DescentBB

Split by Lothar from Homosexual Day of Silence in our Schools

[I don't have time to respond to everything here yet, but I feel I have to respond to this. Disclaimer: I know this is off-topic, and may need it's own thread.]

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Anymore in this culture the women are too tough and the men are too weak.

Please tell me you're kidding.

Just do a little research. Despite the changes in our culture, men are still the primary problem when it comes to everything from abuse of power in the corporate world to physical and sexual abuse in the home. Women are still dominated, treated as objects and slaves, physically abused, and treated as only valuable for what they can do for men. Sure, it happens to men occasionally, too... but the numbers aren't even remotely comparable.

[Thorne, if you respond by quoting Ephesians 5:22 ("submit to your husbands") out of context (ignoring the thesis of the passage in verse 21, "submit to each other"), it will only serve to confirm my perception of you.]

Foil wrote:Just do a little research. Despite the changes in our culture, men are still the primary problem when it comes to everything from abuse of power in the corporate world and the home to physical and sexual abuse. Women are still dominated, treated as objects and slaves, physically abused, and treated as only valuable for what they can do for men. Sure, it happens to men occasionally, too... but the numbers aren't even remotely comparable.

Foil wrote:men are still the primary problem when it comes to everything from abuse of power in the corporate world and the home to physical and sexual abuse.

Yeah, but that doesn't make 'em tough, that makes them a**holes. Guy that go around in groups doing sh** and messing with people? Cowards. And I'm not just name-calling. They are cowards. But that doesn't totally cover what I meant when I said "weak," that's just an example.

Foil wrote:Women are still dominated, treated as objects and slaves, physically abused, and treated as only valuable for what they can do for men.

And that just makes them victims, it doesn't make them feminine. To explain what I said earlier, a woman can be strong and still be feminine. When I say "tough" I mean masculine, calloused, or rough.

Foil wrote:[Thorne, if you respond by quoting Ephesians 5:22 ("submit to your husbands") out of context (ignoring the thesis of the passage in verse 21, "submit to each other"), it will only serve to confirm my perception of you.]

*Beavis voice* "Are you threatning me?" If you're arguing for total equality in marriage, I think you'd have to have a verse telling husbands to submit to their wives in order to complete the balance. But you're pulling verse 21 out of context.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:When I say "tough" I mean masculine, calloused, or rough.

So by this definition, your earlier statment ("women are too tough and the men are too weak") means that you believe men should be more calloused and rough. Is that correct?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If you're arguing for total equality in marriage, I think you'd have to have a verse telling husbands to submit to their wives in order to complete the balance.

So your method of interpretation is to count the number of verses where X is told to submit to Y, and see if they "balance"?

If so, you're really missing the point of what Paul is trying to say.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:But you're pulling verse 21 out of context.

No, I'm not. Verse 21 ("submit to each other") is the thesis for the whole section, Paul's teaching on harmony in relationships (wives and husbands, children and parents, slaves and masters). There's no reason to take verse 21 out of it, unless you want to deny Paul's intent.

Foil wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:When I say "tough" I mean masculine, calloused, or rough.

So by this definition, your earlier statment ("women are too tough and the men are too weak") means that you believe men should be more calloused and rough. Is that correct?

Well, I suppose so. I think men need to be, to some degree, to deal with things in life. But that's not all of it either. It could just as well be stated as, women are becoming less feminine and men are becoming less masculine.

Foil wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If you're arguing for total equality in marriage, I think you'd have to have a verse telling husbands to submit to their wives in order to complete the balance.

So your method of interpretation is to count the number of verses where X is told to submit to Y, and see if they "balance"?

If so, you're really missing the point of what Paul is trying to say.

No, I was suggesting that that was the method you were using to balance 22. If you're using verse 21 to detract at all from verse 22, you've missed it. The Bible is not contradictory in nature. And perhaps saying that you're pulling verse 21 out of context is incorrect, but using it to deny the authority structure defined in 22 is misusing it. As Christians we ought to submit to one another in the fear of God, but throughout the Bible women have a supportive role, in relation to men (from the very beginning), not an equal role, and definitely not a leadership role. Unless I am very much mistaken, the difference made between men and women in the Bible is not one of value, but very much one of role (this is one of the places where Christianity differs so much from Islam, in my understanding).

But really this accusation is partially assumption on my part, so instead of persisting in accusation, let me ask, what is your view of the the woman's role?

If we can wrap that up and continue on topic, we'll be all set. I don't really want to take it to a topic of its own, having little enough time as it is.

Dakatsu teh Awesomeness :) wrote:as if it is an after school club led by a teacher, then it should be alright. Of course not in class

Valid point. Just so long as they are not operating in the official capacity as a teacher.

Foil wrote:Paul's teaching on harmony in relationships (wives and husbands, children and parents, slaves and masters). There's no reason to take verse 21 out of it, unless you want to deny Paul's intent.

I agree. I also understand Thorne's point about having limited time. IF this were to spawn into another thread, I'd be interested in participating. I've already got some interesting texts written up. But since we are pretty busy as is, I'll hold off and stay on topic for now.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If you're using verse 21 to detract at all from verse 22, you've missed it. The Bible is not contradictory in nature.

Now you're misconstruing my statement.

I never said 21 'balanced' or 'detracts from' 22. Both verses apply; as you said, there's no contradiction intended. Verse 21 says "to each other", which includes "to husbands". So we must take them together, and the result is a call for mutual submission.

If anyone is implying there is a contradiction between those two verses, it's you, by saying that verse 21 doesn't belong in context.

I also agree about time and on-topic-ness. We ought to split this into another thread. Mods?

*bump*
i didn't even notice this thread was split off.

