Baptist views on feminism

[DeaconDean]

Friends, brothers, sisters, I am posting this in hopes that you will not think of me as one of those male chauvenists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I felt that further clarification was needed.

Notwithstanding the comments of the Liberals in this thread, I thought on this from my last post earlier this morning.

The picture we see in Col. 3:18-19, (My bad, I gave the wrong scripture reference earlier, I apologize) needs to be filtered through the scriptures.

I know for some, the scriptures don't mean that much. What said nearly 2000 years ago was to another people, under another set of social circumstances. But I disagree.

The marriage spoken of here in Colossians, is the same one in which God said to Israel. See here:

"For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called." -Isa. 54:5 (KJV)

God is the husband, we are His wife.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament speaks of the word "bride" in this fashion:

The allegorical use of the bridegroom/bride imagery occurs first in 2 Cor. 11:2: "ζηλῶ γὰρ ὑμᾶς θεοῦ ζήλῳ, ἡρμοσάμην γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἑνὶ ἀνδρὶ παρθένον ἁγνὴν παραστῆσαι τῷ Χριστῷ:". Describing his apostolic office, Paul compares the community with a bride, Christ with the bridegroom, and himself as the best man who has won the bride, who watches over her virginity, and who will lead her to the bridegroom at the wedding. The image is further developed in Eph. 5:22-33. The saying in Gen. 2:24 concerning the union of man and wife is referred in verse 31 to the union (at the parousia) of Christ the bridegroom, who leaves heaven and comes for His bride, and the community.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Translator, Eerdmans Publishing Company, Copyright 1964, Volume IV, νύμφην, Section C, The Development of the Allegory Christ/Bridegroom, Christ-Community/Bride, Apostle Best Man, p. 1004-1005

If we are united to, married to, Christ, and we are to submit to His perfect will, why should not the wife render such to her husband?

My favorite Southern Gospel singing group "The Inspirations" sung this song which sums it well:

You're invited to a wedding that will be held soon
We are the bride, Christ is the groom.
With a crown to wear and a long white robe
We'll walk down the aisle made of pure gold.


CHORUS: What is your answer, how will you respond?
The groom is asking the bride to come.
And the supper will be in heaven, our new home above
Here's a wedding invitation He's sending with love.

If Daniel can live in the lion's den
If the fire couldn't touch three Hebrew children
If Lazarus can make it out of the grave,
You and I can go by way of the saved.

CHORUS:

It is our duty as Christians, as the bride of Christ, to "submit" to Him. It is the pattern we are to follow, and the marriage of a man to the wife, is set after the pattern God set.

WE are to submit to Him, and it is His duty to love us. And God said He would:

"The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee." -Jer. 31:3 (KJV)

Joseph Prince, once again I was reading that book again last night after my previous discussion here, and he pointed out that some have not experienced the grace of God fully for if they had:

Sin loses its appeal when you encounter the Person of grace, Jesus Christ, and you realize all that He has blessed you with and done for you on the cross. You begin to realize that you have been given this great gift of righteousness and that you did nothing to deserve it. You did nothing to earn it and you did nothing to merit it. Now what happens? Does this encounter with Christ cause you to want to go out and sin? Of course not! On the contrary (Emphais here mine, now listen well!) it will cause you to fall in love with Jesus all over again. It will make you a better husband, a better father, a better housewife, a better student.

Joseph Prince, Destined to Reign, Harrison House Publishers, P.O. Box 35035, Tulsa, Ok., 74153, Controversies Surronding the Gospel of Christ, p. 30-31

Christ is the Bridegroom, we are the bride. God is our husband, and if we are to submit to Him, it makes no sense that God would not model the marriage after His pattern.

And again, the meaning of the Greek word "ὑποτασσόμενοι" does not mean to "lord over". From the Theological Dictionary we read:

The remaining use of "upotassesqai" in NT exhortation suggests that the general rule demands readiness to renounce one's own will for the sake of others...for the demand now has a specific Christian basis, Col. 3:18; 1 Pt. 2:13; Eph. 5:21 f.; cf. Eph 5:24; as the community is subject to Christ.

Ibid, "upotassw", Vol. VIII, p. 45

One more thought and I'll go.

"Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you." -Acts 13:41 (KJV)

Joseph Prince comments here:

Thus it is clear that when you preach the same good news that Paul preached, it doesn't mean that everybody will be united and say 'Hallelujah!' There will be those who would want to kick you out of their cities and say all kinds of things to assassinate your character. But just because there was division, it certainly did not mean that what Paul preached was not true. That is precisely why Paul warned that even when God declares something so good, there will those who refuse to believe - "though a man declare it unto you." That is why the gospel Paul preached is not a man-pleasing gospel.

