranks (as is the case with headship here), the less likely those who suffer at the hands of those abusing this position are to seek redress. I would not be surprised to find headship proponents willing to accept separation or divorce in theory, but the whole system is skewed against such a case coming to light in the first place. This, I believe, is partly because of the firmly held assumption (which no-one has so far been able to corroborate) that 'our folks couldn't possibly do that kind of thing', and partly because such systems tend to hush up offences by their members on the grounds that to expose them would be a "bad witnesss". (For instance, I know personally of two completely unrelated cases where the relatives of children sexually abused by other christians were discouraged in no uncertain terms from taking the case to court for this reason). The psychological and sociological pressure on a battered wife in such an environment being able to press charges do not depend solely on the official, theoretical party line.
quote:
For me, the prior question of which model of male-female relationships is right in the eyes of God is also the more important; and I will want to be answering that by recourse to the teaching of the Bible
Fair enough. I'm keen to see what you have to say to my comments on 1 Cor 11 (if you wish to add anything to what Levor and Custard. have already posted – which translation do you favour?) and 1 Tim 2:12-14 (see here).
quote:
I really think that pointing out abuses of the biblical pattern of headship is to damn by association and innuendo. (Not that you were necessarily doing this, Euty)
You might like to reconsider the juxtaposition of those two sentences…
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
Lep,
I have no doubt that there are some women who not only survive but flourish under the conservative view of headship. I’d be willing to bet, though, that they flourish because the roles assigned to them/ allowed to them fit with their natural inclinations (and I’d bet that their husbands are not abusive). IIRC, most people’s greatest fear is public speaking – and if you don’t want to speak in church, being told you’re not allowed to would not be a particularly big deal. However, if you are called to public speaking, and you have a talent for it, I find it hard to believe that you’re not going to be damaged if you’re not allowed to develop that talent because of an arbitrary rule. Similarly, some people prefer being taught by people they know; I’m sure some women appreciate having everything filtered through their husband’s perspective. Some women do not.
You can’t argue that the absence of unhappy women in your church means that there’s nothing wrong with the model – chances are that the women who wanted a leadership role in church that didn’t involve looking after the children fled the church (and possibly Christianity) years ago. Of course, I have only unacceptable anecdotal evidence to support that claim. But I do think that trying to force anyone into a narrowly defined role based on assumptions about their character that are based on assumptions about gendered behavior is both moronic and damaging to all parties involved.
When some conservative evangelicals talk about headship itself, they may not sound all that different from the representatives of the Orthodox Plot. However, when you put their views in the context of everything else they say, I spy a subtle and pernicious sexism. For example (from this Dobson article):
quote:
Briefly stated, love is linked to self-esteem in women. For a man, romantic experiences with his wife are warm and enjoyable and memorable--but not necessary. For a woman, they are her lifeblood. Her confidence, her sexual response and her zest for living are often directly related to those tender moments when she feels deeply loved and appreciated by her man.
That is why flowers and candy and cards are more meaningful to her than to him. This is why she is continually trying to pull him out of the television set or the newspaper, and not vice versa. This is why the anniversary is critically important to her and why she never forgets it. That is why he had better not forget it! This need for romantic love is not some quirk or peculiarity of his wife, as some may think. This is the way women are made.
I’m sure this is decent advice for somebody. I’m sure that somewhere out there, there is a woman who appreciates having a man tell her husband to pay attention to her. I, OTOH, laughed while reading this, because the gendered assumptions are both stereotypical and very far removed from my own experience.
By defining a “woman” as someone who gets her lifeblood out of romantic experiences with her husband, he clearly indicates that single women are lacking the only thing that could give their life meaning. He then goes on to give advice that I’ve spent most of my dating life trying to counter (I’m not a big fan of candy, I think flowers belong in a garden, not on the kitchen table, I usually don’t remember anniversaries or birthdays unless someone reminds me or I’ve come to expect wrath for forgetting it, and, yes, sometimes others have had to remove the newspaper, book, or remote from my hands in order to get me to pay attention).
It’s not that hard - caring for someone involves looking after their needs, not what you assume their needs are. By setting up the strict and absolute categories of masculine and feminine that correspond to people’s biological sex, Dobson is encouraging people to measure themselves against a standard that doesn’t apply uniformly; most people contain a mixture of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ traits. Ignoring that reality, IMHO, sets people up for failure.
I’m willing to believe that not everyone who espouses a conservative view of headship is sexist. But I have to admit, when the conversation moves in that direction, I make sure I know where all the exits are.
Of course, because of biology, I’m inherently emotionally unstable (you can tell because I laugh and cry more easily than men), so you probably shouldn’t listen to anything I have to say.
(Is it just me, or does anyone else find it a bit surreal that Lep and Gordon appear to be arguing in favor of a conservative view of headship on the basis that no one can prove that women in those relationships are more abused and belittled than other women? I’d prefer to set my sites a bit higher than simply avoiding abuse, although I seem to spend a depressing amount of time doing just that.)
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
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?
The love isn't difference. Think about the Trinity. The Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father. How is the Spirit different from the Father? Only in that he proceeds from the Father and not the other way around. The Father is the source of the Godhead, but the essence of the Father is not different from the essence of the Spirit.
In an analogous way, the love of the husband for his wife is not different from the love of the wife for her husband, except that it comes from the husband and not from the wife. But the husband is the source of the love in the marriage, as the Father is the source of the essence of the Godhead. The husband loves; the wife returns the love.
If that's not a difference that makes a difference to you, I wouldn't worry about it too much.
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
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.
The reason is that you, as the husband, are the source of the love in the marriage. If there's not enough love in the marriage, it's your job to supply more love. If that seems hard to you, that's because it is. Marriage is an ascetic labor, a podvig. No one ever said it would be easy.
Do you really think there should be a limit to your love for your wife? What should that limit be? And why?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Help! I'm agreeing with Josephine (about abuse)!
Just to prove I'm not approaching this with an ideological axe to grind, and failing any statistical research findings posted here on the part of headship proponents so far, here's a reference I found in about 2 minutes on Google:
quote:
From The Scandal of The Evangelical Conscience (which I think is being discussed on another thread)
there is accumulating evidence that theologically conservative Protestant men who attend church regularly have lower rates of domestic abuse than others.
There is a footnote to a source.
Be warned, however: I'm still Googling. And Weed, I'm hoping to find at least one authoritative headship proponent's answer to your question on single women soon.
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on
:
So Josephine - when things are bad the initiative shouldn't come from the woman? Is that what you are saying? Or is there really no difference between the responsibilities of the husband and the wife?
You see I think my wife would find it very insulting to be told that she should always wait for me to take the initiative in the area of love.
Luigi
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Here is a pretty good critique of the link from Sider's article I just posted (includes a link to some actual stats for the US).
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The reason is that you, as the husband, are the source of the love in the marriage. If there's not enough love in the marriage, it's your job to supply more love. If that seems hard to you, that's because it is. Marriage is an ascetic labor, a podvig. No one ever said it would be easy.
It just seems like a distinction without a difference to me. I feel like the man and the woman both must love as much as possible and more. Why cannot they both be the source of love? I find this confusing.
To take an example, there are many times during this ascetic discipline of marriage that the wounded party/wounding party in an ongoing dispute, either the wife or the husband, has to give up the argument and let go, in order for the other to also unstick and move on in love. In my experience, this is especially effective when the wounded party is the mover, but that makes no never mind. My point is, that there are times in a marriage when either the one or the other must be the source of a new "gust" of love in order for the marriage to putter on.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
It just seems like a distinction without a difference to me.
It may well be so in a healthy marriage.
It seems possible to me that the reason St. John Chrysostom limited a woman's responsibility to her husband was because of the relative vulnerability of women. In particular, because of the dynamics of abusive relationships, if a woman is in an abusive relationship, her attempts to be the one to "jumpstart" the relationship as it were, are likely to increase both the frequency and the severity of the abuse.
Therefore, limiting the woman's responsibility in this way may have had the intent of protecting women in unhealthy relationships.
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
Although I might not like the way Dobson has expressed his point in the article, I actually think your post **shows** that he makes a good point (albeit generalised)
Many men (like yourself) dont see the point of little gifts, cut flowers, moment sof affection.... and yet for many many woman those little moments make the world of difference and are the moments that are treasured. I know my girlfriends appreciate a hand written letter for example (not that i do it) or small gestures. BUt I know my ex prefered the momeny spent on "something sensible" or towards a larger gift later.
So I actually think Dobson pointing out to men who dont see the point - that there IS a point doing these little things is A Good Thing.
Josephine - I like the source idea that youre using so very very much. I think a woman often more naturally "gives" of herself (ok I know huge generalisatoinm, and men are from mars esque - but knowing there will be exceptions yada yada) and i think for the man to kick start now and again is a A Good Thing too. Its not saying the woman cant (As she often will...)
I often think of that passage as the man "enabling" the woman to do stuff. As in in that culture it wasnt normal for her to do things, and yet with Jesus and Paul preaching freedom, and in christ there being no male and female and all that, that men were in the privilidged position at that time of being able to enable the women to be free. Think back even 100 years - the husband still had so much power over the household, I really think Paul was saying - use it to release her. This isnt *as* applicable now.... but would have been for the last 2000 years..
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Weed: The second question is about single women. Could you explain how they fit into the modern doctrine of headship please? It hasn't been made clear on this thread yet from a doctrinal point of view as far as I know. Should they have a male authority figure to take decisions for them?
Weed, I've finally looked up where I thought I might find an answer to this. It was in this book:
Women in the Church – A fresh analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. This is a well-researched and for the most part graciously argued defence of the conservative objections to women in church leadership (though many here may find some of the following statements rather chilling). Although it does not address the issue of marriage directly, the term "headship" is part of its vocabulary and there are some excellent summaries of the various stances taken on both marriage and church leadership. It is commended on the back cover by such evangelical heavyweights as John Piper ("a major book… none more thorough or careful or balanced or biblical") and D.A. Carson.
Before I get to the quote in question, here for general consumption is a summary of those summaries (pp262-3 of my edition).
For "traditionalists" (a definition the authors unequivocally align themselves with), we learn that
quote:
Eve's deception either compounds or explains women's subordination (sic). Some traditionalists say women's subordination became onerous as her punishment for her role in the fall. Others say God subordinated women to men in the church because women are more prone to deception, whether due to lower intellectual capacity or less interest in disicplined intellectual pursuits.
The same contributor (Daniel Doriani) places all traditionalists somewhere along a continuum. At one end are those who hold that "Men should lead because of the divine will, period". At the other are those who begin with "the woman was deceived" and "search for confirmations of divine law in natural law". Most are said to occupy a middle ground, affirming that "God shaped the minds, proclivities and perhaps even the bodies of humans to reflect his decree".
He acknowledges that many traditionalists adopt what he calls the "Family Order/Church Order Argument", linking roles in the church to roles in the family by aligning passages such as Eph 5 with 1 T 2. He also exposes several weaknesses (from his perspective) in this rapprochement, one of which is precisely the one Weed touches on (p261):
quote:
It implicitly … permits (single women) to serve as spiritual leaders of the church
At this point we have a footnote which says:
quote:
Certain popular teachers assert that single women remain under their fathers' governance until they marry, but their thought rarely reaches print and does not seem to be influential.
So there you have it. Having thus neatly distanced himself from this anonymously held position, he leaves the question of what coherent alternative conclusions might be drawn from the "traditionalist" position unsaid.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Lep,
I have no doubt that there are some women who not only survive but flourish under the conservative view of headship. I’d be willing to bet, though, that they flourish because the roles assigned to them/ allowed to them fit with their natural inclinations (and I’d bet that their husbands are not abusive).
This has been my experience. Not to mention the fact that the less gracious of these women then lorded it over the rest of us who felt called to something different. The tyranny of the system is that it assumes that there is only "one kind of woman". If you're not called to the One Right Approved Womanly Vocation, you're called disobedient, sinful, not submitted to Christ. The women who are blessed with the "right" natural inclinations and who find it no hard work at all are constantly lecturing you on discipline when it sometimes takes all the discipline you can muster not to explode.
[ 18. April 2005, 20:49: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
Posted by xSx (# 7210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
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.
If I may ask a question, Duchesss?
Perhaps I have misunderstood something, but I honestly do not see what this searching for advice from elders (male or female) has to do with you being a single woman.
Surely it is sensible to seek wise advice from experienced elder people if you are young, single, vulnerable, don't know much about finance/cars/houses or whatever else it might be? Why is this more the case for single woman (without a 'head') than a single man, or indeed a married woman whose husband isn't much help in those matters?
Thanks,
xSx
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is a well-researched and for the most part graciously argued defence of the conservative objections to women in church leadership (though many here may find some of the following statements rather chilling).
(I love the phrase 'graciously argued defence. At the very least if one is arguing for the subordination of a significant representation of humankind, based on gender alone, the very least one ought to be is 'gracious'. Or is one meant to be grateful for the 'graciousness' with which one is being put into one's 'rightful' place?)
Possibly chillling. More likely predictable if based on the quotes below. What is certainly chilling is that many corners of the Church haven't yet learnt how to read into the Genesis myths the limited encultured views of the era in which they were given birth; and, imo, subsequently have not learnt how to interpret afresh the truth of God for this generation.
The book as a whole seems to be interesting, so thanks, Eutychus, for taking on the question that Weed asked. I'd been following this thread, too, to see if anything was going to be said that applied to my own situation. To do the book justice, naturally, one would have to read it to know if it actually says anything that all the other defenders of conservative traditional opinion haven't said. Judging by the quotations given, it would appear not.
I'm intrigued by this:
quote:
Certain popular teachers assert that single women remain under their fathers' governance until they marry, but their thought rarely reaches print and does not seem to be influential.
Anyone up for a seance? I have one or two important decisions to make and need my father's 'governance'
.