Kilarin i choose you!
*throws pokeball*

roid wrote:i didn't even notice this thread was split off.
Kilarin i choose you! *throws pokeball*

Yikes! I missed this thread split as well! I sure hope I don't have to fight picachu though.

Here are some Bible texts that are are often interpreted to mean that God wants women to be subservient to men:

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord

1Peter 3:1 wives, be in subjection to your own husbands

Genesis 3:16 thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee

These seem pretty clear, right? But wait! we haven't gotten the entire story yet. Bible texts taken in isolation can lead in all kinds of crazy heretical directions, we need to look at each of these text in context to get a clear understanding of what they are talking about. And in context, we find some very interesting and very similar commands near to each of the above statements. Lets look near the new testament ones first:

Ephesians 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters... as unto Christ;

Col 3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters... fearing God

1Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear

Christians generally do NOT believe that Paul and Peter were trying to say slavery was a good thing! But rather that slavery was the way things were back then, and at THIS PARTICULAR TIME, God didn't want the Christian church to spend lots of times on a POLITICAL revolution, instead, he was setting the world on fire with a SPIRITUAL revolution. Spread Christianity now, there would be time to work on the problem of slavery later.

These were commands to avoid upsetting the political/social structure of the day when that would create the appearance that Christianity had worldly political goals instead of unworldly spiritual goals, an accusation that Christianity was already fighting hard against.

But! If we interpret the orders for slaves to obey their masters this way, as orders to co-operate with the current system even though it is unjust, then that MUST influence the way we interpret the side by side commands for women to obey their husbands. Remember, each of these "slave" statements is only a few verses away from the corresponding "wife" verse.

The people of Paul and Peter's day lived in a world where women were considered second class citizens, at BEST. This was unjust, but it was not the issue that God wanted to work on right then, and bringing it to the immediate forefront would have hampered the growth of Christianity, which would have SLOWED the improvement of women's rights. So Paul and Peter gave orders that were practical for that time, just as with with the slavery issue.

But what about the old testament quote? Well, right adjacent to the curse on women, we find the curse on men:

Genesis 3:17-19 cursed is the ground for thy sake... Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee... In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread

When God announces a curse, He is NOT always telling you the way He WANTS things to be. Most often He is telling you what the natural consequences of your action will be. The natural consequence of Adam's sin was that his work to provide food would become much MUCH more difficult. But that was not the design, and most Christians do not object at all when modern farmers find ways to reduce or eliminate weeds (so long as they can do it without poisoning us!). No one EVER says "Don't put down mulch, God ORDAINED that there would be weeds!"

And yet, I've heard many times that God ordained that women would be subservient to man. But look, the curse is very similar. God is telling Eve what the RESULTS of her sin will be. We don't know what the plan for childbirth was before sin, but afterwards, obviously the large brain case of human babies was going to require that a very large head move through a very narrow passage and childbirth was going to be painful and DANGEROUS. Up right until modern times it was the number one killer of women.

But how often do you hear someone object to modern anesthetics because they "remove the curse of Eve?" Don't laugh, when anesthetics first started being used, some men DID object for exactly that reason. They said women were SUPPOSED to have painful childbirths, and removing that was going against God's commands.

Same as it would be to make women not subservient to their husbands, hmmmm?

The curse of "he shall rule over thee" is an obvious natural consequence of Eve's sin. When pregnant, she will be largely dependant upon outside help. And even when not pregnant, in order to bear these children with the large heads, Eve would need a bone structure that was different from a man's. As a consequence, she will not have the same physical strength as a man. And, by her sin, she just created a world where strength rules. As a RESULT of her sin, she will find herself forced into a subservient position.

This was NOT the design, it was the natural consequence. For design, you will note that Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs, because she was to stand at his SIDE, not be crushed under his foot. Adam had plenty of subservient creatures, he needed a helpmate, a PARTNER, and God provided him with one beyond his wildest dreams.

To insist, based upon these text, that men are in command and women must be subservient requires that we treat the side-by-side texts about slavery the same way. Thank GOD we don't have to do that. We can try to go back to God's IDEALS for human relationships, where no human owns another one, and where husbands and wives are equal partners because: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

There are, of course, more texts involved in this issue, but I think this is a long enough post for now.

Kilarin wrote:These seem pretty clear, right? But wait! we haven't gotten the entire story yet. Bible texts taken in isolation can lead in all kinds of crazy heretical directions, we need to look at each of these text in context to get a clear understanding of what they are talking about.

Exactly!

When you look at those phrases in the context of the whole passage they're in, you find that they're not about "a woman's place" at all.

For example, as Kilarin pointed out, the passages in Ephesians and Colossians are part of whole sections where the emphasis is on humility and peace in relationships (not only husband/wife, but parent/child and slave/master as well). Taking them to imply an intended subservience is not only missing the point, it's mis-interpretation.

-----------

Now, please don't understand me. The last time I posted about this, I got accused of everything from "saying men and women are exactly the same" to "trying to take down the Godly principles of marriage".

That's not the case whatsoever.

Men and women are very, very different; believe me, I know, I'm married to a wonderful woman named Michelle and I'm very glad every day that she's not just like me.

I also would never presume to say that a marriage where the wife is the primary homemaker is always wrong; my wife and I both have good friends who have chosen to structure their relationship that way.

I'm simply trying to point out that it's not Biblical to point out the duty of a wife to submit to her husband, without pointing out the duty of the husband to also submit to his wife. It's not an easy thing, even in this culture; but the call in scripture is very clearly to one of mutual submission.

@Kilarin

WOW I see someone who finally \"rightly divides the word\". Too often nowadays people take one verse out of the Bible and build a doctrine around it, whereas we can see by your post that the Word interprets itself. By taking ALL of the verses that pertain to a subject and weighing them together is where TRUE understanding comes from. KUDOS.