Ibid, p. 85

Edie, I remember what you said earlier:

I guarantee - if husbands uphold this part, submission on the woman's part is a non-issue

Having said my peace, I'll go in peace.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[mlqurgw]

If a rule is unequal and illogical, why follow it?

God is a logical being, so it follows that His commandments should be logical. Assuming that's true, why is this commandment so illogical?
Ringo

It isn't logical to you because you don't like it and need an excuse. Who made you the great arbiter of logic? Actually it is very logical. First: submission is part of the curse upon Eve along with pain in childbearing. Second: As Dean has pointed out marriage is a picture of Christ and the church, His Bride. We are to be submissive to Him as a wife is to be submissive to her husband. Third: It makes sense that there can't be two heads. Whatever has two heads is a monster. Show me any relationship between people and I will show you that one of them is dominant. It is just natural. Fourth: It actually works well. Ask any wife who is submissive to her husband and whose husband loves her and she will tell you that she wouldn't have it any other way.
Whether you agree with the logic of it makes no difference it is logical and Biblical.

Edit to add additional commnent: Your claim of it being unequal is nonsense as well. Show me any relationship that is equal. No two people are equal. Each has areas of superiority that makes them different. Equality demands that each be exactly alike. Your so -called logic is flawed at its very core.

 

[Ringo84]

Notwithstanding the comments of the Liberals in this thread, I thought on this from my last post earlier this morning.

Quote-unquote "liberals" or simply Christians asking honest questions?

"For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called." -Isa. 54:5 (KJV)

God is the husband, we are His wife.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament speaks of the word "bride" in this fashion:

That's only a metaphor to describe marriage. Men aren't God. Women aren't all humans. Marriage requires a different type of sacrifice and submission - from both parties - than the sacrifice and submission between God and humankind.

It is our duty as Christians, as the bride of Christ, to "submit" to Him. It is the pattern we are to follow, and the marriage of a man to the wife, is set after the pattern God set.

WE are to submit to Him, and it is His duty to love us. And God said He would:

"The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee." -Jer. 31:3 (KJV)

We are to submit to God because He is a higher authority and power. Men are not. They are women's equals.

It isn't logical to you because you don't like it and need an excuse.

No. It isn't logical to me because the belief that women should disproportionately submit to men is illogical and unreasonable.

Who made you the great arbiter of logic?

I never claimed to be any Great Arbiter of Logic. I am simply asking honest questions.

First: submission is part of the curse upon Eve along with pain in childbearing.

Because of a probably metaphorical story about a woman that supposedly existed eons ago, women are to submit?

Second: As Dean has pointed out marriage is a picture of Christ and the church, His Bride. We are to be submissive to Him as a wife is to be submissive to her husband.

That's only one metaphor used to understand marriage. True marriage requires a different kind of sacrifice and submission from both parties than that.

Third: It makes sense that there can't be two heads. Whatever has two heads is a monster. Show me any relationship between people and I will show you that one of them is dominant. It is just natural.

Oh? Because at my workplace, all of us "grunts" are coequal to each other in function. There has never been a problem with that type of system before.

Fourth: It actually works well. Ask any wife who is submissive to her husband and whose husband loves her and she will tell you that she wouldn't have it any other way.

Why should she be asked to submit to her husband, but the husband isn't asked to submit to her? Marriage isn't a one-way street where one spouse does all the work. Both spouses have to submit to one another in love for a marriage to work.

Whether you agree with the logic of it makes no difference it is logical and Biblical.

I see no logic in it at all. The whole "women should submit" doctrine seems, to me, to be a golden idol among some Christians: poorly understood, but vigorously defended as The Only Way Men And Women Can Exist Together.

Edit to add additional commnent: Your claim of it being unequal is nonsense as well. Show me any relationship that is equal.

There are many relationships where two people are at an even keel with each other. Just because inequality exists doesn't mean that there's any logic in asking for women to submit but not asking for the same from men.

Each has areas of superiority that makes them different. Equality demands that each be exactly alike. Your so -called logic is flawed at its very core.

That's not true. Have Christians not always said that men and women are perfect for one another because they complement the other - that women's strengths coincide well where there are weaknesses in men, and men's strengths coincide well where there are weaknesses in women? I'm not identical to you in any way, but I am equal to you both under the law and under God.