[ 18. April 2005, 21:05: Message edited by: Anselmina ]
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
Thanks, Eutychus! Plenty of food for thought there. I'd like to do some further reading and see what other shipmates have to say before I comment any further.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
It seems possible to me that the reason St. John Chrysostom limited a woman's responsibility to her husband was because of the relative vulnerability of women. In particular, because of the dynamics of abusive relationships, if a woman is in an abusive relationship, her attempts to be the one to "jumpstart" the relationship as it were, are likely to increase both the frequency and the severity of the abuse.
Therefore, limiting the woman's responsibility in this way may have had the intent of protecting women in unhealthy relationships.
I wonder if it makes more sense in the context of his life and times when a marriage would be organised by the prospective husband and the family of the prospective wife. In those circumstances it would seem reasonable, perhaps, to limit the responsibility of the wife to responding to love shown to her rather than oblige her to love a husband who never acted in a loving way to her.
I can't see the same argument working today where you have what starts off, almost always, as a love match and which in the western tradition includes words such as "for better, for worse". It can't be an excuse for withdrawing Christian love (whether or not romantic love is still present) from a husband who through deep depression contributes nothing but negativity to a marriage, can it? Doesn't the freedom of choice that the woman exercises today in getting married alter the circumstances completely?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'd been following this thread, too, to see if anything was going to be said that applied to my own situation.
On the same page (p261) he admits that
quote:
Scarcely anyone argues that the church should give single women special ministerial prerogatives, but the church has long had an instinct for the idea
In a further footnote he says that one theologian who, rarely, makes a brief allusion to this, is E. Earle Ellis, Pauline Theology, Ministry, and Society (Grand Rapids, Erdmans, 1989, p75).
[ 18. April 2005, 21:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As you will have noticed, it was both Leprechaun and Levor, both I would say proponents of the cons. evo view of headship, who first made assertions suggesting a link between the decline of headship as they understand it and an increase in domestic violence.
You will not have noticed this, because my posts did not say any such thing. I questioned the assertion that teaching and believing headship leads to an increase in domestic abuse in situations where it is taught, as my anecdotal evidence led me to an entirely different conclusion to that of many people here.
For the reasons I pointed out above, I think the statistics on which the Economist article above are based may well be suspect, and if they aren't can certainly be explained in ways that have nothing to do with headship.
I have certainly no wish to suggest that a decline in the headship view in socety at large has led to an increase in domestic violence. I would, however, agree with Levor's assertion that I'm not sure relationships between the sexes are improving for us enough to be pleased about the "progress" we have supposedly made.
Weed - I have an answer to your singleness question, but no time to post now - maybe later. Sorry!
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
So I actually think Dobson pointing out to men who dont see the point - that there IS a point doing these little things is A Good Thing.
Like I said, I’m sure that his advice is good advice for someone out there in the world. What I object to is the one-size-fits-all nature of it. It’s not that I don’t like it when Boy pays attention to me – but I want him to pay attention to me, not some abstract Real Woman (and that means he knows that I’d appreciate him getting me a cd, book, or two-dollar toy more than I’d appreciate a box of candy).
To me, it’s just common sense that being in a relationship with another human being means occasionally doing things you might not be inclined to do on your own because you know that it’s going to make the other person happy and their happiness is important to you (love makes a better verb than noun). If Dobson had encouraged husbands to ask their wives what would make them happy and then do their best to fulfill that desire, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But to me that’s very different from one man telling another man how to make his (silent) wife happy.
Posted by Levor (# 5711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I largely agree (not about the low blow, which to me seems a perfectly reasonable approach to the Scriptures, but the rest of it).
It was long bow, not low blow, Alan - I didn't think you were fighting dirty.
quote:
quote:
Actually, I think they do. There are three strands of evidence in the way the narrative works in Genesis 2-3.
Strands that don't seem to appear in the Genesis 1 version, where we are told that God created humans, male and female, in his own image. Nothing there about anything different about men and women in the sight of God.
They don't need to appear in Genesis 1. You claimed that
quote:
Interestingly the Genesis accounts don't seem to imply any subservience in the relationship between Adam and Eve. At least, not until after the Fall where God imposes such a subservient role of the woman as a penalty for her sin
If it occurs in Genesis 2, or if it occurs in the Fall narrative as anything more than an extrinsic judgement imposed upon the woman, then your thesis is incorrect.
If you want to argue something else - for example that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 are in outright contradiction rather than complementary accounts and that Genesis 1 should overrule Genesis 2-3 - then you can advance that argument. But appealing to Genesis 1 to counter something from Genesis 2-3 is
i) irrelevant to your argument as originally stated
ii) requires you to introduce an extra assertion that there is irreducible theological conflict between the chapters
quote:
quote:
1. The man is created first and the woman is created from the man, (and Paul points out, the woman is created for the man not vice versa). Man is the source of woman - a derived equality as Divine Outlaw Dwarf has suggested on the Father-Son side of the issue.
Well, creation order doesn't seem all that relevant. After all, humanity is created last - does that mean we're inferior to the rest of creation that came first? Though, of course, you first need to reconcile Genesis 1 (humanity created last) with Genesis 2 (the man created first, then the animals, then woman). Taking Genesis 2 to its logical conclusion following your argument from order, women are inferior to the cattle of the field.
Or, there's a good argument that as men are born of women that women are the source of men - does that make them superior? Of course not. The argument simply doesn't work.
I'm not sure precisely what your argument is here. I'm not arguing inferiority from creation order - and it might be a little bit sneaky to impose that on my view without establishing that as a point in its own right. It'd be like me claiming that you don't recognise differences between the genders to 'disprove' your exegesis.
I was arguing that the Bible sees some kind of order of a non-egalitarian nature from creation order. Paul argues that explicitly in 1 Tim 2:13 for gender relations. The Bible continually endorses the general motiff - sometimes by overturning it (the choice of the younger over the older by divine calling in Genesis), other times by endorsing it (the use of the category of 'firstborn', the argument for the deity of Jesus from the fact that David calls his 'son' 'Lord' in Mat 21:41-46).
That the Bible sees chronological order as significant for the structure of relationships is difficult to deny. If you want to say that the Bible is wrong at this point and that it is blindingly obvious to us that that is wrong, feel free. But again, that wasn't your original argument.
As regards the appeal to Genesis 1, to make humanity inferior to the animals, as you imply the relationship between the two accounts is not simply to crash them together. Different points are being made and so the data has a different significance in both cases.
As regards the woman being inferior to animals, I take it that that is eloquently dealt with by the very poetic picture of the woman being (in a creaturely way) homoousious with the man - made from the very stuff that makes him what he is. Animals are after their kinds. And the woman doesn't fit in that category.
quote:
quote:
3. When the temptation account is given in chapter three there is an order of animal --> woman --> man. When the judgement account is given there is an order of God --> man --> woman --> animal.
Which is my original point, the suggestion of superiority of man over woman comes in with the account of the Fall. It relates to sin, not the original order.
Not necessarily. I'd suggest that in chapter one we start with everything being formless and void (no order, and empty), with a picture of chaotic water as the basic reality. The first three days creates order by separating things out, the next three days those basic categories established in the first three days are then filled with life.
formless and void vs order and fullness
Part of sin is found in the way it overturns both - it is an anti-creation (death) force. And so the Flood returns everything back to the primordial water, with everything obliterated under water, and all life ended.
Similarly, the order we see in the temptation narrative in chapter 3 is the unravelling of the order we see in chapter 2. The judgment oracles reimpose that order in a more harsh (for want of a better word) and cursed form. The order doesn't start in chapter 3, it starts in chapter 2.
BTW - I agree with Jospehine as to what I think I said, although it is interesting that RuthW seems to have taken it the same way. Thanks for the apology on the misreading - it wasn't necessary, but it is appreciated.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Sorry, but bringing the Trinity into it doesn't help, IMO, because it doesn't justify assigning roles based on sex alone, whether you're going to call it "being" or "personhood".
I agree. All it establishes is that there is a kind of primacy that doesn't have to be linked to being somehow better than someone else. It eliminates what often seems to be an assumption that if I have to submit to you, and there is no way I can have that relationship reversed, then I must be ontologically inferior. It is not the case that all forms of submission involve inferiority, or that they involve inferiority if they are based in something other than abstract merit (being smarter, stronger, etc).
It doesn't establish that that is applicable to male-female relationships. That has to be argued separately.
quote:
This is an awful analogy--the implied infantalization of women is appalling. When you disagree with your parents about how you should live your life, do you defer to their judgement? Parents start out wiser, smarter, and more knowledgeable than their children, but eventually children grow up and become self-determining adults. I honor my parents, but I don't submit to them or consider them to have any kind of leadership role in my life.
It was an argument from analogy, to counter what seemed to be the dominant analogy being used, which was the CEO/head of state analogy. Of course not all bits are going to be the same. I wasn't saying that your parents have any leadership role, they don't need to for the analogy to work. But I will say that they do, nonetheless. Part of honouring parents as an adult does mean that the parent takes a senior position in the relationship. (Yes I know that doesn't always happen - there are bad relationships - I'm working from the 'rule', not the 'exception'.)
And the analogy focuses on adult relationships, not childhood ones. So there's no infantilisation of the woman. Just the reality of having parents as an adults and thinking about the nature of that relationship.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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...
My point is simply that this is an important issue precisely because there is a shift going on. One side is profoundly right (at least mostly - important changes may take place during the debate that transform it), one side is disastrously wrong in a way that will destroy all or everything over time. Both sides can see that that is what is at stake.
In such a situation, a desire to not be dogmatic is the wrong approach. We have to pray, be humble, and speak and listen with the wisdom God has given us and pray that truth will win over the long haul - even if it means that we were playing for the wrong side. Even if I'm wrong and egalitarianism is the way to go, I still want to put my view forward as best as I can, because that will help clarify the issues at stake.
If it proves, in the collateral damage, that to be true to the Bible you have to go against the Bible then that's pretty important - and is going to require some dogmatism somewhere.
quote:
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.
For me, there's a difference between coherent and 100% precision. I think the biblical picture is fairly coherent on its own terms - we can generally agree on a fair bit of what it is saying. The points of disagreement are then as to whether it is implying an inherent inferiority of women or not (primarily) and what sort of patterns of gender relations Christians should promote today (secondarily, because a lot of the answer is derived from the answer to the primary question).
I don't pretend that I can spell out a view that comprehensively illuminates every grey zone faced in the modern world - create a modern causitry on the issue. If that's what you mean by 'coherent', I agree, it can't be done. The best I hope for is that I allow it to shape the fundamental structures of thought with which I approach the issue, and that I get the outworkings more right than wrong.
If by 'not coherent' you mean it is self-contradictory, then I think that's going to need to be established.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Leprechaun, I claimed you "made assertions suggesting a link between the decline of headship as you understand it and an increase in domestic violence". That was rather too much of a shortcut, and I apologise.
Reading over all your posts on this thread, your main argument in favour of headship seems to be that it is
quote:
a doctrine that church has held for the majority of it's history
which you support because of
quote:
family experience, and that of my friends
you go on to say
quote:
so we're just swapping anecdotes until someone moves the conversation on a bit
In order to do this you ask for
quote:
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.
and proof that such women are
quote:
more likely to be physically abused by their husbands than in general society where a more egalitarian view of marriage is held
You set aside anecdotal evidence in favour of an appeal to statistical evidence or similar.
Quite fortuitously, I then found a report of some relevant government statistics that claim that domestic abuse is declining overall in the UK. You dispute these on the basis of anecdotal evidence. I have to say this leaves me wondering what sort of "proof" you would accept.
(Believe it or not, I'm trying to see both sides of this question, so I also went in search of some statistics supporting your view and by Googling "domestic abuse" + evangelicals I almost immediately find a link to a report doing just that (as well as a disputation of these results on methodological, not anecdotal grounds).).
So appeals to statistics appear to be a dead duck, and if my anecdotal evidence is not admissible, then neither is yours. Which brings us back to the purely doctrinal question, which to me is above all a question of hermeneutics.
Correct me if I'm wrong
, but so far on this thread I've seen you express broad agreement with others in favour of headship, but I haven't seen you actually interact hermeneutically with anyone. You appear confident that the Bible, in its "plain reading", supports your view, and this is borne out by your immediate experience. The one time you asked for a clarification from me on a specific Bible passage was 1 Tim 2:12-14 when you asked me
quote:
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)?
to which I replied here
quote:
I think it's difficult to read 1 Tim 2:12-14 in the way headship proponents do, and not come away with the feeling that woman should be submitted because she is spiritually inferior (something I have heard some people actually claim in so many words). How do you read this passage?
I'm still interested to hear how you read it.
quote:
originally posted by Levor:
For me, there's a difference between coherent and 100% precision. I think the biblical picture is fairly coherent on its own terms - we can generally agree on a fair bit of what it is saying. The points of disagreement are then as to whether it is implying an inherent inferiority of women or not (primarily)
I agree with much of what you say. But the non-egalitarian approach increasingly appears to me to be inconsistent. On the one hand, we are called to accept it because it's a sort of synthesis of what the Bible is saying, as advanced by people who claim to take hermeneutics seriously. On the other hand, as soon as one particular text is held up for analysis according to these selfsame principles, there is a sort of retreat to a "well, we must see that in the overall context of what the Bible says". This leaves me with the impression that the whole, on closer inspection, is not the sum of the parts it is claimed to be. Which is why I keep asking for verse-by-verse exegesis.
Even if we were to agree that the biblical picture is coherent on its own terms, the burning question is to what extent it should be applied today (which is why to my mind the appeal to a "Creational Principle" is a crucial part of the debate). (To me, it's like discussions about church government. I thought I had the Accurate Biblical Model all worked out, but when I actually went back and looked at all the verses I decided recently that the Bible said a lot about general principles, but left a whole load of options as to how they should be implemented).
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You set aside anecdotal evidence in favour of an appeal to statistical evidence or similar.
Quite fortuitously, I then found a report of some relevant government statistics that claim that domestic abuse is declining overall in the UK. You dispute these on the basis of anecdotal evidence. I have to say this leaves me wondering what sort of "proof" you would accept.
