Baptists (and others)-- Wives submit to husbands? Wives and husbands equal partners?

[tall73]

The focus of this thread is on wives and husbands; I think getting into the role of parents is a distraction from that.

Since the contention is that the husband and father has a role in managing his household, they are directly related.

Borrowed from Pagan temple practices, which possibly ought to give us pause right there.

Borrowed by the church, which it was used regarding for quite some time, and then borrowed again by other movements.

I am not tied to the term in any case, and I acknowledged we were likely using different connotations. Whichever word you want to use to describe it we see relationships of instituted authority and submission in various relationships in Scripture.

But authority is not the same thing as control. I have no problem with authority.

Most times authority does not require control. But we both acknowledge times of legitimate use of control by those in authority, in rare instances. Which we have documented enough now to move on from that point.

Well, not necessarily. People can come into marriage with very different understandings of what they're consenting to. The oaths and vows clergy make are a lot clearer (although I have certainly had reason to ponder the limits of what it means to obey my bishop "in all things lawful and honest.")

Yes, people do come into marriage with different understandings. I would say part of the solution there is pre-marital counseling that talks through various issues to begin with. Prior to marrying couples I would go through various issues, including how they saw decision making happening, what decision making was used in their household of origin, views on how many children they each had in mind to have, views on disciplining their children, relations with in-laws, views on faith, especially differences in views, to see where there might be signs of future conflict. And in some cases I would not marry the couple if there were serious signs of conflict or spiritual differences. Both should be very aware of the commitment they are making, and the dynamics involved.

Both marriage and oaths taken by clergy are incredibly far-reaching, and need consideration.

And yes, we would talk about views of these texts, and if they had different views. Because different views in religious matters may also correlate with abuse.

I realize we all encounter many people who did not go through such counseling, but it should be more common.

tall73 said:​

​

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.​

But this is not about marriage. It's a completely different thing.

The point of the quote was that there are times where legitimate authority will use control and it will not be wrong.

And we have already discussed an example within marriage where that is also the case.

While I don't see an authority difference, I also don't have an issue with authority. Authority is not control.

Authority is USUALLY not control, except for when it is, and is still not wrong. The above is the sort of blanket statement you have made various times. Then when I point out it is a blanket statement, and that there are legitimate exceptions, you indicate I am still pushing for control.

But you also admit rare exceptions where control is not wrong.

tall73 said:​

So we cannot make blanket statements that all control, or coercion is unethical.​

​

​

Again, I have literally never said this. I have agreed that preventing harm is a necessary exception.

But you do keep using statements such as authority is not control. Yes, authority usually does not require control. But sometimes it does.

And when I mention the exceptions, then you say I am still pushing for control.

We can agree you don't have to mention exceptions every time you state a general principle, as long as you don't then say I am pushing for control when I note such exceptions.

We both push for control in certain circumstances. And all of it is governed by God's will, not that of the husband, or the parent, or the church leader, or even the civil authority.

They all have limits, and scope to authority.

 

[tall73]

The key word there might be "clearly."

When I state delegated authority not based on the husband's will, but God's, that is clear. When I speak of Christ-like behavior, that is clear. Jesus was not raping, beating, belittling, etc.

And whenever you asked for further clarification I gave it. Sometimes having to do so to absurd degrees, mentioning over and over that I don't endorse beatings, etc.

For example, you talked about being Christlike; but that's not at all clear. It could mean almost anything. I've seen people argue that being a Christlike husband includes chastising a wife physically, because "the Lord disciplines those he loves." It leaves one saying, okay, but what is the limit being argued for here?

And I said within the first few posts from you that the text is directly against abuse.

And I noted that such views are of course distortions of the text.

And I remember asking, repeatedly, then what do you mean by headship? And getting some vague stuff about "setting the tone."

No, you got a number of NT texts that spelled out what was meant, where the husband was managing his family according to God's wishes.

If you then take exception to my phrasing, that is missing the point of looking at the texts.

I spelled out a great number of texts in the creation accounts, and despite saying you base your view on all the texts, you wouldn't respond to that material.