\"Context\" is just a fancy way of saying \"structure\". Ideas are communicated not just through words, but through the structure those words are arranged in. Grammar, sentences and paragraphs, arguments, idioms, cultural expectations, and historical occurrences are all forms of structure. In order to understand what ANY author meant by ANY text, we have to be aware of that structure. If we ignore some part of that structure, we'll misinterpret what the author intended to communicate.

Kilarin mentioned such scriptures as Ephesians 5:22-24, Col 3:18, and 1Peter 3:1, and noted \"very similar commands\" regarding servants/slaves in Ephesians 6:5, Col 3:22, and 1Peter 2:18. His conclusion was that Paul was teaching the church to spend their time on a SPIRITUAL rather than POLITICAL revolution, and that the commands were to \"avoid upsetting the political/social structure of the day.\" This isn't quite right.

The church's spiritual revolution NECESSARILY had political and social components. You can't have the spiritual revolution without significant political and social consequences. In those passages, Paul and Peter are setting up a radical new political and social order. But this differs from your average revolution because, rather than telling those on the bottom of the totem pole to rise up, they are told to love and respect those at the top... while those at the top of the totem pole are told to love and respect those below them! Instead of a violent revolution by the weak AGAINST the powerful, it's a peaceful revolution enacted by the powerful FOR the weak. The system was unjust, and God wanted it worked on immediately, but through love and respect rather than violent uprising.

Note that, within the passages above, each of the commands to wives is paired with a command to husbands, and most commands to slaves are paired with a command to masters. (There are also parent/child commands that follow the same pattern.) The commands to wives and slaves surprise the modern reader because they don't call for an uprising... but they'd have surprised the ancient reader because they call for love and respect and putting someone else ahead of yourself, rather than anger and scheming and trying to get your own way. The commands to husbands and masters are even more surprising -- they tell husbands not to dominate their wives, but to love them and sacrifice for them; they tell masters not to dominate their slaves, but to be fair to them, to provide for them, and even to serve them!

Genesis 3:16 announces \"the natural consequences\" of original sin. This was not God ordaining that woman MUST be subservient to man, or that it's RIGHT for woman to be subservient to man, only that it WOULD HAPPEN. But there's more to it than that, which comes from understanding what \"desire\" means in this verse.

NET Bible translates Gen 3:16b as \"You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.\" Sin is, at its core, the elevation of self above others. The natural result of sin is that, rather than man and woman acting as companions, they will now act as rivals, with each focused primarily on getting their own way... and the bigger, stronger man will usually dominate the one he's supposed to protect. That's the curse -- the natural result of sin.

Now, look back at the commands to wives and husbands above. They take both parts of Gen 3:16b and turn them on their heads. The wife is told to submit, rather than trying to control her husband -- AND the husband is told to love his wife and sacrifice for her, rather than dominating her. Both groups are told to return to God's ideal, not by fighting for \"equal rights\" but by loving wholeheartedly. What a great way to undertake a social and cultural revolution! Isn't God great?

Lothar wrote:Kilarin['s]... conclusion was that Paul was teaching the church to spend their time on a SPIRITUAL rather than POLITICAL revolution, and that the commands were to "avoid upsetting the political/social structure of the day." This isn't quite right.

I agree with with what I think Kilarin was trying to get at: specifically that those scriptures are about God's desire for relationships, not a blueprint for a dominant/subservient design.

However, I'll also agree that the implication that the scriptures were sort of 'softened' because of the surrounding culture (I'm not sure if that's what you intended to say, K) isn't really the case. In fact, I think this may even be an understatement:

Lothar wrote:In those passages, Paul and Peter are setting up a radical new political and social order.

It's not just radical, it's completely revolutionary. The call in scripture is to a basis of relationship which goes completely against the norm, running utterly contrary to our natural inclinations toward power!

It's not only the scriptures mentioned above; just look at some of the other commands that contradict "normal" human ideals, like what Christ himself said in the Sermon on the Mount. Some of those commands are hard; they turn our usual human perspective about everything from pride to vengeance completely upside-down.

The kind of self-sacrificial, put-the-other-first, mutually-submissive relationship between husband and wife that the scriptures Kilarin pointed out call us to... it's not easy. It runs against our tendency to try to manipulate things to our own advantage.

From my own experience as a young married guy, I've seen this myself - it's difficult to put my own ideas, my own priorities, my own wants behind Michelle's. And it's not easy for her to try to put me first, either (especially when I'm a jerk about it ). But it's very clear in scripture that that's the ideal we should be trying to maintain.

Lothar wrote:Both groups are told to return to God's ideal, not by fighting for "equal rights" but by loving wholeheartedly. What a great way to undertake a social and cultural revolution! Isn't God great?

Abso-frickin'-lutely.

I think you folks are making a mistake and doing some interpreting according to some of the ideals not of the Lord, but of popular thought of the day.

Can't really do a long reply just now, but let me put two points to you, and a question.

1) If the relationship between a man and a woman in marriage is dealt with in much the same fashion, in the gospel, as slavery, and the ideal situation, in God's eyes, is supposed to be an apparent equality in role, why does God use marriage as a pattern for Christ and his church?

Ephesians 5 wrote:24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

Now that's a pattern, and I don't see it retracted anywhere.

And if this is not God's best for a women, why did the women who were with Jesus have a supportive role throughout his own ministry? Why did they serve instead of the duties being divided equally? Jesus was radical enough in every other way, yet according to what you're saying we are to believe that he held back on this point.

I think it's very provocative that you see the world as being in such accord with the kingdom of God in this way, at this time... Convenient.