Eutychus
I'm not wishing to be uncharitable, but I am beginning to wonder if you are deliberately misunderstanding what I am saying.
My "appeal to statictical evidence" was for evidence that showed incidences of domestic abuse are higher where headship is believed than when it isn't, as my experience of where it is taught and where it is not is that it is less prevalent. Your finding of the Economist article was thus, not "fortuitous" but entirely irrelevant, as I'm not sure what that has to do with religious communities where headship is or is not taught.
It was you, and possibly the Economist journalist who posited the link between the reduction in reported incidences of domestic abuse and "the emancipation of women", a link which, I pointed out, an expert in the field who I know makes no appeal to, and in fact rejects the statistics altogether. It was my fault for engaging in that discussion, (mea culpa, I thought it would be interesting) but certainly not rejecting discussion of statistics. What I am rejecting is the "obvious" link between the teaching of headship and the abuse of women that has been put forward by some here. If anyone can show that is the case, then I would love to consider it, but my feeling is that no one will be able to; but it's much easier to write off the other side of the argument if we label them all as closet wife beaters.
The fact that this is my experience doesn't prove that I am right - far from it, but it does, I think suggest some problem with the headship=abuse equation being put across here, and I was asking if anyone could actually back up that type of assertion.
quote:
You appear confident that the Bible, in its "plain reading", supports your view, and this is borne out by your immediate experience.
I'm not sure where I have said this. I thought your hermeneutical questions were being addressed much better than I would be able by other people.
quote:
I'm still interested to hear how you read it.
Very well. I read it as being abour creation order. It is not a condemnation of Eve's simplicity, or to suggest that she was more foolish than Adam, but Paul saying that the order in which God created is significant, and it was reversed in the fall, and that the people of God should seek to reflect God's original order in their life as a church.
I am quite willing to admit this interpretation depends on a previosu commitment from elsewhere in Scripture to the equality of the sexes and to creation order, but there you have it.
Posted by Levor (# 5711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As you will have noticed, it was both Leprechaun and Levor, both I would say proponents of the cons. evo view of headship, who first made assertions suggesting a link between the decline of headship as they understand it and an increase in domestic violence. It's usual practice here to provide support for such assertions.
I'm fairly sure I haven't claimed that there's been a rise in domestic violence as a result of a rejection of male headship. The closest I think I've come to addressing that issue was when I responded to the idea, that seemed to have been stated a number of times in different ways, that as there had been domestic abuse while society had a commitment to headship, that the domestic abuse was caused (not just justified, but caused) by the idea of headship and the implicit suggestion that there would be less domestic violence with an egalitarian approach.
My response, I think, was to state that my impression is that women are no less subject to violence in the West than they were 40+ years ago. Sure, I'd be interested if we could get some empirical evidence on that. But I wasn't putting forward an argument of causality, merely countering what had seemed to be a fairly regularly asserted argument in the other direction.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I agree with much of what you say. But the non-egalitarian approach increasingly appears to me to be inconsistent. On the one hand, we are called to accept it because it's a sort of synthesis of what the Bible is saying, as advanced by people who claim to take hermeneutics seriously. On the other hand, as soon as one particular text is held up for analysis according to these selfsame principles, there is a sort of retreat to a "well, we must see that in the overall context of what the Bible says". This leaves me with the impression that the whole, on closer inspection, is not the sum of the parts it is claimed to be. Which is why I keep asking for verse-by-verse exegesis.
I generally don't like the "you're not taking x seriously" argument. I'd rather just stick to whether it is likely to be true or not.
Having said that, you're going to have to give me some specifics as to the target you're shooting at. Almost everyone does exegesis by both looking at the words in context and understanding it against what they think the nature of the Bible and its message is. If you think I'm doing this in a way that lacks integrity, I'll need the details.
quote:
Even if we were to agree that the biblical picture is coherent on its own terms, the burning question is to what extent it should be applied today (which is why to my mind the appeal to a "Creational Principle" is a crucial part of the debate). (To me, it's like discussions about church government. I thought I had the Accurate Biblical Model all worked out, but when I actually went back and looked at all the verses I decided recently that the Bible said a lot about general principles, but left a whole load of options as to how they should be implemented).
I'm in general agreement - your analogy with church government is similar to what I was saying about coherent versus precise. And I wasn't saying that the question of what we do now isn't important - merely that it comes after the prior question of whether the relevant biblical material is positing a real inferiority of women.
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
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.
I agree that I often sense that kind of subchristian/misogony trying to justify itself by appeal to the sort of principles being outlined here. For what it is worth, my wife went through theological College with me for the full 4 years, and is looking into postgraduate study. I don't think that we are somehow doing something against the kind of principles that Josephine and others have been arguing for (and by the way Josephine - I felt like getting a choir in as a cheering squad for the post on 'if there's not enough love in the marriage, the husband has to put more love in. Love it!)
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. 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.
I don't think anyone wants to justify or encourage for others what you experienced, Seeker. I certainly don't - and I'm very ruthless on anything that smacks of it in the contexts that I'm in.
But the impression might have been caused not by the simple fact of submission, but by the reasons given for it - grounding it in the idea that a woman is an incompleted man.
quote:
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?
I think I know the argument, and I don't think it is trying to compare a woman to a donkey. It is an attempt to state that God is free to act as he will - even to rebuke a prophet through a dumb ass. But we don't use that to justify putting donkeys into pulpits as though normal practice should be derived from God's free act.
Part of my conversion occured through reading some of the most ridiculous pre-millenial conspiracy stuff I've ever encountered. But I don't encourage the use of it in evangelism.
But that's not to excuse however badly or hurtfully he stated that argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm beginning to think the more a structure is focused on the outworking of authority within its ranks (as is the case with headship here), the less likely those who suffer at the hands of those abusing this position are to seek redress. I would not be surprised to find headship proponents willing to accept separation or divorce in theory, but the whole system is skewed against such a case coming to light in the first place. This, I believe, is partly because of the firmly held assumption (which no-one has so far been able to corroborate) that 'our folks couldn't possibly do that kind of thing', and partly because such systems tend to hush up offences by their members on the grounds that to expose them would be a "bad witnesss". (For instance, I know personally of two completely unrelated cases where the relatives of children sexually abused by other christians were discouraged in no uncertain terms from taking the case to court for this reason). The psychological and sociological pressure on a battered wife in such an environment being able to press charges do not depend solely on the official, theoretical party line.
I think there's been a few examples of this kind of argument. My concern again, is that it isn't really an argument against headship per se. It is an argument against all kinds of authority, expressing the kind of Western cultural logic that makes many of us (me included) deeply suspicious of any kind of authority.
We tend to be very aware of how easily power can be abused and so strive to limit the power people can have, if not opt for 'flat' relational structures altogether. But while the Bible is quite aware of the abuses that come with power, it tends to endorse hierarchical relationships rather than tear them down.
So I'd be keen to hear from Shipmates wanting to run this argument as to whether their concern about headship at this point is just an expression of their wider concern about authority in general.
It also seems to me, that one of the consequences of this suspicion of power, has been to encourage individualism and the right of the individual to choose their relationships on their own terms - a general prioritising of friendship over family that seems to be a feature of contemporary life.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
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.
And I suppose you're going to argue that we don't need leadership of any kind in the church either Alan? After all, a Christian could do it all on their own if they were on a Desert Island? So why do they need a leader when they are part of a Church?
The difference in marriage is that they move from being two individual people to two people in relationship. And when people move into relationships, they stop acting as a group of isolated individuals and start acting as an entity that has its own properties and order.
The Bible portrays very strong women, and very competent women. Proverbs 31 holds out an ideal women that is about as talented and tough minded and capable of flourishing outside the home as one could get. The women of Proverbs 31 could obviously cope quite well 'without a man'.
But if two people come into a relationship, then that relationship takes on an order that governs the relational entity that they have become: whether church, friends, married, master-slave whatever. Some are 'flat', some are 'hierarchical', and some kinds of 'hierarchy' differ from others. And not every kind of 'hierarchy' is based on 'merit'.
The question is what sort of order should exist in a marriage (or church).
Your argument here, in my opinion, reflects the tendency of contemporary egalitarianism to promote individualism - cutting us off from one another by making the autonomous individual the most basic reality and giving little 'ontology' to the relationships that we enter into.
I think I can function fine by myself. But at church and at College I submit to the leadership of others in that context of relationships. Why should marriage be any different?
Why should the fact that both were able to function fine without the other then mean that marriage is simply "friendship + sex"?
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
...But if two people come into a relationship, then that relationship takes on an order that governs the relational entity that they have become: whether church, friends, married, master-slave whatever. Some are 'flat', some are 'hierarchical', and some kinds of 'hierarchy' differ from others. And not every kind of 'hierarchy' is based on 'merit'.
The question is what sort of order should exist in a marriage (or church).
I think this touches on some of my own personal ill-ease with the way headship is practised (and sometimes even taught) in a lot of the conservative evangelical settings I've been in.
The way I see it, is that if my husband has headship it is for the marriage, and that if church leaders have headship it is for the church. That does not give them the right to make arbitrary decisions for all areas of my life. So while I'm willing to take my husband's advice on which job to accept, for example, I would not expect him to take the final decision on things pertaining to my personal life.
I believe that I still exist as a person, as does my husband, and that our relationship exists as a third entity. I lot has been said on this thread about abuse, but equating it almost exclusively with physical abuse or violence. I think that just as much psychological damage is done to women by the suggestion, explicit or implicit, that they are either incapable of or unentitled to independent thought. This in effect removes their very existence as human beings.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(For instance, I know personally of two completely unrelated cases where the relatives of children sexually abused by other christians were discouraged in no uncertain terms from taking the case to court for this reason).
Faced with a minister who gave that advice, one would have to choose between justice and mercy. Justice would be hitting the man hard enough that he didn't get up in a hurry, mercy would be exposing him as a collaborator in sexual abuse, so that he could be removed from any position of responsibility in the church.
Posted by Levor (# 5711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
The way I see it, is that if my husband has headship it is for the marriage, and that if church leaders have headship it is for the church. That does not give them the right to make arbitrary decisions for all areas of my life. So while I'm willing to take my husband's advice on which job to accept, for example, I would not expect him to take the final decision on things pertaining to my personal life.
I think here, I'd be more interested in leaving couples (and cultures) free to nail down the specifics within the broad guidelines. Some couples might work better with more direct involvement from the husband in the wife's personal life (Gordo's observation that his wife would have liked him to be more directive about her occupational choice) others with more freedom. That's one where I wouldn't want to legislate any particular way, simply troubleshoot on a case by case basis. Some couples might need more breathing room, some might need a bit less.
I think a lot of conservative evangelicals can be too controlling at the moment - but I think that is because of the normal (but wrong) reactionary tendency to overcompensate in the other direction.
quote:
I believe that I still exist as a person, as does my husband, and that our relationship exists as a third entity. I lot has been said on this thread about abuse, but equating it almost exclusively with physical abuse or violence. I think that just as much psychological damage is done to women by the suggestion, explicit or implicit, that they are either incapable of or unentitled to independent thought. This in effect removes their very existence as human beings.
Ah. Wasn't trying to encourage that. I agree that there are three things - two people and a relationship - and each is real.
I agree too about the problem of the abuse you are talking about - for me it is the opposite of what Ephesians 5 is talking about (presenting the wife as spotless etc.) ==> it is making her into something less rather than encouraging her growth into being something more.
The caveat I would put is that while the independence of each person needs to be preserved (which is a great point that I'll try and keep in mind if I ever speak on this issue), the 'one flesh' nature of the relationship does suggest that the sphere of absolutely independent operation is smaller than for most (all?) other relationships. The two become one in some sense. But that's just a qualifier to a broad endorsement of your point here.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I have certainly no wish to suggest that a decline in the headship view in socety at large has led to an increase in domestic violence.
In this country that violence has certainly decreased over the last couple of generations. Even if we think things haven't got better recently they undoubtably have over a longer period.
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
I think here, I'd be more interested in leaving couples (and cultures) free to nail down the specifics within the broad guidelines. Some couples might work better with more direct involvement from the husband in the wife's personal life (Gordo's observation that his wife would have liked him to be more directive about her occupational choice) others with more freedom. That's one where I wouldn't want to legislate any particular way, simply troubleshoot on a case by case basis. Some couples might need more breathing room, some might need a bit less.
I'm not arguing about the husband's involvement, Levor, but about who get's the final decision in my personal life. It's interesting that you made reference to Gordon's lack of involvement in his wife's decision to back up your point, as I hadn't remembered it in the same way. So I went back and looked and this is what I found:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon
When Mrs Cheng was working out whether to study law, landscape architecture, history, or carpentry, or simply to get a clerical job, she would’ve preferred if I’d said something a bit more than “well they’d all be good, and you could do any of them”
Not being in Mrs Cheng's shoes, but from what is written, I'd concluded (and still do) that what she was lamenting was exactly his lack of involvement, comment, input, but not necessarily lack of directiveness. Getting someone's opinion, is not the same thing as wanting them to take the decision.
quote:
Originally posted by Levor
I agree too about the problem of the abuse you are talking about - for me it is the opposite of what Ephesians 5 is talking about (presenting the wife as spotless etc.) ==> it is making her into something less rather than encouraging her growth into being something more.
The caveat I would put is that while the independence of each person needs to be preserved (which is a great point that I'll try and keep in mind if I ever speak on this issue), the 'one flesh' nature of the relationship does suggest that the sphere of absolutely independent operation is smaller than for most (all?) other relationships. The two become one in some sense. But that's just a qualifier to a broad endorsement of your point here.
The question is, in what sense do the two become one. I think that conservative evangelical teaching, can lead to a sort of annexation, which means the two become one by the wife ceasing to exist, and 'eaten up' by her husband.
It's obviously though that if I'm married my possibilities for independent operation are going to be less than if I'm single, and all the more so if I have children. In the same way, if I have a job, I have constraints on my time which mean that I can't do certain things just when I might like to. This however does not give my boss the right to interfere with my private or family life - his or her authority is limited to my employment.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I largely agree (not about the low blow, which to me seems a perfectly reasonable approach to the Scriptures, but the rest of it).