Now, I think maybe I could sum up your position as headship is expressed in persuasive (not coercive) efforts to curtail sin and promote godliness in the household (I'm still not clear as to whether you see this as a role expressed by the patriarch through an extended family network not living under the same roof).

I think you could have gotten there a lot sooner if you had discussed the texts and my statements, rather than reading in a different view of headship.

And the husband having the right to make any decision where husband and wife don't agree and he believes something relevant to God's will is at stake.

Fundamental right? No, rather, the responsibility at some point to do so., even if the husband would rather not. And at that point, with such protracted, and unusual disagreement between us, I certainly would rather not.

And even in that case, if you recall, my wife consented to the arrangement. And in some of the cases I granted her side of the question. Had she not agreed to do so, we may have continued discussing, though who knows for how long. But we both agreed to do so, because she recognized my responsibility. Which even though you don't see the difference, is a difference in how things are handled.

But it took an awful lot of interaction, and asking questions, and probing further, to try to get to that point.

All the more because you didn't seem to acknowledge any of the actual points I was making prior, but assuming a different view.

You might have thought you were being clear; to me it was very vague and not at all clear. Not spelling out exactly what conclusions you draw, about what a husband or wife must do, or may not do, because of headship, is not clear.

I spelled out the same principles. But you assumed a different position.

There are only so many times we can say loving your wife like Jesus does not include beating, raping, etc. It is absurd it needs to be said at all. But it was said many times.

It shouldn't take that long to clarify such a straight-forward point, but I still clarified it.

 

[Paidiske]

Authority is USUALLY not control, except for when it is, and is still not wrong. The above is the sort of blanket statement you have made various times. Then when I point out it is a blanket statement, and that there are legitimate exceptions, you indicate I am still pushing for control.

Look, nobody's going to argue that a person in authority (or indeed any person, in authority or not) should, for example, allow child abuse to go on unchecked.

But that kind of argument is really unhelpful in trying to untangle what something like headship means in all the situations where we're not dealing with that kind of obvious, harmful, criminal activity, which is, you know, most days.

But you do keep using statements such as authority is not control. Yes, authority usually does not require control. But sometimes it does.

But that is not what authority is about, in the church or in the home. Yes, if I found out a parishioner was abusing a child I'd intervene. That doesn't mean my authority in the church is primarily about controlling my parishioners; it is not! My authority in the church is primarily about what I am responsible to do; to preach, to administer the sacraments, to declare the forgiveness of sins, and so on.

Similarly, my authority as a parent (which I believe I share equally with my husband) means there are situations I would intervene forcibly to keep my child safe, such as when as a toddler she'd try to run onto the road. But that doesn't mean parenting is primarily about controlling my child; it is not! My authority as a parent is primarily about what I am responsible to do; to nurture this child, to teach her, to equip her to navigate the world as a capable and responsible human being, and so on.

And when I mention the exceptions, then you say I am still pushing for control.

I don't believe I've taken issue with the kind of exception that's intended to prevent harm or criminal activity. Are you able to give me an example of what you mean here?

 

[Paidiske]

When I state delegated authority not based on the husband's will, but God's, that is clear. When I speak of Christ-like behavior, that is clear.

That's really not very clear to me. Especially because it leaves open questions like, who gets to decide what God's will is, and the extent to which it is seen to be operant in various situations? If the husband decides that it's God's will that his wife must always wear skirts to her ankles (just to pick a random example) does that mean she must therefore dress in that way henceforth, because "God's will"? If not, why not? Where is the line?

And I said within the first few posts from you that the text is directly against abuse.

You and I don't even seem to have a shared definition of abuse. In particular, it's not clear to me that you even acknowledge that spiritual abuse is a thing.

No, you got a number of NT texts that spelled out what was meant, where the husband was managing his family according to God's wishes.

But no clear indication of what that means in terms of how people are to live today.

Fundamental right? No, rather, the responsibility at some point to do so.

You say potato... the point is, if "God's will" is somehow seen to be at stake, he gets to decide.

Had she not agreed to do so, we may have continued discussing, though who knows for how long.

But you would argue that in general, a wife should do so, and this is part of how God wants households to operate?

All the more because you didn't seem to acknowledge any of the actual points I was making prior,

You might have thought what you meant was clear, but I'm telling you, it really wasn't.

