Then there shouldn't be any difficulty having such conversations in a non-coercive way. So where is the issue, here?
I didn't say there was an issue with presenting the Scriptures in appeal. I said it was necessary. And I posted, according to Scripture the attitude it should be done in.
I'm still not sure that we can say that Eli's example means that today the family patriarch is responsible for the behaviour of his adult sons. Either way, it's really irrelevant to the question of headship in marriage.
It is not irrelevant to the question of headship.
Moreover, you made no comment on the texts regarding the overseer managing his household well, or the positive command to fathers in Ephesians 6. Do those still apply?
I take "hierarchy" in marriage to mean a relationship of control. One person tells another what to do (however nuanced that is).
Says who? "Hierarchy" isn't even a Scriptural term, and it seems to me different people and traditions use it very differently.
The term developed as a theological term, and has most often referred to spiritual authority in the church, or God ordained authorities. But I did mention I think we are using it with different connotations.
There are relationships of unequal authority spelled out in Scripture. And they are spelled out as God's design.
They did, however, consent to operate within the church, its structures, policies, procedures, and so on. They consented to being put in a position where they could be removed.
Barring forced marriage the same applies today to husbands and wives. But of course, it is not just a usual job arrangement. It is a spiritual responsibility, both on the part of the person removed, and the one removing, as they both had obligations, which one did not meet, but the other must take a controlling action in order to meet, for the sake of the victim, for the church and ultimately for Christ.
But on the larger point, this is an example where you think there is a legitimate use of controlling authority that does not just appeal, but can remove others, limit others, involve other authorities to restrain, and these are not abuse, but may even prevent abuse.
This is an example in the church. You have already acknowledged the example of parents and children.
And there is controlling authority by the civil authorities, ordained of God.
You have said you don't see authority differences it in the case of husband and wife. Most of the church for 2,000 years has seen that there is a difference of authority, and have referred to the text as support.
Regarding that authority of the husband, as with all Christian authority, that usually looks like persuasion. There may be very rare instances where it must be more than persuasion, as in the example of physical restraint of a wife who is abusing the children, etc. And yes, a wife may also resort to such force to legitimately resist her husband's authority if he is abusing, and going against God's command. And she may involve other authorities, including civil, in such a case. The point being that there are examples of use of authority, or control, or even force, that Christians do not condemn. So we cannot make blanket statements that all control, or coercion is unethical. There may be cases you have an obligation to exercise control that is unwanted by the person. Church authorities removing an abusing member is such a case, etc.
But in the vast majority of situations certainly Christian leadership, and especially in marriage should not be about control, as I mentioned, and Chrysostom mentioned etc. It should be about unity in the Lord. When someone is out of God's will, and there is disunity, it will almost always involve appeal. And there may be extremely rare cases where control or other authorities are involved (civil etc., also ordained of God).
But my point on the futility of trying to limit headship teaching is that it is stated in the text, and recognized for 2,000 years. We ought to set out the proper bounds of that authority, rather than argue against it.
Which is why it is not so simple as saying just don't teach about headship, or authority, etc.
Which is not at all what I have been saying. I have been saying if you hold to a view of headship/submission which is not abusive, then it's really really necessary to make that really clear and explicit, because most people who hold and advocate those views are promoting something that is to some degree abusive. And if you don't make your position clear, you will be perceived as arguing for those abusive positions.
a. I am not sure that is accurate that most people are promoting something that is abusive. That is your contention. But the situations that produce evil results due to the distortion of the Scriptural teaching are the ones likely to come to your attention, rather than the ones not producing evil results.
b. Every time I preach on these texts I have spelled out the scope, and the limitations, and the nature of delegated authority. And in this thread I tried to speak to you of these things, but you immediately assumed a different position, and seemed to object to any notion of headship that involves differing authority, even when I tried to look at the somewhat, but not perfectly, parallel example of leadership in the church, as a common point of reference for spiritual leadership.
I ought to look at? Seems to me the onus ought to be on the people promoting a particular point of view, to do so clearly and unambiguously.
Yes, you ought to. Since the text does describe submission on the part of the wife to headship of the husband, as the church has understood for 2,000 years, you ought to, in fact, speak of what the text says.
That is my view.
And you can hardly object to me now saying what I think you should teach, according to my view. You have been saying what you think I, and others, should teach throughout the thread, according to your view, which you say is informed by secular research.
And you have even said I am responsible for views that I do not hold, and do not teach, and for all the results of distorted headship teaching by people who twist Scripture, and rape, and break bones, and all the rest, no matter how often I have tried to condemn those things, and say they are not at all in line with the text, or my view.
So if we should not tell others what they should say, then you may want to revisit this strategy you have been employing.
But if we are going to tell others what they should say, then yes, you should certainly say what the text says and the church has believed for 2,000 years.
That is my view.
you have lost your ability to speak to those who might otherwise benefit from your insights regarding abuse within the context of marriage. Because they see it as a Scripture issue.
Anyone who's willing to dismiss abuse "because Scripture" has bigger problems than the way I engage in the discussion.
No one said dismiss abuse. We both believe that God does not ordain abuse. Whatever God says in the Scriptures is holy and just and good. So for those who do look at the Scripture, and see that it speaks of wives submitting to husbands, compared to the church submitting to Christ, and accept that, they are not likely to interpret that as abuse. Becuse it is not abuse.
And if you want to convince them that it is, then you will have to use the standard they look to--God's word, which is from the only true Source of ethics, based on His own Holy Character.