2) God's curse when Adam and Eve fell... or any other curse. You all claim that they are not curses at all. You redefine "curse." Why do you feel the need to do that? Do you have an understanding of the source language that gives you this unapparent wisdom? It says that God cursed, but you say God did not curse. Which is it? Please? If the Bible says God cursed, and you say his curse was not a curse, then the translators must have botched it, because everyone knows that a "curse" has an effect. A "curse" is active, not passive. Everywhere else in the Bible curses have effect. Why not here? It's ridiculous, and seems to be convenient to some extra-Biblical world-views.

(no offense. I don't suppose that you folks, personally, are the ones who came up with this stuff, but I think you're making a big mistake buying into it.)

Question) If you think that men and women are to be pretty much equal in role, I have to dip out of topic for a sec. and ask, what do you say about women teachers and preachers?

Where does the bid for the approval of the world end, and the bid for that of the author start?

Let me make it clear, that I don't think less of women at all, I just think they're different. I think that Christians are missing a blessing in believing modern society more than the Bible, when modern society clearly doesn't have a clue, in many ways. God's plan is very good, but it is not feminism.

2 Timothy 2:4

No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Based on just this one verse, I believe kilarins interpretation to be more in keeping with scripture than others here. Here comes Paul saying we were all CO_HEIRS with Jesus made to be equal to him and just like him(That is the gift after all)So then starts the debate. Is a slave to be a slave any longer? Are women to be treated as lower seeing as they assume the same rights bought by Jesus's blood?

Seeing also as how Paul, who loved the gospel and Jesus so much, would not accept things rightfully his under this new covenant, so that in no way would the gospel be hindered. I think it would be in keeping with his nature and his writings to conclude just that. That yes these are injustices but they also side track the whole message of the Gospel which was more important. So he is telling them to suffer these things (not entangle themselves with worldy causes) so that NOTHING hinders the gospel which is simply this: That God so loved the world, that he sent his ONLY begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. That's not a political mission. God looks alot further down the road and this whole world as we know it will pass away. The only important thing is to save as many as possible before that happens. And by GOD, that means to not exclude any of them. If you don't want to invite them to your house for dinner or out to eat or bowling, thats fine. But anyone who walks in the door of a Church looking for salvation, for GOD's sakes and theirs, at least just get out of the way!

Flip wrote:WOW I see someone who finally "rightly divides the word".

Only in that I ATTEMPT to, not in that I always succeed! But thanks for the compliment.
We actually have quite a few Christians on this forum who are interested in studying the Bible as a whole. It's one of the things that makes it an interesting place to learn. Oh, and to be perfectly fair, we ALSO have a good number of NON Christians who are interested in debating philosophical issues, and even religious issues, in depth instead of just shallowly.

Lothar wrote:The church's spiritual revolution NECESSARILY had political and social components.

You are absolutely right, and I appreciate the correction.

Lothar wrote:Both groups are told to return to God's ideal, not by fighting for "equal rights" but by loving wholeheartedly. What a great way to undertake a social and cultural revolution! Isn't God great?

Beautiful!

Foil wrote:I'll also agree that the implication that the scriptures were sort of 'softened' because of the surrounding culture (I'm not sure if that's what you intended to say, K) isn't really the case.

Yes it was what I intended to say, and I'll still argue for it, to a point.

Lothar's point, that Christ's instructions WERE going to bring about political change is absolutely true and is certainly backed up by the evidence of history. But I will still maintain that it is ALSO true that God sometimes moves us in baby steps in the direction He wants us to go, because that is the fastest He can get us to walk. For example:

Deut 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

The Hebrew word translated as "uncleanness" here is ervah. It means, nakedness, shame, or uncleanness. It's fairly broad, and was interpreted even more broadly by the rabbis. By Christ's time it had come to be interpreted that ANYTHING that displeased a husband was "uncleanness" and grounds for divorce.

But then we have Christ's clarification:
Matt 19:7-9 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Christ doesn't just say, "You've misinterpreted the text", He says that they were "suffered" to do this because of the hardness of their hearts.

If the rule about divorce had been worded in a manner that was less broad, the result would have been similar to many other rules God gave that men didn't like, they would have simply ignored it. And in this case, requiring a bill of divorcement at least gave the woman some protection. She could remarry. And in the society as it was in those days, her options beyond remarriage involved primarily begging and prostitution. So the rule that was given was actually softened from what God wanted, in order to move the people in baby steps towards where He wanted them to be.

I think this DOES apply to the slaves/masters wives/husbands quotes in the new testament. The GOAL was for there to be no slavery at all, but that would have been seen by the Romans as a political revolution, and would have actually hampered the spread of Christianity and done more harm to the cause of the slaves then good. As Lothar has laid out, the system Christ DID implement led to IMMEDIATE improvements (that would not be perceived as political threats by the powers that be), and to long term changes in attitudes that led to the eventual elimination of slavery in western society and drastic improvements in the lot of women. God took us in the right direction, and with some RADICAL changes, but some of the overtly political side of the blow was softened in order to help people work into it in baby steps.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: If the relationship between a man and a woman in marriage is dealt with in much the same fashion, in the gospel, as slavery, and the ideal situation, in God's eyes, is supposed to be an apparent equality in role, why does God use marriage as a pattern for Christ and his church?

Because it is an excellent analogy. But that's all it is, an excellent analogy. Christ is also called our brother, which is ANOTHER excellent analogy, and suffers from the same flaw. Analogies are not perfect. You have to work with them. Try to take them too far and they break.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Everywhere else in the Bible curses have effect. Why not here? It's ridiculous, and seems to be convenient to some extra-Biblical world-views.