It was long bow, not low blow, Alan - I didn't think you were fighting dirty.
Sorry about that. I read it as "low blow", even though that wasn't what you wrote
(though, I must say, I'm not sure what the phrase 'long bow' means in this context, I always thought of it as an archery weapon.)
quote:
If you want to argue something else - for example that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 are in outright contradiction rather than complementary accounts and that Genesis 1 should overrule Genesis 2-3 - then you can advance that argument. But appealing to Genesis 1 to counter something from Genesis 2-3 is
i) irrelevant to your argument as originally stated
ii) requires you to introduce an extra assertion that there is irreducible theological conflict between the chapters
Actually, you are right in that my original statement was unclear, in that I made reference to "Adam and Eve" when I meant the creation of humanity as expressed in both Genesis 1 and 2. The use of "Adam and Eve" could easily be mistaken as a reference to Genesis 2 only, which I didn't want to make.
I don't believe in an "irreducible theological conflict" between the chapters, I do believe they are complementary descriptions of the same theological truth. But, if one takes them as being actual descriptions of Creation (especially regarding the temporal order of creation events) then they naturally do conflict. My main point was, therefore, that the temporal order of events (what was created first) is a very shaky ground to build an argument for order in human relationships (eg: man was created first, therefore man is superior to woman - "superior" in the sense often used by the advocates of headship on this thread, ie: not implying women are inferior).
quote:
That the Bible sees chronological order as significant for the structure of relationships is difficult to deny. If you want to say that the Bible is wrong at this point and that it is blindingly obvious to us that that is wrong, feel free. But again, that wasn't your original argument.
Well, my clearly poorly explained original argument, as I just tried to say above, is that it's actually easy to deny that "the Bible sees chronological order as significant for the structure of relationships", in a large part because that chronological order doesn't clearly appear in the Scriptural texts in the first place. I know Paul appeals to such an order, but it is in a passage that is notoriously difficult to understand.
I'm not claiming the Bible is wrong. The interpretations some people have of the Bible, on the other hand, may well be wrong (and, my interpretations are no different from anyone else re: potential for being wrong).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
And I suppose you're going to argue that we don't need leadership of any kind in the church either Alan? After all, a Christian could do it all on their own if they were on a Desert Island? So why do they need a leader when they are part of a Church?
No, I'm not arguing against churches having some form of leadership - though I agree that if a Christian was on their own then they could still do it all (though that wouldn't be an ideal situation as community is a strong element in the Christian faith). I do think the "one person ultimately running everything" model of church leadership is seriously flawed - at heart I'm most definitely a Congregationalist where the body ultimately running everything is the gathered church, which delegates authority to suitably qualified individuals and groups.
The analogy to marriage would be that the "head" of the marriage is both partners together, who together seek the will of Christ for their marriage, and together delegate authority downwards to one partner or the other according to ability. Which means I agree wholeheartedly with this
quote:
The difference in marriage is that they move from being two individual people to two people in relationship. And when people move into relationships, they stop acting as a group of isolated individuals and start acting as an entity that has its own properties and order.
Though I suspect we disagree about the properties and order that such a relationship has.
quote:
Your argument here, in my opinion, reflects the tendency of contemporary egalitarianism to promote individualism - cutting us off from one another by making the autonomous individual the most basic reality and giving little 'ontology' to the relationships that we enter into.
I hope I have just dispelled any feeling you have that I'm promoting individualism. I'm promoting a different kind of community to either individualistic "friends + sex" or the heirarchical structure of much conservative evangelical teaching on headship (within the church or marriage).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
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.
"Stay at home motherhood" has never been the norm. Apart from a small minority of wealthy families, it has simply never been an option for families. There was a short period when middle class families in large parts of western Europe, the US and similar countries, had sufficient income for the housewife model to develop and become seen as an ideal (though in many cases I think it was an ideal that would demonstrate that the family had "made it" in the same way as a new car or nice garden does).
I think, more important than the pure stats of "how many mothers work" (which for much of human history would be "all of them") is the question of would it be seen as OK if the wife earned more than her husband, whether it would be acceptable for the husband to take a part time job to stay at home changing nappies while his wife worked long hours and so on.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
The question is, in what sense do the two become one. I think that conservative evangelical teaching, can lead to a sort of annexation, which means the two become one by the wife ceasing to exist, and 'eaten up' by her husband.
If you accept the principal of "lex orandi, lex credendi," you can see this happening in a rite that is a common feature of conservative evangelical wedding services -- the "unity candle." In this rite, of course, the bride and groom each have a candle, and together they light a single, larger candle, then put out their own candles. The self is extinguised because of the relationship.
This rite has always made me uncomfortable, and even more so since I became Orthodox, and began paying more attention to what various rites were saying and doing. If your approach to theology is heavily liturgical, as ours is, you always ask what a particular rite is saying. And I don't like what this one says!
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
If you accept the principal of "lex orandi, lex credendi," you can see this happening in a rite that is a common feature of conservative evangelical wedding services -- the "unity candle." In this rite, of course, the bride and groom each have a candle, and together they light a single, larger candle, then put out their own candles. The self is extinguised because of the relationship.
This rite has always made me uncomfortable, and even more so since I became Orthodox, and began paying more attention to what various rites were saying and doing. If your approach to theology is heavily liturgical, as ours is, you always ask what a particular rite is saying. And I don't like what this one says!
Yeeks. I've never heard of the principal of "lex orandi, lex credendi", though from my very stale Latin I would guess that it has something to do with hearing the law and believing the law - is it anything more specific?
I have never heard of the "unity candle" either. Is that something specifically American? My part of conservative evangelicalism is very un- and antiritualistic. However the extinguishing of self is exactly what I'm arguing against, which I think is implicit in many conservative evangelical views of headship.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
I've never heard of the principal of "lex orandi, lex credendi", though from my very stale Latin I would guess that it has something to do with hearing the law and believing the law - is it anything more specific?
Orandi, in this case, is prayer. So "lex orandi, lex credendi" means "the rule of prayer is the rule of belief," or "what you pray is what you believe." Your beliefs are both formed and revealed in your prayers (including both personal prayers and corporate services).
quote:
I have never heard of the "unity candle" either. Is that something specifically American?
It could be. I really don't know anything about what's typical in UK weddings, but unity candles are quite common here.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
I have never heard of the "unity candle" either. Is that something specifically American?
It could be. I really don't know anything about what's typical in UK weddings, but unity candles are quite common here.
They aren't common here. And, certainly the worst excesses of the smultzy overly-sentimental unity candles that you can purchase in the US don't seem to have made it over here. We discussed the lighting of a unity candle as part of our wedding service (we wanted to incorporate some elements of American culture into the wedding), but decided to go for a much simpler lighting of a single candle to signify the new beginning that was our life together and the light of Christ that was at the centre of that new life together. We didn't have the two candles that then got extinguished - precisely because the symbolism of snuffing out the old life is so obvious.
Posted by scoticanus (# 5140) on
:
Alan Cresswell wrote:
quote:
I think, more important than the pure stats of "how many mothers work" (which for much of human history would be "all of them") is the question of would it be seen as OK if the wife earned more than her husband, whether it would be acceptable for the husband to take a part time job to stay at home changing nappies while his wife worked long hours and so on.
I know a couple of instances of this. It used to take a huge amount of courage on the man's part. (I remember one being referred to as a "waster" by his mother-in-law, despite the arrangement's being freely chosen by wife and husband together and being obviously right for them as individuals.)
My hope is that society will continue to change, so that people in a marriage will increasingly be free to do what suits them best as individuals, and what suits their children best, rather than being compelled to do what society and prejudice expects of them.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think, more important than the pure stats of "how many mothers work" (which for much of human history would be "all of them") is the question of would it be seen as OK if the wife earned more than her husband, whether it would be acceptable for the husband to take a part time job to stay at home changing nappies while his wife worked long hours and so on.
Well yes, I knew and still know several of these types too. Some of the church leaders I know who teach headship most strongly have wives who are GPs or lawyers and obviously earn far more than them, and one I know has recently rearranged his working hours to look after their baby so his wife can go back to work, precisely for that reason.
I think whether women work or not is a pretty poor barometer too, but I was responding to Eutychus's statement that where headship is taught "stay at home motherhood is the norm."
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I was responding to Eutychus's statement that where headship is taught "stay at home motherhood is the norm."
Oi! What I said was
quote:
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.
which was not the generalisation you are making it out to be, but was most definitely true in the circles I was moving in. And yes, I think it was an outworking of their theology on this point.
I subsequently said
quote:
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.
Which is my anecdotal evidence
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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.
The Assemblies of God churches I used to attend had women's groups, which met mid-morning on weekdays. While there were many, many women in those churches who worked, the timing of the women's group meetings did in fact marginalize us in the life of those congregations.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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.
The Assemblies of God churches I used to attend had women's groups, which met mid-morning on weekdays. While there were many, many women in those churches who worked, the timing of the women's group meetings did in fact marginalize us in the life of those congregations.
Even in "liberal" communities the so-called mothers' groups tend to meet at times that indicate their conviction about what mothers are expected to be doing -- staying home. It makes me spit nails, as a person whose job is key to the family economy. Anyway, my "mothers' group" meets itinerantly at Cassion's wine bar or similar such place after the kids are in bed, and includes more than just mothers.
Alan has pretty much got my take on it -- in my view the marriage creates a new relationship that is definitively not just sex and friendship, but requires mutual submission of equals in order to further that relationship. Headship (except perhaps from the Orthodox point of view which is mystical and doesn't appear mean "husband in charge", so I'm not qualified to comment on it) is just not necessary in such an ordered relationship, with Christ at the center.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"Stay at home motherhood" has never been the norm. Apart from a small minority of wealthy families, it has simply never been an option for families. There was a short period when middle class families in large parts of western Europe, the US and similar countries, had sufficient income for the housewife model to develop and become seen as an ideal
I'd just like to second that.
The mythical ancient time when women never worked for money is like that mythical time "when people had servants". Their people may have had servants, my people were servants. And most of those servants were women.
The housewife role was perhaps available to most mothers in wealthy Western European and North American countries between about the 1880s and 1960s - but even then not to all. And both World Wars sent millions of women back to employment.
What seems to many people like the traditional family role of women in the family is just the way their grandmothers live. But their grandmothers probably didn't. And their grandmothers almost certainly didn't. More likely to be howking potatoes than pressing flowers.
[ 19. April 2005, 17:45: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The Assemblies of God churches I used to attend had women's groups, which met mid-morning on weekdays. While there were many, many women in those churches who worked, the timing of the women's group meetings did in fact marginalize us in the life of those congregations.
Yes - this may just have been though that those mothers who were of the "stay at home" variety wanted a group they could actually attend, rather than a considered policy decision.
Of course, if there was no alternative offered, that would be bad.
Eutychus - yes it is irritating being misquoted isn't it?
Seriously, sorry about that.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The Assemblies of God churches I used to attend had women's groups, which met mid-morning on weekdays. While there were many, many women in those churches who worked, the timing of the women's group meetings did in fact marginalize us in the life of those congregations.
Yes - this may just have been though that those mothers who were of the "stay at home" variety wanted a group they could actually attend, rather than a considered policy decision.
Are you suggesting that stay-at-home moms find it more difficult to get out in the evenings than other women? Why would that be?
quote:
Of course, if there was no alternative offered, that would be bad.
There were no alternatives offered. It was bad.
At my current parish, the women's group meets on the weekends, when nearly all of us can be there. There is a support group for stay-at-home moms, which meets during the day. That's no problem for me at all.
But when the congregation's women's group, the one that is supposed to be for all the women, meets at a time when a large proportion of the women can't come, it's a bad thing.
Eutychus - yes it is irritating being misquoted isn't it?
Seriously, sorry about that. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
My concern again, is that it isn't really an argument against headship per se. It is an argument against all kinds of authority, expressing the kind of Western cultural logic that makes many of us (me included) deeply suspicious of any kind of authority.
We tend to be very aware of how easily power can be abused and so strive to limit the power people can have, if not opt for 'flat' relational structures altogether. But while the Bible is quite aware of the abuses that come with power, it tends to endorse hierarchical relationships rather than tear them down.
So I'd be keen to hear from Shipmates wanting to run this argument as to whether their concern about headship at this point is just an expression of their wider concern about authority in general.
I’m not concerned about authority in general. I’m concerned about specific instances of arbitrary authority.
quote:
The difference in marriage is that they move from being two individual people to two people in relationship. And when people move into relationships, they stop acting as a group of isolated individuals and start acting as an entity that has its own properties and order.
<snip>
But if two people come into a relationship, then that relationship takes on an order that governs the relational entity that they have become: whether church, friends, married, master-slave whatever. Some are 'flat', some are 'hierarchical', and some kinds of 'hierarchy' differ from others. And not every kind of 'hierarchy' is based on 'merit'.
This is interesting to me, because I’m not sure I have a similar frame of reference, and I’m having trouble getting this to make any sense. How do people ‘stop acting as a group of isolated individuals’? Doesn’t their participation in a group mean that they’re not isolated individuals?
And what is ‘hierarchy’ based on if not ‘merit’? And why?
quote:
Why should the fact that both were able to function fine without the other then mean that marriage is simply "friendship + sex"?
How does a rejection of the con evo notion of headship necessarily lead to the view that marriage is simply “friendship + sex”? I reject the idea that biology determines my strengths and weaknesses. That has nothing to do with my views on the sanctity of marriage. (And no, I’m not married, but I spend a lot of time thinking about this precisely because I’m not currently prepared to rearrange my priorities to make Boy the second most central riddle in my life).
Posted by Weed (# 4402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
My concern again, is that it isn't really an argument against headship per se. It is an argument against all kinds of authority, expressing the kind of Western cultural logic that makes many of us (me included) deeply suspicious of any kind of authority.