There are only so many times we can say loving your wife like Jesus does not include beating, raping, etc.

But you never even answered the question about whether it might include financial control. This is what I mean about not being clear about limits. Okay, you agree it doesn't mean beating or raping, (great!), what about all the other forms of coercion? Are they (extreme situations like child abuse aside) off limits, or not?

 

[tall73]

Look, nobody's going to argue that a person in authority (or indeed any person, in authority or not) should, for example, allow child abuse to go on unchecked.

But that kind of argument is really unhelpful in trying to untangle what something like headship means in all the situations where we're not dealing with that kind of obvious, harmful, criminal activity, which is, you know, most days.

Agreed, which is why I have said it is usually not control.

But that is not what authority is about, in the church or in the home. Yes, if I found out a parishioner was abusing a child I'd intervene. That doesn't mean my authority in the church is primarily about controlling my parishioners; it is not! My authority in the church is primarily about what I am responsible to do; to preach, to administer the sacraments, to declare the forgiveness of sins, and so on.

Agreed, and that is why I said it is usually not about control. It is usually persuasive. It is not lording over, etc.

Similarly, my authority as a parent (which I believe I share equally with my husband) means there are situations I would intervene forcibly to keep my child safe, such as when as a toddler she'd try to run onto the road. But that doesn't mean parenting is primarily about controlling my child; it is not!

Exactly. And indeed I have said it is not primarily about such. And even noted that parents can yield to their child's will, submitting, even in that relationship.

My authority as a parent is primarily about what I am responsible to do; to nurture this child, to teach her, to equip her to navigate the world as a capable and responsible human being, and so on.

Teach her what? Navigate the world how? Responsible to whom?

You have a role in teaching her many things, but foremost about all that the Lord commands.

I don't believe I've taken issue with the kind of exception that's intended to prevent harm or criminal activity. Are you able to give me an example of what you mean here?

Of course, you agree when we talk specifics. But then you go back to statements such as:

Even now your position seems to be to want to retain a level of ambiguity, such as the above point where you seem to be back to arguing for control as necessary in headship.

Of course I did. Because that's where this headship-as-control stuff ends up, even if the people promoting it would like to see it stop short of that. It provides the justification and entitlement to men who feel that they have a God-given right to enforce their will, by any means available.

You say I am still pushing for control being necessary.

Yes, in some instances, just as you also think.

But then you also go on again to say headship always leads to the most severe abuse, again relating that to my position.

 

[Paidiske]

Of course, you agree when we talk specifics. But then you go back to statements such as:

As I follow the discussion there, it went like this:

I said in post #596: "What I'm denying is that [the language of "head" in the NT] sets up a hierarchy of power and control, particularly between a husband and wife."

You said in post #597: "It says it directly in relation to the husband and wife."

I said in post #600: "Even now your position seems to be to want to retain a level of ambiguity, such as the above point where you seem to be back to arguing for control as necessary in headship."

How am I to understand your comment - in response to my comment - except as saying that the NT says directly that there is a hierarchy of power and control between a husband and wife? If that's not what you meant, what did you mean? How is that not an argument for control?

But then you also go on again to say headship always leads to the most severe abuse, again relating that to my position.

Always? No. But too often. And yes, the more extreme positions draw justification from the arguments of the more moderate.

 

[tall73]

That's really not very clear to me. Especially because it leaves open questions like, who gets to decide what God's will is, and the extent to which it is seen to be operant in various situations? If the husband decides that it's God's will that his wife must always wear skirts to her ankles (just to pick a random example) does that mean she must therefore dress in that way henceforth, because "God's will"? If not, why not? Where is the line?

It is impossible to spell out every scenario in the first few posts. But even when trying to spell out specifics you argued my view would only lead to all the worst abuses anyway, and you kept attributing to my view things I never said, or specifically denied.

And in the meantime, you have stated you intentionally did not address various Scripture arguments, strategically chose your responses, etc. You have said you have a very Scriptural view, but won't share it. Don't you have some obligation to spell out that accurate view, if you want us to spell out every aspect you might think of?

The reality is you were never going to accept any view as being clear enough, because you have said you see no safe headship. And you base that on aspects other than Scripture.