There are several places in the Bible where a "curse" is simply a warning against the natural consequences of your actions. For example:

Deut 23:13
"You shall have a place outside the camp and you shall go out to it; and you shall have a stick with your weapons; and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it, and turn back and cover up your excrement.

Don't poop inside the camp!!!!! It's one of the rules! And why shouldn't you do it?

Deut 28:60 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD; Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance. Moreover he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee. Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

Because if you DON'T follow those rules, God is going to curse you with terrible diseases! Yikes! Better remember to take that ritual stick with you before you go outside the camp and dig that ritual hole to do your ritual business in!

Obviously, Many curses are supernatural in nature. But some are simply an attempt to explain why you shouldn't do something. The same is true of blessing, but in reverse. In many cases, the "blessings" are the natural results of following intelligent rules.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:(no offense. I don't suppose that you folks, personally, are the ones who came up with this stuff, but I think you're making a big mistake buying into it.)

No, actually, while I do read a lot, I can't blame anyone else for my views. My church is in the middle of a big debate about the role of women in the church, so I hear views from both sides. But I make up my own mind based on study. The comparison between the slave/master verses and husband/wives verses in Paul and Peter is something I felt led to when studying to teach a Sabbath school class on this topic. I didn't read it in a book (other than the Bible) or hear it in a sermon, so any flaws in the theology are mine. I DO get ideas from books and sermons, but if I adopt them, its only because I felt the theology was sound and backed up by scripture.

What do you use for your research?

Flip wrote:2 Timothy 2:4

I think you had a typo here (haven't we ALL done that!) Did you mean Rom 8:16-17 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Flip wrote:we were all CO_HEIRS with Jesus made to be equal to him and just like him

could you clarify this point?

Flip wrote:And by GOD, that means to not exclude any of them. If you don't want to invite them to your house for dinner or out to eat or bowling, thats fine. But anyone who walks in the door of a Church looking for salvation, for GOD's sakes and theirs, at least just get out of the way!

Amen to that!

Ephesians 5 wrote:24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

Look at it all together.

Ephesians 5 wrote:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 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. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.

Wives are to be subject to their husbands, and husbands are to love their wives. Am I the only one who sees a difference? And you say "it's just an analogy." An analogy is exactly what it is, but it's drawing a comparison between husbands and Christ, as a pattern for authority. Then it draws a comparison between wives and the Church as a pattern for love, nourishment, and cherishing. Strike me several times with a blunt object if that ain't pretty clear.

A curse is a curse, even if you or I don't understand how it's worked out. If God said he would curse them, but he's not really cursing them, you have made God a liar.

Thank God for logic.

I'm about to head to bed, but I do want to comment on this:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If the relationship between a man and a woman ... is supposed to be an apparent equality in role...

If you think that men and women are to be pretty much equal in role...

Thorne, I think you're confusing the points here with some of the stranger cultural ideas around.

No one here is arguing that men and women are "exactly equal" or that they have to have "the same role" in marriage. Anyone who has been married knows that's a ridiculous statement.

Unless I misunderstand, what Kilarin and I and Lothar and flip are trying to point out is: the interpretation which claims scripture points to a "superior/subservient" relationship as the model for marriage is misleading at best.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Ephesians 5 wrote:24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

Now that's a pattern, and I don't see it retracted anywhere.

Just like the rest of the scriptures we've talked about, we have to do some honest exegesis of the meaning, and to do that, we have to look at the section as a whole.

So, what is Paul talking about here? A "dominant/subservient" structure for marriage? No, I think if we take an honest look at it, that's not it at all.

In this whole section (especially when you look at it as part of the greater passage about human relationships between husband/wife, master/slave, parents/children!), Paul is clearly pointing out that both parties bear the responsibility for the relationship.

If you don't see it, read it again - look at the structure of the section! Does it read like...
A) ...a "duty checklist", where X is told to love, Y is told to submit, and to imply any other duty is out of order?
- or -
B) ...a call for *both* parties to reflect the love between Christ and church, to put the other before themselves in the same way?

Well, let's see: It begins by saying "submit to each other", goes on to talk about human relationships in light of attributes of God (His self-sacrifice, His love, His care, His teaching, His wholeheartedness), and concludes by making it clear that "there is no favoritism with Him"! If that's not a clear recurring theme, I don't know what is.

---------------

Unfortunately, the usual interpretation in Christian culture tries to individually separate the phrases out into a checklist-o'-duties and a checklist-o'-non-duties: "the wife's duty is to always submit" and "the husband's duty is to sacrificially love (but nothing says he has to submit)". However, when we look at the passage as a whole, we find that it's missing the point entirely. The teaching that husbands should 'rule' directly contradicts the verses which specifically call the husband to self-sacrifice.

--------------

Honestly, I believe that it in this culture, and especially in the Christian church, it often takes some fortitude for a husband to follow Paul's call to self-sacrifice, to put his wife before himself.

Yeah, it's easy to nod our assent to teaching which affirms our position and power as husbands. It's much harder to do the right thing, and follow the scriptures which command us to sacrifice ourselves in the way Christ did (a standard none of us could reach) and to mutually submit to our wives. It's right there in verse 21 and the rest of the passage, and it's our duty as husbands to follow it.

(I know I'm being a bit firm here. It's because it genuinely ticks me off when scriptures meant to build relationships are twisted into a justification which only serves to divide.)

Heh, so much for heading to bed earlier tonight.

Heh, just now read Thorne's post.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Look at it all together.

Yes, please do! Start with the call to mutual submission in verse 21 (which you still seem to insist on leaving out), and go through the whole passage on relationships in light of God's relationship with mankind.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Wives are to be subject to their husbands, and husbands are to love their wives. Am I the only one who sees a difference?