We tend to be very aware of how easily power can be abused and so strive to limit the power people can have, if not opt for 'flat' relational structures altogether. But while the Bible is quite aware of the abuses that come with power, it tends to endorse hierarchical relationships rather than tear them down.
Does Jesus endorse hierarchical relationships? On the contrary the gospels are full of instances of him overturning what was thought of as the natural order both within families and in society.
I'm going to venture a broad generalisation and say that this focus on authority as in who has the power to make decisions is a very male pre-occupation. Give a group of men a task and the first thing they will do is decide who is in charge. Titles and roles are vitally important and they tend to be doled out according to who are seen as senior and/or dominant. Give a group of women a task to do collectively and they will divide it up informally according to who is best at the different aspects of it. If you find a group of women, say in an office, who are concerned about their titles or which bit of the office refrigerator they can use, a pound to a penny relationships have already deteriorated long before and the office is in crisis.
Even if you only have a group of two, as in a marriage, it's a predominantly male idea that there has to be someone officially in charge. Think about it for a moment. Isn't it a bit ridiculous? It presupposes a God who is equally preoccupied with who is in charge of deciding whether you buy a red car or a blue car and he's decided that it has to be the one with a penis who makes those decisions. I just don't see God being so petty.
I always get confused when people who admit they don't take Genesis literally start to base arguments on the literal truth of it. Do we really believe that God made one original man first and one original woman second and that this had significance universe-wide, the order indicating that the first one is to have authority over the second? How come we then argue that there's nothing inferior about women when Genesis plainly says there is and the whole patriarchal system throughout the OT and beyond agrees?
You see this is where I think the doctrine ends up being hopelessly muddled. The way it has been explained is in terms of mutual self-sacrificing love, but that doesn't need any authority. It doesn't need one person always to take the decisions, in fact I would say quite the opposite. It tries to be modern, conceding equality and everyone being loving and unabusive and unoppressive but it still clings onto the idea of authority which whether you like it or not means power and control. The best defence of it seems to be "well we don't really exercise our authority in any way you would find objectionable – hey, you'd hardly notice we were exercising it at all." If so, why is it there at all? Why do Christians still concoct authority roles for men when the gospel message is about being a servant and about laying down your life for others? Don't you find it a bit embarrassing that Peter says women should emulate Sarah who called Abraham her Lord and Master, or do you think that is your due as a husband? Surely we, even us women, should only have one authority we look to and that is the God we know through Christ Jesus?
By the way, there are several of us headless women on this thread who would still like to know officially how we fit into God's order according to this doctrine.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
By the way, there are several of us headless women on this thread who would still like to know officially how we fit into God's order according to this doctrine.
I'm beginning to get the impression the answer is something along the lines of 'I don't really know. But unless there's a big important man in it somewhere, telling you what to do, you're probably not getting it right.'
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
Even if you only have a group of two, as in a marriage, it's a predominantly male idea that there has to be someone officially in charge.
If I didn’t know better, Weed, I’d swear you were making common-sense generalisations about the differences between how men and women normally relate to others, and judging that behaviour according to prior ideological commitments. Which of course would be a bad thing. If you were doing it.
quote:
originally posted by Weed:
By the way, there are several of us headless women on this thread who would still like to know officially how we fit into God's order according to this doctrine.
Ok, fools rush in…
If Christ is your head you can hardly be said to be headless, Weed; and in a profound sense the whole doctrine of headship finds its fulfilment not in marriage but in Christ, the true head of his church (Eph 5:32).
Actually just before I rush in any further, another question just occurred to me. If the Lord Jesus is in every sense human (and since we’re not Docetic, so it follows that we believe this), then isn’t our submission to Christ a demonstration that we can submit to someone who is our equal, without any sense of becoming inferior human beings? Indeed those who so submit would, I argue, become more fully human.
Now some would say, I suppose, that we submit to Jesus because he is God and specifically not because he is man. But this seems to divide his human from his divine nature, which is another sort of heresy.
Point being that voluntary submission to another human need not of necessity demean us.
(And this point applies to marriage, as I take it that marriage is still voluntary for most of the contributors here. As is submitting ourselves to the Lordship of Christ, of course)
Posted by Levor (# 5711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
Not being in Mrs Cheng's shoes, but from what is written, I'd concluded (and still do) that what she was lamenting was exactly his lack of involvement, comment, input, but not necessarily lack of directiveness. Getting someone's opinion, is not the same thing as wanting them to take the decision.
You could be right. I thought he was implying a bit more, but your reading is just as plausible. Either way I wasn't wanting to suggest that it was a binary "either he makes the decision or he doesn't care".
I suppose I see a few options in these areas - lack of interest, showing interest and giving input, taking responsibility for the decision. I think the first is generally out, but I think the other two are possibilities on a case by case basis.
However, again, I broadly agree with where you are coming from and in no way want to suggest the annihilation of the wife - quite the opposite. I think the correct application of the principle should involve the husband taking the lead in making sacrifices so that the wife flourishes. It shouldn't be the wife becoming an appendage to the husband.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I read it as "low blow", even though that wasn't what you wrote
(though, I must say, I'm not sure what the phrase 'long bow' means in this context, I always thought of it as an archery weapon.)
Sorry Alan, the phrase, as well as the weaponry, must be getting archaic. "Long bow" means "making a big conclusion from small evidence" - and I know you don't think you were doing that either.
quote:
But, if one takes them as being actual descriptions of Creation (especially regarding the temporal order of creation events) then they naturally do conflict. My main point was, therefore, that the temporal order of events (what was created first) is a very shaky ground to build an argument for order in human relationships (eg: man was created first, therefore man is superior to woman - "superior" in the sense often used by the advocates of headship on this thread, ie: not implying women are inferior).
I'm still not sure that that's true. The chronological argument only seems to work within things of the same kind. There's no suggestion in Scripture that an old animal takes some kind of primacy over a young human. The chronology principle only seems to work within a category - not between them. Hence the arguments to Jesus' deity: he is taking a priority that breaks the chronology principle so he must be of a different category. I think the same applies in the two Genesis accounts.
And just because there are two chronologies doesn't mean that either or both are irrelevant. Genesis 1 seems to focus on creation more in its relationship to God. Genesis 2 seems to be more interested in what it means to be human and humanity's relationshp with creation and God. In this light, I think the chronologies function the way I've suggested
quote:
Well, my clearly poorly explained original argument, as I just tried to say above, is that it's actually easy to deny that "the Bible sees chronological order as significant for the structure of relationships", in a large part because that chronological order doesn't clearly appear in the Scriptural texts in the first place. I know Paul appeals to such an order, but it is in a passage that is notoriously difficult to understand.
The chronology does appear. Your argument is that it doesn't matter because other chronologies appear too. I'm suggesting the both Genesis 1 and the beforeness of animals over the woman are irrelevant to the issue.
And while Paul makes his statement in a passage that is hard to understand in every detail, that doesn't mean that it is hard to understand his appeal. It is clear that Paul appealed to creation order, whatever else might be unclear.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I hope I have just dispelled any feeling you have that I'm promoting individualism. I'm promoting a different kind of community to either individualistic "friends + sex" or the heirarchical structure of much conservative evangelical teaching on headship (within the church or marriage).
It'd probably help if you could expand it for me. How is your understanding of marriage different from that which could be expected if there were two extremely close friends who were in a sexual relationship? What is the extra 'bit' of order that isn't covered by "friends+sex"?
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
This is interesting to me, because I’m not sure I have a similar frame of reference, and I’m having trouble getting this to make any sense. How do people ‘stop acting as a group of isolated individuals’? Doesn’t their participation in a group mean that they’re not isolated individuals?
Well, I suppose I was trying to say that the argument - these two people can function fine on their own, so there doesn't need to be any order when they come together - is trying to make out that they remain a collection of individuals when they come together.
A bit like what Thatcher was reputed to have said - something like "there is no such thing as community, only individuals".
That is, once you've looked at some people in isolation then you've understood everything there is to know. It doesn't matter what sort of group they join, that group should be able to explained purely by appeal to the properties of the individuals.
I'm saying that there is more than just the individuals, there is the specific kind of relationship that they are in. And that relationship will have its own properties and order.
quote:
And what is ‘hierarchy’ based on if not ‘merit’? And why?
Depends. A master may be less wise, intelligent etc. than her slave but there's a legal arrangement that orders them the way they are. Like many employees, I've had bosses that I'm sure I could do a better job than they could
but they were in charge because they were in charge - and it doesn't have to be because they'd do the better job (some family owned businesses for example). A parent with adult children mightn't be smarter or wiser but yet there is a certain honour the adult children owe them. There's a few examples.
quote:
How does a rejection of the con evo notion of headship necessarily lead to the view that marriage is simply “friendship + sex”? I reject the idea that biology determines my strengths and weaknesses. That has nothing to do with my views on the sanctity of marriage.
Ah. Sorry, I wasn't suggesting it was an attack on the sanctity of marriage. My question is, what is different about the way marriage works for an egalitarian (not the lifelong commitment part, the day to day operation) than what could be described under the heading of "friendship+sex"?
And I don't think anyone is suggesting that biology determines anyone's strengths and weaknesses comprehensively. But I think gender does play a part - and that's usually uncontested at the physical level.
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
Does Jesus endorse hierarchical relationships? On the contrary the gospels are full of instances of him overturning what was thought of as the natural order both within families and in society.
Well, as you know, I think the Bible includes more than just the account of Jesus' earthly ministry in the Synoptics. But even there, I would suggest that there are two strands:
1) An overturning of the natural order because of the absolute priority of the inbreaking of the kingdom of God in Jesus.
2) A general endorsement of the order outside that context - paying the Temple tax, rebuking the scribes for allowing children to not support their parents, arguing for no divorce in marriage, "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's" and the like.
quote:
I'm going to venture a broad generalisation and say that this focus on authority as in who has the power to make decisions is a very male pre-occupation. Give a group of men a task and the first thing they will do is decide who is in charge. Titles and roles are vitally important and they tend to be doled out according to who are seen as senior and/or dominant. Give a group of women a task to do collectively and they will divide it up informally according to who is best at the different aspects of it. If you find a group of women, say in an office, who are concerned about their titles or which bit of the office refrigerator they can use, a pound to a penny relationships have already deteriorated long before and the office is in crisis.
I only partly agree - but I think there is a hint of truth to this. But that's one of the reasons why I've loved the Orthodox presentation - it hasn't put questions of 'who calls the shots' at the centre.
quote:
I always get confused when people who admit they don't take Genesis literally start to base arguments on the literal truth of it.
Well, my argument is based more on trying to understand what the narrative is saying on its own terms - and a lot of the points would be accepted by biblical scholars who thought it was an absolute myth. There might not have been a garden, but that doesn't mean that the accounts aren't trying to say something.
quote:
How come we then argue that there's nothing inferior about women when Genesis plainly says there is and the whole patriarchal system throughout the OT and beyond agrees?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you could give some details, that would help.
quote:
Don't you find it a bit embarrassing that Peter says women should emulate Sarah who called Abraham her Lord and Master, or do you think that is your due as a husband?
That's a more difficult one for me. The best explanation I saw of that comes from Athanasius. This post is getting way too long - if you like I can put my thoughts down on a different post.
quote:
Surely we, even us women, should only have one authority we look to and that is the God we know through Christ Jesus?
No. That isn't true of any of us. God made us to have relationships with each other, not just with him. This is precisely the individualism that I'm worried about. We are all under the authority of different people in different contexts.
quote:
By the way, there are several of us headless women on this thread who would still like to know officially how we fit into God's order according to this doctrine.
I don't see any particular problem. The principle in the creation accounts seem to focus on men and women in the gender and in their relationship to each other.
To the degree that gender is important in a certain kind of relationship then I think that the gender differences begin to matter. Where they don't, they don't. It makes little difference whether my accountant, or my head of state, or my check out operator is male or female. It'll make some difference if my immediate boss is - but not so much as to require a different structure.
But the gender difference is absolutely inherent to marriage so it will affect the order of that relationship.
Where someone is working fairly independently and mainly in relationships where gender isn't significant to the structure of the relationship, then I don't think it comes into play much.
And it's no more a problem for a single woman than a single man. He's got a problem of having no body...
In both cases it is wrongly moving from a relational reality to an individual reality.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If the Lord Jesus is in every sense human (and since we’re not Docetic, so it follows that we believe this), then isn’t our submission to Christ a demonstration that we can submit to someone who is our equal, without any sense of becoming inferior human beings? Indeed those who so submit would, I argue, become more fully human.
Now some would say, I suppose, that we submit to Jesus because he is God and specifically not because he is man. But this seems to divide his human from his divine nature, which is another sort of heresy.
I wouldn't divide Jesus' human and divine natures; it is because he has both and is not just another person that I don't consider myself his equal, so I don't consider submission to Christ comparable to submission to some other person. If I have somehow become equal to Jesus on account of his having given himself for me and raised me to that status--something I have a hard time thinking is the case--then there's even less reason for me to submit to anyone (should anyone ever be foolish enough to marry me).
quote:
Point being that voluntary submission to another human need not of necessity demean us.
Voluntary submission to another person need not demean us, but I don't see how submission can be said to be voluntary if it is the Christian duty of every married woman. Marriage is voluntary, of course, but I don't see submission being put forward here as voluntary for married women.
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
And it's no more a problem for a single woman than a single man. He's got a problem of having no body...
What exactly are the problems associated with having no body?
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What exactly are the problems associated with having no body?
For starters, it's hard to pee.
Posted by Levor (# 5711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
And it's no more a problem for a single woman than a single man. He's got a problem of having no body...
What exactly are the problems associated with having no body?
I have no idea - except the sort of thing that Mousethielf has alluded to with tongue firmly placed in cheek (something he can do because he's a head
).
If we're going to say that a single woman doesn't have a head and so can't make decisions, then that'd suggest that a single man doesn't have a body and so can't act upon the world.