You and I don't even seem to have a shared definition of abuse. In particular, it's not clear to me that you even acknowledge that spiritual abuse is a thing.

I tried to get you to address that divide for some time, but you kept returning to breaking of bones etc.

And when we did discuss it, we agreed that if you are following Galatians 6:1 there is no issue.

However, I CERTAINLY disagree with your statements that the inspired Scriptures may have included spiritual abuse by Paul etc. We disagree on that one hundred percent.

You say potato... the point is, if "God's will" is somehow seen to be at stake, he gets to decide.

Sorry, but the "somehow" you reference over and over again is the pathological distortion of the text to excuse the most disgusting and vile things. Even courtrooms have a standard of a prudent person's interpretation. But you say we have to accept even the most demented reading as a real valid, reading because some depraved person claimed to go by it. That is ridiculous.

There are real warnings in the Scriptures. There really are readings that are not supportable by the text.

But you never even answered the question about whether it might include financial control. This is what I mean about not being clear about limits.

I indicated that we share our finances. No I don't think a husband should control all the finances. And I said he shouldn't micro-manage. They should both agree on what spending might look like. And we certainly do that, because, we rarely had enough to spend any extra anyway. We basically paid the bills.

But as with any situation, there are extreme exceptions that might justify control, or even the wife engaging civil authorities to control the husband's finances, again if it were directed at harm of others, etc.

That doesn't make it the rule.

Okay, you agree it doesn't mean beating or raping, (great!), what about all the other forms of coercion? Are they (extreme situations like child abuse aside) off limits, or not?

We have already discussed it. And the fact that you keep saying we haven't is simply you never accepting a safe headship.

I acknowledge the uses of control in my understanding are in fact extremes, and remote possibilities.

You indicate that the worst depraved abuses are natural outflow of any headship teaching. That is not the case.

Christ is Head. And the husband's headship was to imitate that. And If the husband's headship imitated it, then it would not be abusive at all. It would be safe.

Now if you say that the example of Christ is not good enough, then you are saying God didn't give enough information to go on. He clearly did. He clearly did think that explaining to love your wife like Christ loved her was actually meaningful. That it was a counter to the various extreme abuses, but more than a counter to abuses, a positive example of the proper way to live as a husband.

I will not strip the text of any meaning by doing as you do, and saying any debased, abuse-enabling definition is a valid reading.

It is not a valid reading to say that a husband should love his wife as Christ loved the church by ordering her around on matters unrelated to God's commands, removing any freedom in finances etc.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:

But then you also go on again to say headship always leads to the most severe abuse, again relating that to my position.

Always? No. But too often. And yes, the more extreme positions draw justification from the arguments of the more moderate.

And we are right back to you claiming that people saying repeatedly we shouldn't break bones, REALLY means we should definitely, definitely break bones.

No. It doesn't.

The person who is using the text to say the exact opposite of what it says, and using the arguments of people who say the exact opposite of what they are doing, is NOT legitimately depending on the text, or those other views. It is excuse making.

But more to the point, there is certainly abuse among egalitarian couples, including Christian egalitarian couples. Abuse is a sin issue.

And sometimes it is also a pattern for the one being abused that they have not learned to respond properly to, often because of prior trauma.

In one case, for instance, someone I knew well experienced abuse in their own family of origin. Then, though in theory being Christian, egalitarian, and quite assertive, continued in an abusive dating relationship, even though we pleaded with her to not do so, and to involve the authorities. Then, against our advice, married another abusive man, even though there was now a child involved, bringing the abusive man closer to the child. And then after that fell apart, unsurprisingly, after further abuse, wanted me to conduct the service for another man, who had vast issues, different religious views, and who everyone in the family who was around him at all said he was off, and creepy, and disrespectful. I refused to conduct the service, which was not a popular step. But again he abused her, and left her to live with some other lady afterwards.

Now was that about headship? Neither claimed it. They both claimed Christianity. There are dynamics that go beyond headship in abuse.

And there is headship that is NOT abusive. Jesus is Head, and he is not abusive. And the husband was told to imitate Him.