No, you're not the only one, but it still doesn't make this passage a list of duties and non-duties.

Please, go back and do some honest exegesis. Read the passage for what it is... Paul is not making a chart of separate duties here. If you read it that way, you've just turned a call to Godly love into an ordered checklist. And frankly I consider that blasphemy. [Edit: 'blasphemy' may be too harsh a word, feel free to substitute 'deceptive' and 'intentionally misleading'.]

2 Timothy 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Flip wrote:
we were all CO_HEIRS with Jesus made to be equal to him and just like him

could you clarify this point?

Yes I should have been more clear here. Jesus is and always will be \"The Lord Jesus Christ only begotten Son of the Father\" My point is that we will be, and are considered now, to be equal with him in all aspects. All that he possesses and all that he is, is ours. That nothing has been withheld. He came and made his self equal to us, so that when he rose we could be made equal to him. Always being mindful that every knee shall bow to his lordship.

To make this point, remember that he was tempted to to turn bread into stone. Now that wouldn't have been much of a temptation to any of us, but fact is he could have done it. The reason it would have been sin for him to do so is because he would have done it of his own power, therefore disqualifying himself as a man. Eveything he did while he was here was done by the Holy Spirit.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7

This being the case, there is nothing that he did that we can not do, because we have the same Spirit residing in us.

I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father\" (John 14:12).

Sergeant Thorne.
I agree. In the marriage relationship the man is ordained as prophet priest and king. This is the way God designed it. The problem I think exists though, is that many people misconstrue that for a way to lord themselves and their opinions over their wives. I believe it should be a willing wife that does so. My wife works as I do. God knows she does more at the house than I do. She herself believes in the headship of the husband. Yet I have never made her to do anything. I fully respect her as my equal and my friend and would never exalt myself over her. So it does'nt have to be like that, yet if there was contention in the marriage it would be the wifes duty to submit.

Now as far as her relationship to the father.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

flip wrote:...yet if there was contention in the marriage it would be the wifes duty to submit.

Per verse 21 (which always seems to get left out), it's also the husband's duty to submit as well. That's what Paul was getting at, and the reason he made it abundantly clear that both husband and wife are to reflect God's love and selflessness in their marriage.

Frankly, and pardon my language... I think the men in the Christian church often need to grow some balls, man up, and learn to follow the command to 'submit' to their wives (to put their own priorities and power aside, and put the other ahead of themselves) just as much as the wives do the same for them.

I agree wholeheartedly Foil. It was late when I wrote this and I think it came across stronger than I meant. In scripture we are commanded to submit to each other as well, all in the hopes of maintaining harmony.

Sergeant Thorne is correct in the letter of the word. There is a spiritual hiearchy.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

That is unavoidable. I've also tried to make clear that although Christ is the head of all believers, we are equal to him in authority and stature. In the same way is the relationship of husband and wife. They are equal partners and have the power to do all things in their husbands name.

I can't think of any time the Lord has forced me to do anything. I've always been free to follow my own will, and although I know I've disappointed more than a few times, He has always dealt gently with me. It is this way that husbands are commanded to deal with their wifes.

1 Corinthians 13:4-5 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;
13:5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

If this is not how you are treating your wife, then you have overstepped your bounds and do not understand what spiritual authority is. Its more a position of responsibility than power.

flip wrote:Its more a position of responsibility than power.

Agreed!

flip wrote:There is a spiritual hiearchy.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

That is unavoidable.

Again, we have to look at this in context!

Is that verse a solo statement about spiritual heirarchy? No, it's not. If we're honest in our exegesis, we can't look at it as a 'solo verse'; we have to look at it in its context as part of a passage where Paul is laying down specific guidelines for the Corinthian church in worship.

Looking more closely to the context in the previous and subsequent chapters, we can easily see why he needed to give a standard set of guidelines: The Corinthian church had a problem with divisiveness and factions among the congregation! See the whole of chapter 3 (Paul rebukes them for their disunity), 6:1 (they were suing each other, lol!), and 11:18 - this church just couldn't seem to get along.

In chapters 8 and 10, it's the issue of food sacrificed to idols. In chapters 10 and 11, the issue is the way the Lord's supper is observed. In chapters 12 and 14, it's about spiritual gifts and keeping services orderly. Heck, Paul even has to lay down guidelines for proper headwear and hair length in chapter 11 (note that this is where the verse above comes in, it's part of the section about honoring God and each other).

I think Lothar said it best:

Lothar wrote:"Context" is just a fancy way of saying "structure". Ideas are communicated not just through words, but through the structure those words are arranged in. Grammar, sentences and paragraphs, arguments, idioms, cultural expectations, and historical occurrences are all forms of structure. In order to understand what ANY author meant by ANY text, we have to be aware of that structure. If we ignore some part of that structure, we'll misinterpret what the author intended to communicate.

In the middle of all the context and structure we see, it would be utterly wrong to pull that lone verse out, and claim that Paul was momentarily changing the subject to establish a model for spiritual heirarchy.

Hmm at this point I fail to see your point Foil. It is in context or by itself also still a statement. Also in context of those very same passages he concludes these things as well:

1 Corinthians:7-8 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man

These being the very reason why men should not have long hair and the women should. He has definitely made a distinction between the 2 and uses these arguments to explain why he wrote:

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Then he adds a however just in case he comes across as that women are lesser heirs:

1 Corinthians:11-12 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

His argument being that since all these statements are true, that is how he has logically concluded that Men should'nt have long hair and women should not shave theirs.

Also he goes on to add:

16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

In other words, he is saying that even though he is making a logical argument, based on the natural order of things, if a woman wants to shave her head or a man to have long hair, its ok by him.