Your so -called logic is flawed at its very core.

My logic is "flawed at its very core", but I'm not the one who claimed that people must be identical to be equal.
Ringo

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Have Christians not always said that men and women are perfect for one another because they complement the other - that women's strengths coincide well where there are weaknesses in men, and men's strengths coincide well where there are weaknesses in women?

I'm not sure...have we?
That sounds very secular and not biblical IMHO.

 

[Ringo84]

I'm not sure...have we?
That sounds very secular and not biblical IMHO.

How is that "secular"? Women have strengths that men don't have have. Men have strengths that women don't have. Both genders complement the other with their strengths and weaknesses.
Ringo

 

[NowIAmFound]

I have my own career and I have my own opinion. But God set the home up to have the husband as head. We discuss, but the ultimate decision is his. The good thing is that I have one that regards my advice, and respects what i think, even if on occasion he chooses to take our family in a different direction.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

How is that "secular"? Women have strengths that men don't have have. Men have strengths that women don't have. Both genders complement the other with their strengths and weaknesses.
Ringo

I'm asking you to find me a scripture making that entire point relevant here. If you cannot then it's a secular attitude.
Simple.

 

[Ringo84]

I'm asking you to find me a scripture making that entire point relevant here. If you cannot then it's a secular attitude.

Are you serious? You think that the belief that men and women complete each other with complementary strengths and weaknesses is "secular"?

I have my own career and I have my own opinion. But God set the home up to have the husband as head. We discuss, but the ultimate decision is his. The good thing is that I have one that regards my advice, and respects what i think, even if on occasion he chooses to take our family in a different direction.

Why is your husband the head? What special abilit(y/ies) endows him with the ability to make decisions for your family?
Ringo

 

[eldermike]

How is that "secular"? Women have strengths that men don't have have. Men have strengths that women don't have. Both genders complement the other with their strengths and weaknesses.
Ringo

Perfect explanation of how Satan got them to eat from the wrong tree.

Our strength comes from God, the man and woman become one, not two with different strengths and weaknesses. and; Your strengths will not overcome your weaknesses, and there is no logic behind the idea that your weaknesses will be replaced by somone else who is also fighting against their own weaknesses.

 

[Ringo84]

Perfect explanation of how Satan got them to eat from the wrong tree.

Our strength comes from God, the man and woman become one, not two with different strengths and weaknesses. and; Your strengths will not overcome your weaknesses, and there is no logic behind the idea that your weaknesses will be replaced by somone else who is also fighting against their own weaknesses.

Ecclestiastes 4:9-11

"9 Two are better than one,
because they have a good return for their work: 10 If one falls down,
his friend can help him up.
But pity the man who falls
and has no one to help him up!
11 Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm.
But how can one keep warm alone?"


While this verse isn't specifically talking about husband and wife, the same idea applies: that the entire idea of having a partner or a spouse is to help you when you've fallen. If the husband is wrong, his wife can set him straight. If the wife is wrong, the husband can set her straight. That's what marriage is - or should be - all about.
Ringo

 

[eldermike]

Ecclestiastes 4:9-11


While this verse isn't specifically talking about husband and wife, the same idea applies:Ringo

The thing you have right here; is isn't about marriage.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Perfect explanation of how Satan got them to eat from the wrong tree.

Our strength comes from God, the man and woman become one, not two with different strengths and weaknesses. and; Your strengths will not overcome your weaknesses, and there is no logic behind the idea that your weaknesses will be replaced by somone else who is also fighting against their own weaknesses.

Thankyou!

IMHO what is being proposed by Ringo84 is a secular and purely humanist way of looking at marriage....not biblical, not christian.

 

[mlqurgw]

Ringo, how long have you been married? I have been married to the same woman for 36 years now so I do know a little something about marriage.

 

[Ringo84]

The thing you have right here; is isn't about marriage.

It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't about marriage. Men and women complement the other's strengths and weaknesses. What strengths men may lack in some areas, women bring to the relationship. What strengths women may lack in some areas, men bring to the relationship. I hardly see that as a revolutionary concept.

IMHO what is being proposed by Ringo84 is a secular and purely humanist way of looking at marriage....not biblical, not christian.

It's "secular" and "humanist" to admit that men are weak in some areas, and women fill in those weaknesses with their strengths? It's "secular" and "humanist" to admit that women are weak in some areas, and men fill in those weaknesses with their strengths?