This would be like saying that we should not have clergy, because clergy have too often abused, and the clergy relationship leads to too much opportunity to abuse.

No, we have to spell out proper roles for clergy, safeguards, etc.

 

[tall73]

As I follow the discussion there, it went like this:

I said in post #596: "What I'm denying is that [the language of "head" in the NT] sets up a hierarchy of power and control, particularly between a husband and wife."

You said in post #597: "It says it directly in relation to the husband and wife."

I said in post #600: "Even now your position seems to be to want to retain a level of ambiguity, such as the above point where you seem to be back to arguing for control as necessary in headship."

How am I to understand your comment - in response to my comment - except as saying that the NT says directly that there is a hierarchy of power and control between a husband and wife? If that's not what you meant, what did you mean? How is that not an argument for control?

Actually, I agree, that is not a good example on my part, because, as I explained later, I was primarily looking at the hierarchy element, etc.

 

[Paidiske]

Don't you have some obligation to spell out that accurate view, if you want us to spell out every aspect you might think of?

From where I'm sitting, you're arguing for headship, and you can't even tell me exactly what you do and don't mean by it.

The reality is you were never going to accept any view as being clear enough,

No, that's not the reality. Here is what I would find clear enough.

- What does your understanding of headship/submission in marriage mean a husband must do? A wife must do?
- What does it mean a husband may not do? A wife may not do?

Specifically in relation to issues of decision making, control, power, and so on.

because you have said you see no safe headship.

I have never seen a model of one-sided headship/submission, which was put to me in a way which I believed to be completely safe and free from abuse, no.

I'm open to seeing it, if someone wants to tell me they have such a model, but so far I have not seen it.

I tried to get you to address that divide for some time, but you kept returning to breaking of bones etc.

And when we did discuss it, we agreed that if you are following Galatians 6:1 there is no issue.

That doesn't answer the question!

Sorry, but the "somehow" you reference over and over again is the pathological distortion of the text to excuse the most disgusting and vile things.

Well then tell me where the line is! What does he, or does he not, get to control, because he believes it's God's will?

You've said that you believe a husband should have the right - ahem, the responsibility - to make a decision when husband and wife disagree, and he believes God's will is at stake. If that has limits, what are they, in your view?

They should both agree on what spending might look like.

Except when it might be God's will, and then he gets to decide?

I don't think you quite got what my question was aiming at, which was not whether the husband controls the finances, but using finances to control the wife, but the principle you've stated here would work against that.

And the fact that you keep saying we haven't is simply you never accepting a safe headship.

Here is the lack of safety I see in your stated position at the moment. A genuinely good man, loving his wife and children, operating within your model, is probably not unsafe. But not every man is equally good. And if a man is given the power to make any decision with which his wife disagrees, simply by claiming that it's a matter in which God's will is at stake, and his wife is told that it's God's will that in such situations she must submit...

That is not a safe situation. And I am not seeing you build in any limits or safeguards around that.

For example, one simple safeguard might be, if husband and wife disagree, and he wants to invoke his right - ahem, responsbility - to make the decision, he must secure the agreement of an independent outsider that this is a situation in which God's will is actually at stake. And that outsider must not be the sort of pastor who believes that a wife is in rebellion just for disagreeing with her husband, so God's will is always that she submit, so this is automatically a "God's will" argument.

You indicate that the worst depraved abuses are natural outflow of any headship teaching.

That's really not what I'm saying.

Now if you say that the example of Christ is not good enough, then you are saying God didn't give enough information to go on.

Not exactly. I'm saying that just saying "a husband should be like Christ" is so vague as to be open to far too broad a range of interpretations. As I said, I've seen people - yes plural - argue that a husband being like Christ means he should physically chastise his wife. I am not saying you are arguing for that! But I am saying, if you want to argue for headship as being like Christ, then it needs to be a bit more specific.

"A husband should be like Christ in xyz specific ways" would be better. "A husband should be like Christ in xyz specific ways, and that means he will never do abc," would be even better.

 

[Paidiske]

And we are right back to you claiming that people saying repeatedly we shouldn't break bones, REALLY means we should definitely, definitely break bones.

No, that is NOT what I am saying.