@Zuruck

Yeah Kilarin, I would love to debate but since your side of the topic is completely false, what would the debate be about?

At this point I believe this a literary debate. The debate being, what was the point the author was trying to make when he wrote these things.
Not a debate over whether the Bible is the inspired Word Of God or that God even exists. Which would be a great debate in itself.

Kilarin wrote:... , but you can add more to the conversation than that.

No he obviously can't. You guys are just too optimistic (naive) sometimes.

Foil:
Honest exegesis does not lead us to believe that the husband is not in a position of singular authority and responsibility in the marriage. I purposely left verse 21 out because of the way you like to use it against the later verses.

Verse 21 is applicable without using it to undermine the husbands authority that is pictures immediately following. Verse 21 is very important, but Paul wasn't saying "I really don't mean what I'm about to say." You can't get a much clearer picture of love and authority, as a Christian, than Christ and his church.

It's very clear that a husband is supposed to put the wife even before himself, but that doesn't mean to put the wife's authority up on the same level as his. In my judgment, a wise husband will listen to and welcome the council of a wife in many areas, but when it comes right down to it he is the one responsible for the decision/action. It is not a shared responsibility. That's the way responsibility and authority work.

Flip wrote:I've also tried to make clear that although Christ is the head of all believers, we are equal to him in authority and stature. In the same way is the relationship of husband and wife.

You lost me. Though it may well be said that we are equal, being in him, as the scripture says, yet it certainly does not mean an equality regarding the person themselves--Christ does not do what we say, he is Lord. The church, for instance, is no less His church, for the level of equality the Bible speaks of, and it is correctly under His rule.

Flip wrote:

1 Corinthians 13:4-5 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;
13:5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

If this is not how you are treating your wife, then you have overstepped your bounds and do not understand what spiritual authority is. Its more a position of responsibility than power.

I totally agree with that, though I do wonder at your use of the term "spiritual authority." Is that somehow less real than regular authority?

I would venture to ask you, Flip, who holds the husband responsible for these bounds?

Flip wrote:I can't think of any time the Lord has forced me to do anything. I've always been free to follow my own will

We all have a free will, but Jesus is not really Lord unless we follow Him. In my own experience, and in my knowledge of the experience of past true believers, I know that sometimes there are situational requirements and consequences.

I’m pretty sure the traditional wedding vows my wife and I took were taken from the correct interpretation of scripture, since it was debated by more scholarly people than us.

Those being:

For the man…To Love & Cherish.
And the Woman…To Honor & Obey.

The Bible contains sexism…if it doesn’t suit your needs, adjust your thinking and move on.

/troll

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Honest exegesis does not lead us to believe that the husband is not in a position of singular authority and responsibility in the marriage. I purposely left verse 21 out because of the way you like to use it against the later verses.

Verse 21 is applicable without using it to undermine the husbands authority that is pictures immediately following.

No, I don't put verse 21 up against the rest at all. There's no contradiction whatsoever - verse 21 says "to each other", and the other verses reinforce that.

If anyone is implying there's a contradiction, it's you, Thorne. The fact that you intentionally left out a verse says a lot.

You say you agree that 11:21 commands both to submit, but then you say that it's solely the wife's duty. Which is it?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Verse 21 is very important, but Paul wasn't saying "I really don't mean what I'm about to say." You can't get a much clearer picture of love and authority, as a Christian, than Christ and his church.

Agreed! Paul never retracts himself there at all!

He says "submit to each other", and goes on to specifically address both husband and wife individually. To take the other verses as more important, or to imply that "well, it's really just the wife's duty" completely contradicts the scripture.

That kind of 'pick and choose' interpretation is just plain wrong, and it honestly irks me that people insist on holding to it, when it clearly violates scripture.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It's very clear that a husband is supposed to put the wife even before himself, but that doesn't mean to put the wife's authority up on the same level as his.

Wait a minute. So "submit to each other" doesn't include submitting one's own authority?

Seriously, where are you getting this?

-----------

Yeah, this is one of my 'soap-box' issues. It disturbs me that men who claim to follow Christ insist on holding onto an interpretation which grants them power, when it so clearly runs against not only the example of Christ, but the direct command of scripture.

I thought I made it pretty clear that I understood the lordship of Jesus and him as head of the church.

Yes I should have been more clear here. Jesus is and always will be \"The Lord Jesus Christ only begotten Son of the Father\" My point is that we will be, and are considered now, to be equal with him in all aspects. All that he possesses and all that he is, is ours. That nothing has been withheld. He came and made his self equal to us, so that when he rose we could be made equal to him. Always being mindful that every knee shall bow to his lordship.

My point is this and it also applies to the husband wife relationship

Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

The point being is that we are not slaves told to come and go. We were given full authority in Jesus's name. He said here this is the truth. Now go forth and act in my name. He is not going to tell us every step to make and he trusts us to act according to his will. When Paul or Peter healed, did they stop and pray to the Father for the person to be healed? No they used that authority without asking consent first because they already had consent. it's the same in a husband and wife relationship. The wife need not ask permission for she already possesses your name. We would not expect them to go contrary to our expectations, but I don't think our authority is a unilateral as you suppose.

In fact beyond what is written. In our own constitution women have been giving equal rights to men.

Romans 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

This is where I agree with the others here. When Sin was conceived, part of the curse was that Man would rule over women. But the bible says we are no longer under the curse but under grace. So equal rights for women, a given constitutional right, has to be respected also.

I would also venture to say this. Go ahead and deal a heavy hand to your wife. Would not be long you may be by yourself. I feel completely secure in asking my wife advice and many times her ideas were stronger than mine. I think good judgement and wisdom proves itself each time. Regardless if someone feels an entitlement or not.