You actually believe that complementary strengths and weaknesses - which the Bible admits is one reason why two are better than one - is somehow "secular"?
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Ringo, how long have you been married? I have been married to the same woman for 36 years now so I do know a little something about marriage.

Congratulations, but one doesn't have to be married to figure out that asking women to submit and not asking for the same level of submission from the man is illogical and disproportionate.
Ringo

 

[mlqurgw]

Congratulations, but one doesn't have to be married to figure out that asking women to submit and not asking for the same level of submission from the man is illogical and disproportionate.
Ringo

So a 25 year old who isn't married is telling a 54 year old who has been married for 36 years how marriage is supposed to work? Right, we should all listen to your wise council. Come back when you actually have some experience with what you are taking about. All you have is an idea and idealism. It just don't wash in the real world.

 

[Ringo84]

So a 25 year old who isn't married is telling a 54 year old who has been married for 36 years how marriage is supposed to work?

I would submit that this unmarried twenty-five year old has a more mature and reasonable outlook on marriage than a fifty-four year old married for thirty-six years.

One doesn't have to be married to figure out that the entire doctrine behind women submitting is illogical. The illogical responses I've received that don't answer my simple questions seem to prove my point.

Right, we should all listen to your wise council.

I never claimed to have wise counsel. All I'm doing is asking questions.

Come back when you actually have some experience with what you are taking about. All you have is an idea and idealism. It just don't wash in the real world.

I suppose that the day I'm married, I'll magically discover the "logic" behind my wife submitting to me but not being asked to submit in the same way to her? Sure.

All I have is an idea, but it seems to me that's more than you have.
Ringo

 

[mlqurgw]

I would submit that this unmarried twenty-five year old has a more mature and reasonable outlook on marriage than a fifty-four year old married for thirty-six years.

One doesn't have to be married to figure out that the entire doctrine behind women submitting is illogical. The illogical responses I've received that don't answer my simple questions seem to prove my point.



I never claimed to have wise counsel. All I'm doing is asking questions.



I suppose that the day I'm married, I'll magically discover the "logic" behind my wife submitting to me but not being asked to submit in the same way to her? Sure.

All I have is an idea, but it seems to me that's more than you have.
Ringo

You keep talking about logic but you haven't shown any. Where is the logical fallacy of what I have said? Just because something doesn't make sense to you, something you have no experience with, doesn't make it illogical. Logically for 2 things to be equal they must be identical. Otherwise there is inequity. You can deny the truth that every human relationship has one who is dominant all you wish but it doesn't change the fact. You haven't refuted anything you just keep repeating the same nonsense. If you are going to make a claim that it is illogical then prove it.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I would submit that this unmarried twenty-five year old has a more mature and reasonable outlook on marriage than a fifty-four year old married for thirty-six years.

One doesn't have to be married to figure out that the entire doctrine behind women submitting is illogical. The illogical responses I've received that don't answer my simple questions seem to prove my point.



I never claimed to have wise counsel. All I'm doing is asking questions.



I suppose that the day I'm married, I'll magically discover the "logic" behind my wife submitting to me but not being asked to submit in the same way to her? Sure.

All I have is an idea, but it seems to me that's more than you have.
Ringo

I think the progressive forum would love this topic, you're preaching to the wrong choir.
You are beating a dead horse here man.

 

[PrettyLittlePrincess]

I think maybe you're all arguing about semantics.

Would any husband here say they don't value their wives' perspectives and wishes in decision-making? Do your ever recognize things in your life as a family that your wife would be a better judge of? And do you let her judge what to do? They're not rhetorical questions, because if you don't think an unmarried 25-year-old knows anything about marriage, I definitely won't make any more impression. I want to know the answer.

If so, who's really made the decision? Sure, you made the decision to trust your wife's judgment,but even if your wife gives you her views along with the option to turn them down, is this so different than what Ringo is talking about? Even if you don't label what you're doing "submission," isn't it still submission, in a sense? And aren't you still doing it because you're the leader and see it as best for your family? Would you call this scenario un-Biblical? Because your wife is never being physically forced to submit to you, it's her choice to do so, just like it's yours in this scenario.

If there are never times like that, I'm glad it works for you. But isn't this something that works differently for different people? Won't a man who has views like Ringo's still be the head of his household? Will it affect anyone else if he and his wife feel lead to interpret the Bible a little differently for their own family? What if God leads them a little differently because they're different people?

I know I don't know anything about marriage first-hand, so these are just questions. It's just something to think about. I don't consider myself a feminist, but I realize I might look like one in this thread.