We know that particular attitudes drive abuse. And we also know that discourse that legitimates those attitudes, about gender roles and hierarchy, power and control, even from people who absolutely do not approve of abuse, contributes to the normalising of those attitudes and therefore the level of abuse on a societal level.

Picture beliefs about power and control in marriage on a spectrum. At one end (of this side of the argument), we might have a position like yours; power and control is limited in its scope and purpose and only to be used in very particular situations. At the other end, we have the guy who feels justified to beat his wife because she "defied" him by being too slow to get breakfast. (Yes, I'm painting an absurd extreme to make a point).

But the other guy looks to people like you - and people just a bit further on the spectrum than you, but still only "lightly" abusive - and he says, (perhaps subconsciously), See, these guys agree with me that my wife should submit; that I should be the head of the household; that there is real God ordained hierarchy and authority here; and so on.

Your position, or those like it, especially when expressed in an un-nuanced or careless way, provides justification for his underlying beliefs about hierarchy, power, control, gender roles. He can turn around and say, "See, the Bible says! See, the church has said for 2,000 years!" And so on.

Am I accusing you of agreeing with him? No. I am saying that "soft" complementarians provide an environment in which abusive complementarians are at best unchallenged, and at worst encouraged, in their underlying views. That all the talk about headship, hierarchy, authority, submission, and so on, if not put forward in a way which deliberately strips it of all abusive potential, contributes to a wider social discourse in which abusive attitudes and behaviours are normalised.

I'm not saying you're secretly supporting wife-beating. I'm saying the wife beater would read all the stuff about headship, submission, hierarchy and authority, and feel justified in continuing his wife beating.

 

[tall73]

I'm not just speaking of what I see in my pastoral role. I was a teenager in a pew once (in a church that peddled this patriarchal control stuff). It took me a long time to recognise just how bad it was, and how much I needed to get away (ironically, after I was married and they were trying to tell me to submit to my husband in a way my husband never wanted or expected!) I've seen it lived out in mainstream, ordinary settings where the people involved don't think they're being abusive... but the harm they're doing is profound.

Yes, I have seen it too, both in public settings, apart from ministry, and in ministering to couples, etc. where the husband was controlling, irrationally jealous, etc. abusive, etc.

Again, my view does not deny abuse. My view denies that headship is always abuse. Or that abuse is primarily about that particular dynamic. Even in your view there was a three legged stool involved. And there are often various other factors besides those three.

But not all headship is abusive.

I have been arguing that all of us who teach should take extreme care to avoid any harm arising from our teachings.

Yes.

But then, once you have stated what you don't mean some 50 times, it is not your fault when someone does what they want anyway.

And it is also important not to throw out Scriptural principles because there can be abuse.

We don't throw out overseers because some abuse.

We don't throw out civil authorities because some abuse

We don't throw out parenthood because some abuse.

Obviously we disagree on husbands and wives ins respect to authority. I point out the other examples to illustrate the larger principle.

I have said that all of us are responsible for the way we contribute to the wider conversation on these issues. Including myself. I am not blaming you; it is not personal; but it is trying to get across that if the way we speak (or the issues on which we are silent) contribute to abuse, that is a problem we as the church need to be aware of and address!

No, it is personal when you say any headship teaching leads to abuse, and justifies the extremes, because you are saying that we are responsible for promoting abuse. You are not saying you are responsible for abuse.

But you are saying we are, even when the abuse is the exact opposite of what we say over and over is correct. That is personal, and it is incorrect. We are not promoting abuse when we say to follow the example of Christ. And Christ's example is not meaningless. And it is certainly not abuse.

Lol. I am being persuasive (or at least attempting to). Nobody in this discussion has any leverage to be coercive to another.

No one said we did have leverage. I said if you are going to tell me what I should do, then you can't take exception if I tell you what you should do.

I am happy to say what the text says. I am happy to discuss the reception history of the text. But I believe the church has often got it wrong on these texts, so I'm hardly going to say that reception history has been infallible.

But you are NOT, by your own admission, happy to say what the text says here.

You said you don't think the other side will be convinced by Scripture arguments. You said they are not important to your view. Those were your words. It was your strategy.