Both are ridiculous, and come from applying statements made about the nature of the relationship to the nature of individuals outside of the relationship.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
If we're going to say that a single woman doesn't have a head and so can't make decisions, then that'd suggest that a single man doesn't have a body and so can't act upon the world.
Both are ridiculous, and come from applying statements made about the nature of the relationship to the nature of individuals outside of the relationship.
Individuals' natures don't change when they enter into relationships. If a woman doesn't need a head outside of a relationship, she doesn't need one when she's in a relationship either. It is patently ridiculous to speak of a single man as having no body, but it is just as ridiculous to speak of a married man as having a body other than the one he uses to pee, among other things. Likewise it is ridiculous to speak of a married woman as having a head other than the one she uses to think.
Posted by Levor (# 5711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Individuals' natures don't change when they enter into relationships.
I agree. I don't think it has been claimed that they do.
quote:
If a woman doesn't need a head outside of a relationship, she doesn't need one when she's in a relationship either.
But if you are a Christian, then when you entered into relationship with Christ he became your head.
Speaking very analogically, it can be said that anyone in leadership is 'head' of those in that relationship with him/her - hence 'head of state'. Any relationship of a 'hierarchical' nature that a male or female enters into, involves them either becoming a 'head' or acquiring a 'head'.
Again, no-one (I think) is saying that women need a head when they enter into any and every relationship. My argument, at this point, has been that, just because one particular relationship (marriage) involves a head, does not mean that anyone is claiming that a single woman has problems because she is without a head.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
My argument, at this point, has been that, just because one particular relationship (marriage) involves a head, does not mean that anyone is claiming that a single woman has problems because she is without a head.
And my argument is that since single women clearly don't require a head, there is no reason to think that married women do, and therefore no reason to think that marriage involves a head.
Posted by Levor (# 5711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And my argument is that since single women clearly don't require a head, there is no reason to think that married women do, and therefore no reason to think that marriage involves a head.
Would you similarly argue that because non-Christian women don't require a head, there is no reason to think that Christian women do? Or because self-employed/non-working women don't have a corporate 'head' then there is no reason to think that employee women do?
If a relationship has its own properties and order and is not just two autonomous individuals, then it is not enough to just look at the person outside of the context of the relationship.
One also has to look at the nature of the relationship as well.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If the Lord Jesus is in every sense human (and since we’re not Docetic, so it follows that we believe this), then isn’t our submission to Christ a demonstration that we can submit to someone who is our equal, without any sense of becoming inferior human beings? Indeed those who so submit would, I argue, become more fully human.
Now some would say, I suppose, that we submit to Jesus because he is God and specifically not because he is man. But this seems to divide his human from his divine nature, which is another sort of heresy.
Ruth W: I wouldn't divide Jesus' human and divine natures; it is because he has both and is not just another person that I don't consider myself his equal, so I don't consider submission to Christ comparable to submission to some other person. If I have somehow become equal to Jesus on account of his having given himself for me and raised me to that status--something I have a hard time thinking is the case...<snip>
Actually I think those who trust in Christ are equal! That is the whole point of being "in Christ". Of course, unlike Christ we were never/ are not now/ and will never be divine. But like him, we are rulers over all creation; or at least, will be restored to this position through the resurrection.
The Lord Jesus became Lord of all through the incarnation, not independently of it — as Philippians 2 says
quote:
...Christ Jesus,
Phil. 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Phil. 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Phil. 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Phil. 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Phil. 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Phil. 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
It is as a man that he becomes the Lord to whom we submit. If he himself hadn't submitted to his Father's will, what Philippians 2 here describes would not have happened.
quote:
Me:Point being that voluntary submission to another human need not of necessity demean us.
quote:
You: Voluntary submission to another person need not demean us, but I don't see how submission can be said to be voluntary if it is the Christian duty of every married woman. Marriage is voluntary, of course, but I don't see submission being put forward here as voluntary for married women.
Me again: It is voluntary in the sense that it is inseparably bound up with marriage; and that is the thing—you don't have to get married.
Even if you do get married, the act of submission is an act of your own will and no-one else's; you do it because you want to and if you don't, then you don't.
[ 20. April 2005, 07:09: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
The chronology does appear. Your argument is that it doesn't matter because other chronologies appear too. I'm suggesting the both Genesis 1 and the beforeness of animals over the woman are irrelevant to the issue.
I'm not suggesting that the passages are irrelevant. But, where (as you concede) there are different chronologies, or for that matter any other two passages that present conflicting doctrines or histories, to pick one and say that the other is "irrelevant to the issue" is very poor exegesis. Even more so when the one you pick supports what you already believe, and the "irrelevant" one doesn't. Both passages, indeed the whole witness of Scripture and Tradition, are relevant - the hard part then comes with answering the question of how each bit relates to the others to form an overall doctrine.
quote:
How is your understanding of marriage different from that which could be expected if there were two extremely close friends who were in a sexual relationship? What is the extra 'bit' of order that isn't covered by "friends+sex"?
Well, that's actually not that easy to put into words. First, there's a publically expressed commitment to each other. In the context of a Christian marriage there is also a placing of the relationship under the headship of Christ. And, in the context of both the lifelong commitment and headship of Christ, marriage results in a need for examination of each persons role in that relationship and how it'll work in the long term. "Friendship + sex" can often have an ad-hoc feel to it, a sorting things out as they come up without any compulsion to try and make it work if it gets difficult.
I should add (though it's largely tangential), that I would include many committed relationships as "marriage" even if they haven't gone through all the legal hoops to formalise it. It's better, especially for Christians, that they have made some form of commitment to each other before God and the Church but a marriage isn't made by the signing of a legal document. It also follows, I think, that some "marriages" may be legally so but in fact nothing more than "friendship + sex".
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Levor:
Again, no-one (I think) is saying that women need a head when they enter into any and every relationship. My argument, at this point, has been that, just because one particular relationship (marriage) involves a head, does not mean that anyone is claiming that a single woman has problems because she is without a head.
This is where I think I find your position not very consistent with your understanding of Scripture. I'm going to attempt to explain why:
Personally, in the Genesis accounts or creation, I see lots of support for the idea of a distinction between man and woman, but not for the idea of distinct roles or headship/submission. (I would say the portrayal of relationships from the time of the patriarchs onwards is descriptive rather than prescriptive; it's just how things worked out in one particular society).
AFAICS, 1 Tim 2:12-14 is the only place in Scripture which appears to some to derive differing roles for men and women from the "Creational Order" (man first, woman second). (As I have quoted here, at least some cons evos unabashedly think this translates into "subordination").
This "Creational Order" is then predicated on husband-wife relationships: headship and submission in the couple are there because they reflect this created order.
However, the fact is that the passage from which the strongest case for this creational order can be made is not talking about husbands and wives, but about men and women in general in the church. In this reading, it's not saying "I do not permit a woman to have authority over her husband" but "over any man", and this on the basis of an appeal to the creational order.
What I'm asserting is, if you want to include the creational order in your argument for headship and submission, you have to accept that it applies to men and women in other contexts too, and not just to husbands and wives. The cons evo book I quoted admits this very point when it says that if the creational order of 1 T 2 is to apply only to husbands and wives, horror of horrors
quote:
It implicitly … permits (single women) to serve as spiritual leaders of the church
I'm thinking about your question re: authority, Levor, and I'd like to say something about the Earth going round the Sun, too, but it will have to be later.
[ 20. April 2005, 07:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
But the gender difference is absolutely inherent to marriage so it will affect the order of that relationship.
But, what gender difference? There are some definite differences related to biology - as a man I'm unable to carry a new life for nine months and give birth, and then breast feed afterwards. But, apart from that, what differences are there?
Any two people will be different. One may be better at running household finances, rocking a baby to sleep, cooking the meals, driving the car, holding down a well paid job, or whatever. But, I see no evidence at all that these differences between two individuals will be based on gender. And, even if there is a tendancy on average for one gender to be better at something than the other 1) there will be plenty of exceptions and 2) there may well be cultural factors (eg: if schools put the boys through wood work and metal work classes, and the girls needlework and cooking, then that would account to an extent for a tendancy towards the average woman being better stitching up a new shirt and the average man better at fixing a leaking pipe).
Or are you trying to argue that there are gender differences which have nothing to do with ability? And, that men are heads because they're men even if they're significantly less able to fulfill that task than their wives? If so, it's a very strange God who calls people to a task he hasn't equipped them for.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
Ok - here's my take on the single issue.
The point is not - women are incapable of making decisions more than men therefore they need a head in every situation - and phew when they get married and they have one.
The point is - that both marriage and singleness are (at least in Pauline thought) opportunities to model or serve the Gospel. The single person ISTM models the Gospel by being able to give themselves more fully to the work of the Lord - ref 1 Corinthians 7. The married person models the Gospel by showing the relationship between Christ and the church in their marriage. The issue about headship doesn't even arise for the single person (except in church, and in their relationship to Christ, which is the same for both sexes)
This question about single people is assuming that the reason headship is required from a conservative point of view is because the woman is incapable without a man to lead her.
Rather it is an isse of modelling order in every way we can whatever our situation.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The married person models the Gospel by showing the relationship between Christ and the church in their marriage.
Ummm, shouldn't the relationship between Christ and the church be modelled in the church? If the church isn't doing that, why should the burden of modelling that be carried by married couples in the church? And, if the church is doing that then the married couples in the church doing so seems very superfluous.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
Here are a few personal thoughts on how the biblical doctrine of headship applies to single women, as I understand it.
Single women are not deficient in any way—Christ is their head. They don’t need to get married to be complete. They do need to trust in Jesus to be complete, but then again, so do single men. And married men. And married women.
The Bible doesn’t say much, directly, about how the doctrine of headship applies to single women, especially if we take the view that the passages that speak of headship are addressed specifically to married couples (“husband” and “wife” rather than the more general “men” and “women”).
Nevertheless if the doctrine of headship is true, then like all true doctrines it ought to be believed and taught whether or not we see its immediate relevance to our own situation. We may not see its relevance either because it actually isn’t relevant, or because our own limitations of insight prevent us from seeing its relevance.
Just as I may not see the point of certain buttons on gadgets I am trying to operate, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be aware of them and their stated purpose.
But the doctrine of headship may be more use for the single woman than, let’s say, a button that operates the red light on a coffee maker (and for the single man too, but I am addressing the question in the form it's been stated on this thread so far).
For example, if a single man and woman were to be concerned to uphold the principle of headship when married, possibly to each other, it’s possible to imagine how their relationship as single people might be shaped by this.
It is hard to see how it would be a good thing, on this model, for the single woman to initiate and pursue the relationship, propose marriage, continue to do so if rebuffed and then eventually enter into marriage where all the patterns of the pre-marriage relationship were now to be reversed.
Actually, it’s hard to imagine the single women I’ve known respecting or even being attracted to a partner that passive.
This is just one example, and it is not put forward as a hard and fast prescription for How Things Ought To Be. Neither is it intended to issue in a hard and fast set of rules (which I think is an unfortunate weakness in many con-evo circles, ie the tendency toward legalism). It’s a way of illustrating how, in the absence of much specific teaching, how the principle of headship might apply in one situation.
That this seems loose and vague doesn’t bother me a great deal, so long as the looseness and vagueness isn’t turned into a license for legalism, which I hate with a very deep passion. Like Levor, I find the way Josephine has expressed the pattern of relationship in marriage a very appealing and helpful way to think. The “who gets final say in a deadlock” question, as I think I’ve mentioned, is singularly unhelpful as a point of focus.
Here’s an analogy which may or may not be useful. My eldest daughter has a severe anaphylactic reaction to eggs, a nasty surprise we discovered when she was 9 months old and we fed her omelette in a café in Amsterdam. (There are Dutch people who don’t speak English, we discovered). So since then, she has never eaten egg in any form, and if she does, she might die. She may one day grow out of this allergy, after which she may choose to eat eggs freely.
In the meantime, should my daughter have a concern in how eggs are produced, processed and handled for human consumption? As she never eats eggs, it is somewhat of an academic question. On the other hand, well over 90% of the people she mixes with eat eggs in some form on a regular basis. If eggs are being badly processed and handled, such that consumers were receiving contaminated eggs, it would be bad for them.
Now if my daughter is in anyway concerned for the wellbeing of others, she would want to see that good egg handling procedures were in place and enforced. It may one day end up being directly relevant, if she loses her allergies and starts eating egg.
Or, it may become relevant in unforeseen ways; food suppliers who are sloppy about their egg handling procedures may well be sloppy in their handling of other food; so that rules about egg handling are best seen as a subset of general care and caution in the handling of food hygiene.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The married person models the Gospel by showing the relationship between Christ and the church in their marriage.
Ummm, shouldn't the relationship between Christ and the church be modelled in the church? If the church isn't doing that, why should the burden of modelling that be carried by married couples in the church? And, if the church is doing that then the married couples in the church doing so seems very superfluous.
Married couples are part of the church aren't they? As are single people?
We can model that relationship when we are gathered as a church - I hope I can also do it in my home life, and at work, and when there are no other Christians about.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
it is an isse of modelling order in every way we can whatever our situation.
So in the situation of the church, and bearing in mind 1 T 2:12-14, would you say that this order is best modelled in the church by any woman, married or single, deferring to (or however you understand "not having authority over") any man?
[ 20. April 2005, 08:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The married person models the Gospel by showing the relationship between Christ and the church in their marriage.
Ummm, shouldn't the relationship between Christ and the church be modelled in the church? If the church isn't doing that, why should the burden of modelling that be carried by married couples in the church? And, if the church is doing that then the married couples in the church doing so seems very superfluous.
Married couples are part of the church aren't they? As are single people?
We can model that relationship when we are gathered as a church - I hope I can also do it in my home life, and at work, and when there are no other Christians about.