All that being said. If there was a severe disagreement between a wife and a husband, the wife has been directed time and time again to submit to his will. He better be right and his decision proved though, or he will probably die a lonely man.

I think I prefer not to make use of my position as the ordained head of my wife, and rather make her a willing equal partner working together for the good of our family.

In fact, by Jesus making us friends instead of slaves, seems he chose to do the very same thing.

What happens when you can’t agree on something? I don’t think marriage is a democracy. In the end someone has to be the head of the household. But hey if it works for you…

Spidey wrote:For the man…To Love & Cherish.
And the Woman…To Honor & Obey.

... Implying the man isn't really required to Honor & Obey, and the woman isn't really required to Love & Cherish?

I sincerely hope that's not your implication, because it flies in the face of Paul's message to married couples.

Spidey wrote:The Bible contains sexism…if it doesn’t suit your needs, adjust your thinking and move on.

If "sexism" = the fact that men and women are very different, as recognized by Paul and the other writers who addressed marriage in light of God's love... then I agree.

If "sexism" = a superior/subservient model of men and women, then you're very very wrong.

It honestly blows my mind that Paul can be writing about harmony and unity, and calling married couples to show the self-sacrificial love of Christ in their relationship... and it gets twisted into something almost completely the opposite. If you can't tell, this has me really riled up.

To submit to one another in the fear of God implies no authority, Foil. If anything, this is an argument for what I said about the husband listening to the council of his wife. They submit to one another because of the fear of God, in the presence of an equally valid authority structure.

They are both true, at the same time, but the first does not grant authority, the second does.

I don't even have to ask where you get it, since you've said in the past that you were a feminist. You ought to look up the history of feminism (even if you don't--and I suspect you don't--completely go along with feminism). Look into it. See where it has it's roots. I'll give you a hint, the roots aren't in the New Testament.

EDIT:

Flip wrote:I thought I made it pretty clear ...

Sorry. Very clear, and I believe I agree.

Spidey wrote:What happens when you can’t agree on something? I don’t think marriage is a democracy. In the end someone has to be the head of the household.

I've heard that argument before, and it doesn't hold water. I was wondering if someone would say it.

The idea that "There has to be a pre-determined person who has the 'final say'" just isn't true, unless you're talking about a dictatorship.

My wife and I discussed our wedding vows and what they implied and we were both comfortable with them. Some people write their own vows, and that’s just fine too.

Yea and by “sexism” I meant your 2nd meaning.

Admin note: some trolling has been cleaned up / removed. In the future, please ignore such trolling -- I have to delete fewer posts that way.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:They are both true, at the same time, but the first does not grant authority, the second does.

Okay, you're going to have to humor me here. Show me how you came to the conclusion that the verse which says "submit to each other" doesn't grant authority, but the verse which says "submit to your husband" does... where do you get that distinction?

You're employing an interpretive method where you 'pick and choose', where some verses mean more than others. And I'm challenging you on it, because that's not only a dangerous way to read scripture, it's completely wrong.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I don't even have to ask where you get it, since you've said in the past that you were a feminist.

Maybe you should have asked me what I meant by the term, because I don't get my views on scripture from social movements. I get my views on social movements from scripture.

I'm well aware of the roots of the movement, and how screwed-up its extremist viewpoints are. I've never associated myself with those.

When I say I'm a 'feminist', I mean nothing more and nothing less than that women hold the same value as men in God's eyes; and that to insist on a 'superior/subservient' structure (whether it be socially, politically, economically, or spiritually) runs contrary to the self-sacrificial nature of God as revealed not only in scripture, but also in Christ Himself.

Spidey wrote:My wife and I discussed our wedding vows and what they implied and we were both comfortable with them.

That's fine.

Please don't misunderstand me. As I said before, I'm not saying a marriage which places the husband as the higher authority is always wrong. My wife and I have friends who have mutually agreed to structure their relationship that way.

However, the idea that "it can't be any other way" is contrary to the message in the Bible, because it implies an inherent superiority of position.

Now you see why religion shouldn’t be in charge of marriage…

I never said that it can’t be any other way…I was just saying that the common interpretation of scripture led to those vows.

As far as “equality” in the Bible…well as I see it there always was a chain of command…you might want to ask a Catholic about that.

That's the thing, Spidey. What I've been trying to point out is that the idea that there's an ordained Woman->Man \"chain of command\" is based on a flawed interpretation of Paul's writings, which ignores the clear meaning of some verses, and skews the relative importance of others.

I realize this is a little off topic, and I hope I’m not completely out of line here, but…

The idea that someone’s interpretation of scripture is the correct one, is one of the very things that drove me out of organized religion.

I understand that without meaning the scriptures are useless, but people tend to see in them what they want to see.

And believe me, I sympathize with you guys especially knowing just how difficult is to decipher scripture. (and I do mean decipher)

But that wasn’t the only reason I left organized religion, or ever the biggest.

Spidey wrote:The idea that someone’s interpretation of scripture is the correct one, is one of the very things that drove me out of organized religion.

To a lot of people, "interpretation" means "I read this and my initial opinion is _______". The idea that someone did that and was "correct" is laughable, particularly when it comes to complex topics.

But to me, "interpretation" is a matter of trying to understand what the author intended to communicate. The words didn't get onto the page by magic or by accident; somebody put them there because they thought those words communicated an idea. The goal of interpretation is to understand, as well as possible, what that idea was (and, as a part of that, to understand how certain or uncertain your conclusions are.) Through careful study of words, grammar, theses, history, and so on -- the things I called "structure" or "context" before -- you can develop fairly solid interpretations. (My wife and I taught a class on the process of interpretation; our materials can be found on our website.)