So whatever you think of me, or my approach, or any of the rest of it, you are NOT happy to talk about the text here. And if you truly believe you have the correct Scriptural view, and the church had the incorrect one for 2,000 years, then your keeping it secret because of how I asked is allowing people to not have that truth!

That's pretty much what it boils down to, though. What is losing the "ability to speak" to some people other than those people dismissing what is being said, and refusing to listen?

I am saying if you are not willing to look at Scripture, you lose the right to talk to those who go by Scripture. Because they don't go by your standard.

And according to your statements, it is not even because you don't have the Scripture answers. You are a minister, claiming a truth the church has gotten wrong for 2,000 years.

If you want to then talk to them, speak about the Scriptures, and don't say you will avoid the particular arguments in texts that talk about husband and wives relating in the NT.

In this thread. Where I was being belittled and facing personal accusations.

Accusations that you would not address the text. Which you then said outright was your strategy. I said I misunderstood in that I thought it was for some other reason. But it was still your choice not to address it.

And as you said, we can't compel. You don't have to share it. But I cannot at all see why you would claim to have this truth and not share it. And if it just because I asked for it wrongly--come on! You should have just put it right at the beginning before I said anything! But you didn't ,because of strategy, as you said.

If I have an obligation to spell out every aspect of my view by Scripture, do you not have any obligation at all to spell out the truth you have, but won't share? What about for those reading along?

I have no interest in having these discussions with someone who doesn't engage with actual mutual respect.

Then by all means, you could have started your own thread all along , as was suggested at multiple points.

I would not call your strategy, or blaming me for abuse respectful either, though you certainly think it is. But I have still tried to discuss the text whenever you were willing.

If nothing else, go start a thread in the egalitarian section spelling out these views, where I could not respond anyway. But to claim it is just because of me that you won't state your true, revolutionary, church reforming views, is becoming rather difficult to believe.

 

[tall73]

There is real change happening. There are churches, scholars, movements, resources, which now set out something much healthier than what the church has taught and practiced for much of its history. I know which side of that I believe God to be at work in, and I am content to take my place within that.

But you won't talk about it here.

Or point people here to where you could talk about without me even having access to post.

What good are you doing people who actually want to know about this change?

 

[Paidiske]

But then, once you have stated what you don't mean some 50 times, it is not your fault when someone does what they want anyway.

I'm not saying it's any one person's fault.

No, it is personal when you say any headship teaching leads to abuse, and justifies the extremes, because you are saying that we are responsible for promoting abuse.

I am sorry that you are taking it personally, because I do not intend it personally. I intend my comments as a cultural critique.

I have also not said that "any headship teaching leads to abuse." I have spoken particularly of dynamics of rigid gender roles, hierarchy, power and control, and said that if headship can be expressed without that, it would not be abusive. But that the onus is then on people promoting headship, to make that very important distinction incredibly clear, because that is not how most people understand "headship."

I would not call your strategy, or blaming me for abuse respectful either,

I. Am. Not. Blaming. You. Pointing out how particular ideas feed into abuse is not blaming anyone for that abuse.

But to claim it is just because of me that you won't state your true, revolutionary, church reforming views, is becoming rather difficult to believe.

You might not understand this, but your manner is sometimes very difficult to engage with. Every time I get a reply or come into this thread, it is with a heightened physiological fight/flight response, which I have to work through. The toll that takes is considerable. I do not find this discussion one I want to engage with beyond what is absolutely necessary (in my view).

I am considering whether I want to try to put together a systematic presentation of an egalitarian view and post it somewhere else. I have not had time to do that, and I am not sure whether I wish to do that, or whether I feel it's necessary, when it's not as if such presentations are not readily at the fingertips of anyone who can use google.

 

[tall73]

Here is the lack of safety I see in your stated position at the moment. A genuinely good man, loving his wife and children, operating within your model, is probably not unsafe. But not every man is equally good.

And this is what @ValeriyK2022 has tried to point out a number of times. You cannot make a system where a distinctly bad man is good. Because the bad man won't follow the good system.