Indeed that is true. But, then the whole "marriage models the relationship between Christ and the church" is an irrelevant truism. Besides, the church is subordinate to Christ because we are his people and he has redeemed us - to what extent can the same be said of a husband and wife? Certainly my wife is not in any realistic sense my property, nor have I redeeemed her. The relationship is founded on different principles, why shouldn't it therefore be different in outworking? To draw a direct analogy either misrepresents the relationship between partners in a marriage, or between Christ and his church - or, indeed both.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It is hard to see how it would be a good thing, on this model, for the single woman to initiate and pursue the relationship,
Well, I for one am very glad my wife doesn't subscribe to this model
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
it is an isse of modelling order in every way we can whatever our situation.
So in the situation of the church, and bearing in mind 1 T 2:12-14, would you say that this order is best modelled in the church by any woman, married or single, deferring to (or however you understand "not having authority over") any man?
Well, it depends what you mean by deferring to!
It is why I go to a church that practices overall male leadership, but I don't think women being servile, non-involved and never voicing their opinions would particularly model creation order well either. To look for "exactly what must I do and what musn't I do" I think undermines the essentially relational nature of headship as it is modelled in creation.
Incidentally, I'm interested to know Eutychus, why you are so sure that 1 Tim 2 is not about husbands and wives. That would at least be some sort of help in understanding the childbearing reference, wouldn't it?
Alan wrote:
quote:
Indeed that is true. But, then the whole "marriage models the relationship between Christ and the church" is an irrelevant truism. Besides, the church is subordinate to Christ because we are his people and he has redeemed us - to what extent can the same be said of a husband and wife?
No it isn't - it says that different people model the relationship in different ways - depending on their situation. How I model Christ's lordship is different from how a married person will model it. Similarly Paul makes the point about how people model their relationship with Christ is different for specific situations throughout his letters.
And no, you haven't redeemed your wife, but Ephesians 5 makes clear that you are to love in her a way that is modelled by Christ's redeeming love - self sacrificially and for the sake of her spiritual growth. I can't understand you but to be saying that Paul just made a mistake when he used the metaphor.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Ephesians 5 makes clear that you are to love in her a way that is modelled by Christ's redeeming love - self sacrificially and for the sake of her spiritual growth. I can't understand you but to be saying that Paul just made a mistake when he used the metaphor.
Well, love is one thing. For me to love my wife as Christ loved me says nothing, IMO, about headship. And, of course, that love I'm supposed to give isn't restricted to my wife - are we not supposed to love everyone as Christ loved us? The love between a man and his wife is different from the love between Christ and each of us, and that love that we should be reflecting by loving all in the same way. If I was to love everyone in the way I love my wife I'm sure you'd all agree something was wrong.
As regards Pauls use of the metaphor. Is he using marriage as he sees it in his culture as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the church, or is he using the relationship between Christ and the church as a metaphor for marriage?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It is hard to see how it would be a good thing, on this model, for the single woman to initiate and pursue the relationship,
Well, I for one am very glad my wife doesn't subscribe to this model
Well at the risk of coming over all earnest, I don't know what that means for you in practice, but as I say it is a relationship and can't be constrained by legalisms.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Incidentally, I'm interested to know Eutychus, why you are so sure that 1 Tim 2 is not about husbands and wives.
I have already gone some way to answering this here.
I think you'll find that most cons. evo theologians would want to argue for "man" and "woman" in 1 T 2 because otherwise the "creational order" argument there can only be made to apply to relationships in marriage and not to church order (which after all is what the whole passage is about). It would mean that a wife cannot teach her husband, but would offer no logical objection to a single woman or a widow teaching men. If you wish to read it that way, you would then have to find another, separate argument to explain why you prefer to
quote:
go to a church that practices overall male leadership
I can't find a single translation that prefers "husband" and "wife" to "man" and "woman" in 1 T 2, I can't even find those as alternative readings. I presume this is because the context (church order) strongly implies that the issue is not that of marriage. I would say that a good argument can be made on this basis for reading "man" and "woman" in 1 Cor 11:3, which a good number of translations do.
I suppose that part of the inconsistency I'm claiming and which Levor has asked about is that cons. evos (witness the ESV) choose to read "husband" and "wife" in 1 Cor 11:3 against the context, because it suits their argument, and "man" and "woman" in 1 T 2 by appeal to the very same contextual argument they discard in 1 Cor 11:3.
quote:
Well, it depends what you mean by deferring to!
quote:
That would at least be some sort of help in understanding the childbearing reference, wouldn't it?
These points raise another big part of the problem for me. I used "deferring to" as a way of referring to what is usually translated "(not) teach or have authority over.." in 1 T 2:12. This is a hapax legomen ie the phrase occurs only here in the entire NT, which means it is difficult to interpret in the context of Scripture alone.
The part about childbearing (1 T 2:15) is also notoriously difficult, as Paul shifts from "she" to "they" in mid-sentence.
As I have said before, I think 1 T 2 is the lynchpin of the "creational order" argument. Not only does there appear to be some confusion as to whether it's referring to husbands and wives or men and women in general (at least in church order), it is also universally acknowledged to be an atrociously difficult passage to understand. Deriving a principle with such far-reaching consequences from such a passage seems a less than certain business to me.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Incidentally, I'm interested to know Eutychus, why you are so sure that 1 Tim 2 is not about husbands and wives.
I have already gone some way to answering this here.
Sorry - hadn't seen that - thanks.
quote:
I think you'll find that most cons. evo theologians would want to argue for "man" and "woman" in 1 T 2 because otherwise the "creational order" argument there can only be made to apply to relationships in marriage and not to church order (which after all is what the whole passage is about). It would mean that a wife cannot teach her husband, but would offer no logical objection to a single woman or a widow teaching men.
No I agree that men and women generally is a better translation, I was just wondering why you didn't! I agree it is about church order.
I think you said earlier, though, that you thought this raised a difficulty for cons evos about why they think it's all right for women to have leadership roles in society. Do you still think that is an issue?
quote:
As I have said before, I think 1 T 2 is the lynchpin of the "creational order" argument. Not only does there appear to be some confusion as to whether it's referring to husbands and wives or men and women in general (at least in church order), it is also universally acknowledged to be an atrociously difficult passage to understand. Deriving a principle with such far-reaching consequences from such a passage seems a less than certain business to me.
No one is denying it is difficult. However, I would point out that I think the "order" bit (Adam---eve in creation and Eve---Adam in the fall)is pretty clear. And I think we still have to deal with the text, even if it is difficult - so yes, to draw "far reaching consequences" from it is serious, but just as serious as saying "we don't understand it, so we effectively ignore it." All I am trying to do is trust and obey the Scriptures as best I can. I understand there are many doing the same thing who come to different conclusions, which is why, for me, this is not a "Gospel" issue.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Weed:
I always get confused when people who admit they don't take Genesis literally start to base arguments on the literal truth of it.
Why? If someone believes that the Bible is inspired by God, and given to us for our edification, and preserved by the Holy Spirit acting in the Church so that we now have the Bible God wants us to have; then they can use any part of it to inform their arguments on doctrine.
The parables of Jesus are stories - but like the rest of the Bible stories recorded that we might believe. No-one claims that the Prodigal Son is a piece of documentary reportage, but thousands of sermons are based on it every week. Plenty of Christians, even very theologically conservative ones, consider that the stories of Job or Jonah might at least partly be parables. But that doesn't remove them from the word of God.
So someone who thought that Genesis 1-11 wasn't history at all (presumably the usual moidern position), or was history so allegorised and symbolic as to not resemble human histories (common mediaeval view), or was history from a point of view so different from ours at to not be very useful as a chronological account of events (which is what St. Augustine thought), could still believe that it was supplied by God to teach us.
Posted by barrea (# 3211) on
:
i have not read all of the thread but I have been very interested in wthat I have been reading.
My wife and I have been married for 54 years and to people who know us we seem to be a well matched and very happy couple, but my wife does not submit to me in everthing which if she is really following Bible teaching she should do.
There is one issue that she will not give in on and as it is making me feel unhappy I think that she is not submiting as the scripture instructs.
I just let the subject drop to avoide arguments but I am not happy about it. I know that this is derailing the thread a little but I just wanted to get it off my chest as reading this thread just makes mr think about it more.
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
My question is, what is different about the way marriage works for an egalitarian (not the lifelong commitment part, the day to day operation) than what could be described under the heading of "friendship+sex"?
What you seem to be implying here (and in a couple of other places) is that the hierarchical nature of the relationship is intrinsic to marriage - is indeed what makes marriage marriage.
If that's what you mean, I'm afraid it's just such a completely alien concept to me that I have nothing to the point to say about it - I'm just curious whether that is what you mean or if I am misreading you?
quote:
But the gender difference is absolutely inherent to marriage so it will affect the order of that relationship.
But what is the gender difference, precisely? - and if you can quantify it, how does the model you describe take account of the exceptions which undoubtably exist? Should a man or woman who does not conform to the gender profile you specify simply not marry, or not marry in the Christian church? Or should they pretend to be something they are not in order to make their relationship the model Lep talks about?
I am sure it is not be what you intend, but from this insistence on preordained gender difference I can easily see how the malign doctrines described by others could arise, where women who deviate from the accepted gender norm are made to feel sinful and wicked.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Leprechaun:I think we still have to deal with the text, even if it is difficult - so yes, to draw "far reaching consequences" from it is serious, but just as serious as saying "we don't understand it, so we effectively ignore it."
I am not seeking to dismiss out of hand what Paul says simply because it's difficult to understand, but it has made me re-evaluate what it actually says and how I think it should be applied. Aside from effectively disregarding this passage, there are basically two alternative approaches to it apart from yours:
a) Say that Paul was applying a temporary limitation because of local circumstances and that the reference to creation was a handy illustration for the moment rather than an attempt to ensrhine a principle for all time.
b) Read the emphasis on the passage as being "let the women learn" rather than on "I do not permit" and see the allusion to Eve being formed after Adam as "hey, don't forget she's here too" (Emma has alluded to this view).
quote:
originally posted by Leprechaun:I think you said earlier, though, that you thought this raised a difficulty for cons evos about why they think it's all right for women to have leadership roles in society. Do you still think that is an issue?
I think that a generation ago you would have found that many if not most of those defending your position would have applied the same reasoning to spheres of life beyond church and marriage, and I reckon I could construct a defensible hermeneutic to do this – I certainly know people who objected to Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister on these grounds (not political grounds). Whether exclusion of other spheres is the result of more refined exegesis or adapting to a cultural shift is perhaps a moot point
.
This leads me on to my "sun going round earth" thought.
I think it's hard for us (post)moderns to assimilate the impact of the Copernican revolution on the medieval mindset. The idea that the earth was not the centre of the universe contributed to the decline of the "Elizabethan chain of being" in which everyone and everything (including women!) was ascribed to its immutable place in life. I'm sure the theologians of the time felt such a shift might fatally endanger the doctrine of God and used the Scriptures in defence of geocentrism. This change in worldview was the result of scientific enquiry which both fuelled and proceeded from cultural changes. Today, all but a few very marginal theologians have no difficulty admitting heliocentrism and classifying geocentric references in the Bible as culture-bound. They don't see heliocentrism in and of itself as threatening to the doctrine of God or of creation.
I understand the concerns that have been voiced here that tampering with the "creational order" of man and woman (husband and wife?) is really tampering with the doctrine of God, but I can't help wondering whether the same proponents might have found themselves arguing for geocentrism a few centuries ago on the same grounds. Don't you think it's possible we come to a fresh christian understanding of the roles of men and women and how they are to reflect the fact that both are made in the image of God, while at the same time interacting with the changes in human understanding and culture in this area – and without endangering our doctrine of God?
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
.... to people who know us we seem to be a well matched and very happy couple, but my wife does not submit to me in everthing which if she is really following Bible teaching she should do.
There is one issue that she will not give in on and as it is making me feel unhappy I think that she is not submiting as the scripture instructs.
I just let the subject drop to avoide arguments but I am not happy about it. ...(
Well, if you are following the advice on this thread, your response ought not to be to embarass your wife publicly on a board to which she belongs, but to love her more as Christ loved the church. If you were doing that, perhaps she would have conceded to your request out of love. Alternatively, perhaps what you have asked is not reasonable or okay for her. If so, in insisting upon it, then, you are sinning against her by not loving her as Christ loved the Church.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Really there's almost no need for the Plot if we can get others to make our points for us! Needless to say, what Laura says goes for me too.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Well, even the Orthodox Plot can't be everywhere. By the way, as I was cruising past Saint Sophia's (Celebrating 100 years of Holy Wisdom (Also come to our Greek Festival!)) last night, I felt a tug of curiosity ....
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Okay so I won't count that toaster as mine just yet....
Actually you need to be on your guard about those Greek festivals. I reckon all those years of going to the Greek festivals in Seattle softened me up for the Plot. Is that just baklava, or an insidious long-term plan to capture your soul for Constantinople? One can't be too careful!
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Mousethief, shame on you for tempting Laura to go to Greek festivals! Not only will you raise her cholesterol level 100 points, it's taken me a whole year to lose the weight I gained at just one Greek festival last May! Baklava is deadly!
It's also hard on our image when we want to project Josephine's "Headship" concepts-- one yaya ordering her husband around in strident tones as he turns the spit on the barbecue could scuttle our whole plan! "Dimitrios! Get your lazy _________ over here right now!"
Leetle M.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Well, even the Orthodox Plot can't be everywhere.
Of course it can! Is outrage!
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
It'd probably help if you could expand it for me. How is your understanding of marriage different from that which could be expected if there were two extremely close friends who were in a sexual relationship? What is the extra 'bit' of order that isn't covered by "friends+sex"?
I've been in relationships that one or both of us thought might lead to marriage. I've also been a member of the "friends with benefits" club. There's a huge difference between the two relationships, mostly having to do with the priority assigned to the relationship and the commitment to making the relationship work.
quote:
Well, I suppose I was trying to say that the argument - these two people can function fine on their own, so there doesn't need to be any order when they come together - is trying to make out that they remain a collection of individuals when they come together.