If their view of Scripture is wrong, point it out. But by your own admission, that is not the approach you have taken. You have said you won't address the scripture arguments related to these key passages.
You have indicated that in your view they won't be convinced by Scripture. You have indicated they may be convinced by secular research.
So yes, I think there are some who you have lost the ability to speak to, because you have not addressed particular arguments and views of passages that the church has held for 2,000 years.
Why should they listen to your reading regulated by secular research? Any secular research that is truth will not contradict God's word, in any case. And there is no guarantee of secular research being true. God's word is true.
I never dismissed the idea of husband as head. I said I didn't see that as a relationship of control, but as a question of identity and unity. As I said way back in post #24:
And as pointed out a number of times, by so doing you have taken the one point of similarity that was highlighted in the short simile, and removed it.
Ephesians 5:23-24 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. (NKJV)
Being subject is the specific point made in the verse. And the church for 2000 years has acknowledged that.
And people will continue to acknowlege that, because the text says it.
It is only where it ends for those who have a distorted view.
Nonetheless, that's where it goes. And anyone who wants to provide leadership or teaching in the church, needs to recognise that and work against it, clearly and consistently.
The text itself references limits, and the example of Christ, and of course people who preach the text faithfully will spell that out.
But even when some try to spell it out you insist they mean the distorted view that you associate with all headship, and say they are responsible for all that the distortion leads to.
And of course, you are not sure there is any safe headship. So it would never be spelled out to your satisfaction. Becaue you don't think headship is itself proper.
But headship will continue to be taught, because the text describes it, in connection with submission, and the church has believed it for 2,000 years.
So I am suggesting you reconsider your idea of no safe headship. Christ is our Head, and He is Holy, and Just, and Good, and Loving. Headship, then is good. There is a safe, and a necessary headship.
Now you may again say but husbands are not God. We still agree husbands are not God. But that Holy, and Just and Good and Loving Christ is said to be the example for the headship of the husband. If it were not His will that it be so, the text would not say it. So if you believe your Head is Good, then how can you doubt the prescription inspired by your Head?
My question was, though, if you thought the accountability was equally shared, would you do anything differently to how you do it now?
And my answer discussed that, though perhaps you did not see it that way. A recognition by both parties that one has greater responsibility to lead in a matter does result in different actions. One is head, and one submits. But since the scope of the headship is in imitation of Christ, to lay down one's life, to build up the wife, to love her, and to present her holy, and is based therefore on God's commands, not the husband's, on God's desires for the wife, not the husband's, then that need not be resisted. And when both are in God's will, the authority need not be exercised at all.
Well... that depends what you mean by hierarchy. I do not believe that God establishes relationships of control in marriage. I'm not convinced that there is safe headship.
The Headship of Christ is certainly Holy, Just, Good, and not abusive. And it is Christ the husband is shown to emulate. If Christ did not want it that way, the text would not say it.
Because even now, while having stated that headship is persuasive, not coercive, you still argue for hierarchy in marriage,
As in other relationships, by the design of God.
you still argue for decision making to rest with husbands, and so on. Even your relatively gentle headship still looks to me as if it establishes the conditions in which abuse can flourish.
It is not abuse to love your wife as Christ loved the church. It is not abuse to manage well your household. Just as it is not abuse to manage well the church.
It is not abuse to encourage people to follow, and exemplify what God says to do. And it is not abuse to say that your family will follow what God wants to do. A family following God will not object to that.
And the part of this we have not talked about very much is the other side of the coin; it's all well and good to say that husbands should refrain from being coercive, but what are the wives being told God expects of them? Are they, at the same time, being told that their God-ordained submission means that they must always submit to every husbandly attempt at "persuasion"? Because if so, even that is coercive.
This is the same question answered earlier, but just not perceived to be. If the husband is responisble to see that his family follows the will of the Lord, then yes, of course, you are expected to submit to the will of the Lord. And just as people may not do so when the Lord commands, wives may not do it when the husband persuades, commands, etc. . He still should love his wife. Because that is what the Lord said to do.
If the husband starts commanding his own whims, or contradicts the will of the Lord, etc. then that is beyond what the text said. That is not presenting her without blemish, etc. because that is based on God's will.
Authority from God is delegated, and used according to His will. There is responsibility to God. But such delegated authority does not convey some new power to impose your own will--that is not the point of the authority.
Thanks, but I'll go for something much healthier. Anyone who includes in his argument "Would you have your wife obedient unto you..." and then goes on to argue for how husbands should pursue that, has already lost me.
Then you missed that he indicated husbands should focus on what the Lord is focused on, not treat their wives like slaves, etc. In other words, he spelled out proper bounds of authority.
A Christian husband and father is to manage his household well, as we see in the requirements for an overseer. So yes, he should want his family to obey, because they are obeying God, not the husband's whims. The husband should be using that authority to encourage them to obey God, not the husband's own whims.
And Chrysostom said if you want her to obey, then teach God's principles.
But you won't convince them by saying there is no reference to the husband being head, or the wife submitting.
I have literally never said that. I have carefully explained how I understand both. It would be helpful if you would not actually completely misrepresent what I have said.
You have explained the relation of the two in two distinct ways. You have said:
a. the text definitely describes one way submission--but only because of Roman culture. And therefore, there is no legitimate authority, or submission.
b. The text does not describe one way submission at all.
And the commonality is that you don't think there is a legitimate relationship of headship, with real authority from God, that results in the wife submitting.
But you won't be able to limit that teaching, because the text indicates it, and the church has believed it for 2,000 years.