And at the same time, it is also true, that there is no perfect Christian. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves. But the text still says follow the example of Christ. That is not meaningless. The Spirit inspired it because it had meaning. And it is not just based on spelling out every eventuality, as though a wicked person would care even if you did. Because Christian theology is not just "what would Jesus do", despite the popular product line. But it is God working in you to will and to do according to His good pleasure. It is the Spirit bearing fruit. So saying that the example of Christ isn't good enough misses the point. The surrounding sections talk about something beyond just an example.

Ephesians 4: 22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness. (NKJV)​

​

We are to put off the old man. We are to put on the new. We are to walk in the Spirit. You cannot both walk in the Spirit and do the works of the flesh at the same time. If you are walking in the Spirit you are NOT abusing your wife. If Christ is at work in you, He is not abusing your wife through you.

If you have someone consistently not walking in the Spirit, then you will get the works of the flesh, no matter what system they claim.

There are Christians, who claim to be egalitarian, who abuse. Why didn't egalitarian views keep them from abusing? Because a man living in the flesh won't be restrained by egalitarian views.

The power of the Christian life is the Spirit, God living in you. And there is no substitute.

So saying men are not good--very much agreed. But God is good, and if we walk in the Spirit we will bear the fruit of the Spirit. And that is certainly not abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

And this is what @ValeriyK2022 has tried to point out a number of times. You cannot make a system where a distinctly bad man is good. Because the bad man won't follow the good system.

But you can make a system that limits his ability to abuse. If he shouldn't be abusing, coercing, controlling, anyway, why not explictly remove that ability?

 

[tall73]

Am I accusing you of agreeing with him? No. I am saying that "soft" complementarians provide an environment in which abusive complementarians are at best unchallenged, and at worst encouraged, in their underlying views. That all the talk about headship, hierarchy, authority, submission, and so on, if not put forward in a way which deliberately strips it of all abusive potential, contributes to a wider social discourse in which abusive attitudes and behaviours are normalised.

I'm not saying you're secretly supporting wife-beating. I'm saying the wife beater would read all the stuff about headship, submission, hierarchy and authority, and feel justified in continuing his wife beating.

If I say that you should not beat your wife, the person who then takes that as support to beat his wife is quite out of touch with reality.

By the same argument you have put forward here I could say that any spiritual leadership is abuse. After all, ministers have a long history of abuse. We have all seen abusive ministers.

And sure, some may only abuse a little, but by talking about overseers, and yielding, and authority, and being called by God and such they encourage the abusive ones. They are encouraged to abuse by any talk of authority for an overseer. Think of overseers as a continuum. You have the really careful ones, who nonetheless admit they have made mistakes and try to fix them. And then you have the ones who take their arguments and use them to be abusive.

The only safe solution is to get rid of overseers. Then we won't have the opportunity for abuse. To support the notion of an overseer is to promote abuse.

 

[tall73]

But you can make a system that limits his ability to abuse. If he shouldn't be abusing, coercing, controlling, anyway, why not explictly remove that ability?

There is no system that limits his ability to abuse. He either is, or is not, convinced of headship,. And he (or even she, but it is more rare) could abuse either way.

The fact of abusing has a lot more to do with whether he is walking in the Spirit, as opposed to doing the works of the flesh.

 

[Paidiske]

If I say that you should not beat your wife, the person who then takes that as support to beat his wife is quite out of touch with reality.

Again, that's really not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that when people speak about hierarchy, authority, headship, submission, and so on - and they don't qualify all of those things in ways which exclude any control, any abuse, any coercion, and so on - the abusive person just hears their own beliefs being normalised. Not because your positions are the same, but because the differences are not being made sufficiently explicit.

And sure, some may only abuse a little, but by talking about overseers, and yielding, and authority, and being called by God and such they encourage the abusive ones.

Well, yes. If we talk about authority, and yielding, and put leaders on a pedestal, and encourage hierarchy and clericalism, and disempower congregation members, rather than always putting the focus on the limits of these things, and how leaders are not there to control, and how we encourage people to think for themselves, to be free to explore ideas and disagree, and so on, yes. We do foster abuse.

It does indeed happen in the church too.

 

[Paidiske]

There is no system that limits his ability to abuse.

I disagree. For example, a system in which he doesn't get automatic decision making rights, limits his ability to abuse.