Why do you assume that the only order possible is that of male headship? I haven't heard anyone on this thread say that they think relationships should be completely disordered. Just that a particular model might not be the best one.
quote:
Depends. A master may be less wise, intelligent etc. than her slave but there's a legal arrangement that orders them the way they are. Like many employees, I've had bosses that I'm sure I could do a better job than they could
but they were in charge because they were in charge - and it doesn't have to be because they'd do the better job (some family owned businesses for example). A parent with adult children mightn't be smarter or wiser but yet there is a certain honour the adult children owe them. There's a few examples.
OK. I actually reject all of these relationships, too. I don't submit to authority because legally they're in charge - I submit because the person in authority is smarter, wiser, more competent, etc. I've never had a boss who didn't acknowledge that I was better at certain things than they were and defer to my knowledge in that area (of course, I've only been in the working world for 14 years, and all of my bosses have been women...) And honoring my parents as an adult does not involve submitting to them.
quote:
Ah. Sorry, I wasn't suggesting it was an attack on the sanctity of marriage. My question is, what is different about the way marriage works for an egalitarian (not the lifelong commitment part, the day to day operation) than what could be described under the heading of "friendship+sex"?
I think the lifelong commitment part affects the day to day operation of a relationship, but I'll try to separate them since you think they're different.
The difference is one of priority. "Friendship + sex" means that we value one another, but that we understand if the other has to drop us to attend to their other commitments. That's not an option in an egalitarian marriage. That may not affect 95% of your daily interactions (which involve who does what), but it has a huge influence on the other 5%. Friends with benefits would think it a bit odd if you automatically included/thought about the other in all your plans; the opposite is true in marriage.
I have to say, I'm not entirely clear on what version of headship you're arguing for here. AFAICT, your arguing for an almost completely empty concept that we must obey in order to fulfill Biblical law...
Posted by Levor (# 5711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not suggesting that the passages are irrelevant. But, where (as you concede) there are different chronologies, or for that matter any other two passages that present conflicting doctrines or histories, to pick one and say that the other is "irrelevant to the issue" is very poor exegesis.
Only if it is simply asserted without my stating the reasons which lead to that conclusion. I've given the reasons for my conclusion.
quote:
Even more so when the one you pick supports what you already believe, and the "irrelevant" one doesn't.
Well, I began my Christian life as an egalitarian as strong as anything expressed on this thread so far. The fundamental structures of my thinking are thoroughly egalitarian. The view I'm advocating (and trying to put into practice) is something that I have very grudgingly come to over more than a decade because I'm convinced that that is what the Bible is saying.
Yes, you are going to find that my view of what the Bible says and what I believe line up. That's true, by and large, of any conservative Christian of any tradition. But I reject the 'play the man' argument that I'm simply making the Bible say what I want it to say. I would rather egalitarianism be true. My commitment to headship, like my commitment to Hell, the reality of sin, Jesus as the only way to salvation, opposition to homosexuality and the like is out of my view that God has done things in ways that I wouldn't if I was making the choice. For which we can all be very grateful.
quote:
quote:
How is your understanding of marriage different from that which could be expected if there were two extremely close friends who were in a sexual relationship? What is the extra 'bit' of order that isn't covered by "friends+sex"?
Well, that's actually not that easy to put into words. First, there's a publically expressed commitment to each other. In the context of a Christian marriage there is also a placing of the relationship under the headship of Christ. And, in the context of both the lifelong commitment and headship of Christ, marriage results in a need for examination of each persons role in that relationship and how it'll work in the long term. "Friendship + sex" can often have an ad-hoc feel to it, a sorting things out as they come up without any compulsion to try and make it work if it gets difficult.
True, but many good and strong friendships don't. Good Christian friendship is certainly a relationship with a long-term commitment, and under the headship of Christ.
I suppose as I hear egalitarian accounts of marriage it seems to me to be fully explained as a lifelong commitment of two friends to each other in a sexual relationship. I can't see anything else in the account that's not explained by that.
And if that's the case, then I wonder if friendship really does come close to capturing the essence of this marriage thing.
Saysay, I think my answer to Alan here should cover your very thoughtful response too - let me know if there was anything you missed that you particularly want me to respond to.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is where I think I find your position not very consistent with your understanding of Scripture. I'm going to attempt to explain why:
Personally, in the Genesis accounts or creation, I see lots of support for the idea of a distinction between man and woman, but not for the idea of distinct roles or headship/submission. (I would say the portrayal of relationships from the time of the patriarchs onwards is descriptive rather than prescriptive; it's just how things worked out in one particular society).
If you're wanting to just say why you disagree, Eutychus, it's fine to assert your views without giving reasons. If you are trying to help me come to a better view on things, you're going to have to give me some evidence to work with.
I've said why I think that the Genesis accounts indicate some kind of 'hierarchy'. And you're going to have to say what in Scripture tells you that the Patriach narratives are purely descriptive.
quote:
AFAICS, 1 Tim 2:12-14 is the only place in Scripture which appears to some to derive differing roles for men and women from the "Creational Order" (man first, woman second).
I think I would add the word 'explicitly' - it is one of the few places where the rationale is stated explicitly. I think it is implicit in many other places.
quote:
What I'm asserting is, if you want to include the creational order in your argument for headship and submission, you have to accept that it applies to men and women in other contexts too, and not just to husbands and wives.
I think it does apply to contexts outside of marriage. The principle I stated was that, to the degree that gender is a key factor in the kind of relationship people are in, then this sort of issue is going to come into play.
I see it as somethig like overlapping circles of less and less intensity - strongest in marriage, and less so in other relationships that have gender less and less as part of their essence.
Once one factors in the Genesis 1&2 accounts that suggest we were made male and female in order to be married, then some of the difficulty of working out whether a particular passage is saying 'man and woman' or 'husband and wife' makes more sense. The man-woman dimension to being human is most clearly seen in marriage. To the degree that clarity exists in other relationships the same sorts of principles apply.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what gender difference? There are some definite differences related to biology - as a man I'm unable to carry a new life for nine months and give birth, and then breast feed afterwards. But, apart from that, what differences are there?
I admit, I find it very hard to state them in the abstract, without getting into the "Men are from Mars..." reductionisms that I find thoroughly counterproductive. But then, I find it hard not to see the world through egalitarian glasses.
But I can say that I find men and women very different. Yes, there's a big variety among men and among women. Nonetheless, I find both to be different from the other - and more than just the fact that one begets while the other conceives.
quote:
Or are you trying to argue that there are gender differences which have nothing to do with ability? And, that men are heads because they're men even if they're significantly less able to fulfill that task than their wives? If so, it's a very strange God who calls people to a task he hasn't equipped them for.
No. I'm not saying that men are unable to be heads. I am saying that head =/= decision maker. Like what others have been saying, while I think authority comes into play, it is not the heart of what headship is about.
I think the husband has a responsibility to love the wife in a way that is not shared by the wife's responsibility to love the husband. The husband's role is to sacrifice himself for the growth and glory of his wife. The wife's responsibility is to receive this love and respond to it. And I think both are equipped to do this.
I've got no problems with traditional gender roles being swapped or mixed and matched.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, then the whole "marriage models the relationship between Christ and the church" is an irrelevant truism. Besides, the church is subordinate to Christ because we are his people and he has redeemed us - to what extent can the same be said of a husband and wife? Certainly my wife is not in any realistic sense my property, nor have I redeeemed her. The relationship is founded on different principles, why shouldn't it therefore be different in outworking? To draw a direct analogy either misrepresents the relationship between partners in a marriage, or between Christ and his church - or, indeed both.
Well Paul explicitly uses the language of salvation to describe the way the husband is to behave towards the wife. Doesn't mean that the husband is the wife's saviour - simply, as Josephine put it, that marriage is a path to salvation (or as I'd prefer, a context of salvation).
And not every element has to line up for the analogy to work. You'd have to show that Paul is wrong because the analogy doesn't work at the points he is referring us to.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I suppose that part of the inconsistency I'm claiming and which Levor has asked about is that cons. evos (witness the ESV) choose to read "husband" and "wife" in 1 Cor 11:3 against the context, because it suits their argument, and "man" and "woman" in 1 T 2 by appeal to the very same contextual argument they discard in 1 Cor 11:3.
No. I think it is clearly 'man' and 'woman' in 1 Cor 11:3. I think people try to wriggle out of that because they don't have a good understanding of 'image' language and so think that they need to make it refer only to husband and wife to stop it saying that women are less then human. (Which is a good goal, just the wrong way to get there.)
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
What you seem to be implying here (and in a couple of other places) is that the hierarchical nature of the relationship is intrinsic to marriage - is indeed what makes marriage marriage.
Yes to the first, no to the second. I think marriage is inherently 'hierarchical'. But I don't think it is hierarchy that makes marriage what it is. (If you're aware of the terms - hierarchy is necessary but not sufficient).
I think many people have marriages that 'work' on egalitarian principles. I think many people have marriages that 'work' on subchristian strong hierarchical principles. So that can't be the absolute essence. But I do think it is part of the reality of marriage and so lining up with that is better than not.
quote:
But what is the gender difference, precisely? - and if you can quantify it, how does the model you describe take account of the exceptions which undoubtably exist? Should a man or woman who does not conform to the gender profile you specify simply not marry, or not marry in the Christian church? Or should they pretend to be something they are not in order to make their relationship the model Lep talks about?
I tend to have a more fluid view of reality in practice, with lots of room for moving. Depending on the personalities, gifts, situation etc. these principles can work out in very different ways - ways that might almost seem opposites if you're just looking at whether the husband is making enough of the decisions.
I'd say if a man isn't prepared to live life daily by laying down his life for his wife, and have that kind of love shape his life then he shouldn't get married. And if a woman doesn't want to be loved that way and have that kind of love given to her shape her life then she shouldn't get married. Outside of that, I think it comes down to a lot of wisdom - and to the degree that certain couples share certain defining features (like a particular combination of personalities or gifts, or a cultural context) then there will be very similar outworkings between them at those points. To the degree there are wide differences the outworkings will look substantially different.
quote:
I am sure it is not be what you intend, but from this insistence on preordained gender difference I can easily see how the malign doctrines described by others could arise, where women who deviate from the accepted gender norm are made to feel sinful and wicked.
I agree. It's happened to both me and my wife and we've never enjoyed it. But I think the price tag of egalitarianism is even higher than the way this will be used to justify people's sinfulness.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Why do you assume that the only order possible is that of male headship? I haven't heard anyone on this thread say that they think relationships should be completely disordered. Just that a particular model might not be the best one.
Well, it's not an assumption. It's an attempt to make sense of what I see the Bible saying. It is a posteori not a priori. If I was working simply from how things seem to me without Scripture, I'd be with Alan (not saying that's what he's doing by that - just that that would be my position).
I wasn't trying to prove male headship by that argument. Merely show that you can't disprove male headship by pointing out that both genders function fine on their own.
quote:
OK. I actually reject all of these (examples of abitrary)relationships, too. I don't submit to authority because legally they're in charge - I submit because the person in authority is smarter, wiser, more competent, etc.
Then I suspect there is probably a sense in which you don't submit. Submission means more than just recognising that this person is right in this instance. If that was all it was, then the Bible's call to submit to those in authority wouldn't be so difficult for us.
quote:
I have to say, I'm not entirely clear on what version of headship you're arguing for here. AFAICT, your arguing for an almost completely empty concept that we must obey in order to fulfill Biblical law...
I think I'm arguing for the same concept that Jospehine and others have outlined. I don't think it's empty - maybe if you could ask me some questions as to where I'm introducing an empty concept.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not suggesting that the passages are irrelevant. But, where (as you concede) there are different chronologies, or for that matter any other two passages that present conflicting doctrines or histories, to pick one and say that the other is "irrelevant to the issue" is very poor exegesis.
Only if it is simply asserted without my stating the reasons which lead to that conclusion. I've given the reasons for my conclusion.
Then, we're at an impasse. As I don't accept the reasons you gave for describing some passages I see as relevant as not being relevant. If you're going to argue a headship for men based on chronological order of the creation account in Genesis 2 (man, then animals, then woman), then my counter argument based on the different chronological order of the creation account in Genesis 1 (animals, then men and women apparently at the same time) needs to be addressed. Stating, as you did, that there are plenty of Biblical examples of the chronological order being over turned (eg: choosing David, the youngest son of Jesse, over his older brothers) simply weakens the case for the chronological order in Genesis 2 being relevant at all - and we simply end up with one verse from Paul in the midst of a difficult passage to comprehend.
My point is simple - if you want to argue for male headship you need to appeal to stronger evidence than the chronology of the creation account in Genesis 2. If you have established male headship then, and only then, can you safely reference Genesis 2 in this context - for what it's worth, I believe that Paul probably took male headship as axiomatic and did just that when he referenced Genesis 2. It was an axiom he got from his culture, both Jewish and Greek.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
But if you are a Christian, then when you entered into relationship with Christ he became your head.
I don't think either you or St Paul get very far with analogies between our relationship with Jesus and headship in marriage generally. Our relationship with Jesus is unique - no-one else is both fully God and fully man. Just as his submission to the will of God was perfect and carried with it no notion of hierarchy.
Even St Paul was good enough to describe it as a mystery (in the theological sense).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what gender difference? There are some definite differences related to biology - as a man I'm unable to carry a new life for nine months and give birth, and then breast feed afterwards. But, apart from that, what differences are there?
I admit, I find it very hard to state them in the abstract, without getting into the "Men are from Mars..." reductionisms that I find thoroughly counterproductive.
I'll agree with the counterproductivity of the reductionisms. They are counterproductive precisely because there is so much variation between individuals that the "average man" (or woman) is actually meaningless - each couple needs to find out how their partner ticks, and who they are, to find out what works best in their relationship. But, what's the difference between the "Men are from Mars ..." reductionisms and the "man is the head" reductionism in that sense? Both make assumptions of gender roles in a relationship, that may work for many (indeed, they may work for most), but can't be expected to work for all.
quote:
But I can say that I find men and women very different. Yes, there's a big variety among men and among women. Nonetheless, I find both to be different from the other - and more than just the fact that