Baptist views on feminism

dies-l · May 13, 2009

Ringo84 said:
[/i]I think that since both the man and woman are accountable for what happens in a relationship, they should both have authority in the marriage.

From where do you come up with this opinion? Scripture? If so, how? Solely from your own reasoning? If so, that is an okay place to begin, but we as Christians should not allow our own reasoning to trump Scripture, but rather to help us understand and apply it. So the question is how logially do we get from this:

"wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and He is the Saviour of the body."

to this:

"they should both have authority in the marriage."?

Unless we are to outright deny the authority of Scripture, this is a question that needs to be dealt with for those of us who have a more egalitarian view of marriage.

Mutual submission and male headship?
Ringo

Just as Christ is leader and servant (a necessarily submissive role) to his Church, so must a husband to his wife. For illustration, see Philippians 2:5-8 and Ephesians 5:25-33.

Ringo84 · May 13, 2009

From where do you come up with this opinion? Scripture? If so, how? Solely from your own reasoning? If so, that is an okay place to begin, but we as Christians should not allow our own reasoning to trump Scripture, but rather to help us understand and apply it. So the question is how logially do we get from this:

"wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and He is the Saviour of the body."

to this:

"they should both have authority in the marriage."?

Unless we are to outright deny the authority of Scripture, this is a question that needs to be dealt with for those of us who have a more egalitarian view of marriage.

Isn't it true that marriage is about compromise?

Just as Christ is leader and servant (a necessarily submissive role) to his Church, so must a husband to his wife. For illustration, see Philippians 2:5-8 and Ephesians 5:25-33.

If they both submit to each other, then there's no need for one to "have authority" over the other. The man is under the woman's authority and the women is under the man's. Mutual submission.
Ringo

dies-l · May 13, 2009

Ringo84 said:
Isn't it true that marriage is about compromise?

Certainly, compromise is an important aspect of any relationship, even one in which there is a clear leader. I don't know what this does to undermine the notion of male headship. In most situations, a good leader will consult those under his or her authority in making important decisions. Thus, if a man is living up to the biblical ideal, his leadership style will involve a fair amount of compromise and deference to his wife's opinion. This does not mean that he ceases to be a leader.

But, you are dodging the question: How, logically, do you get from Scripture ("the husband is the head of the wife") to the opinion that you are espousing ("there is no leader, only mutual submission")? Or, are you just dismissing that part of Scripture with which you disagree?

If they both submit to each other, then there's no need for one to "have authority" over the other. The man is under the woman's authority and the women is under the man's. Mutual submission.
Ringo

I disagree. Jesus' model of leadership always involved humulity and willingness to submit, otherwise he would never have been crucified. Ultimately, in any relationship, there is at least one de facto leader and at least one follower. The fact that the leader may generally choose to consider as highly valuable the opinions of others does not make him any less a leader. Rather, biblically speaking, it often makes him (or her) a better leader.

Ringo84 · May 13, 2009

Certainly, compromise is an important aspect of any relationship, even one in which there is a clear leader. I don't know what this does to undermine the notion of male headship. In most situations, a good leader will consult those under his or her authority in making important decisions. Thus, if a man is living up to the biblical ideal, his leadership style will involve a fair amount of compromise and deference to his wife's opinion. This does not mean that he ceases to be a leader.

So compromise is a two-way street in marriage. So why are women alone asked to submit in the verse when compromise happens from both the man and woman in a marriage?

I disagree. Jesus' model of leadership always involved humulity and willingness to submit, otherwise he would never have been crucified.

Yes, and Jesus' model was repeated in the verse: submit to one another. That doesn't necessarily mean that women alone must submit.
Ringo

dies-l · May 13, 2009

Ringo84 said:
So compromise is a two-way street in marriage. So why are women alone asked to submit in the verse when compromise happens from both the man and woman in a marriage?

Because, ultimately, in every single relationshsip, someone needs to inevitably step up and be the leader, and according to Paul, this ought to be the man.

Are you disagreeing with Paul or are you disagreeing with my interpretation Paul? If the latter, I continue to encourage you to provide an alternate interpretation.

Yes, and Jesus' model was repeated in the verse: submit to one another. That doesn't necessarily mean that women alone must submit.
Ringo

A husband, as a good leader, ought to submit to his wife. I have never argued otherwise, nor does Paul. However, when a leader submits to one under his or her authority, he or she is not conceding this authority, but rather is exercising it in choosing to defer to the opinion of the other.

When I started dating my wife, she was very clear to me that she wanted a husband who would be a leader in the home, because this is the biblical ideal. I have taken on this role, but, in many instances, I choose to defer to her preference, especially where she feels very strongly about something.

For example, when I graduated from law school I chose to stay in Michigan, despite our horrible economy, so that my wife could remain connected at the church at which she works. I do this knowing that if it becomes necessary for me to leave Michigan to find work that that is my decision to make and, having accepted the biblical framework for marriage, she has chosen to follow me, even though it would be very unpleasant for her. In this example, my willingness to submit to her has caused me to reorder my priorities so that what she values is taken into consideration and given great value in the decision. Her submission to me recognizes that ultimately I am the leader, and provided that I make seek to make godly decisions, I have the final say. For now, I have chosen to stay in Michigan, even though this is not a good career move for me, because in consideration of her values, I have decided that there are more important things than my career at this point, provided that we are able to meet our daily needs.

So, yes, it does work both ways, but there is still one person who is a leader and one who is not, whether or not you are consciously following the biblical model.

Ringo84 · May 13, 2009

Because, ultimately, in every single relationshsip, someone needs to inevitably step up and be the leader

Why? Why can't they both be the leader?

A husband, as a good leader, ought to submit to his wife. I have never argued otherwise, nor does Paul. However, when a leader submits to one under his or her authority, he or she is not conceding this authority, but rather is exercising it in choosing to defer to the opinion of the other.

What is it about theman that gives him the authority to supposedly be the leader?
Ringo

dies-l · May 13, 2009

Ringo84 said:
Why? Why can't they both be the leader?

I have never seen a relationship, whether Christian or not, that truly works this way. In any relationship there is going to be difference of opinion, and if the relationship is to survive this, then inevitably someone will be the arbiter of what is best and not.

What is it about the man that gives him the authority to supposedly be the leader?
Ringo

It seems that Paul would argue that the fact that he has been assigned that role by God is sufficient.

Let me ask you, however, are you disagreeing with Paul or are you disagreeing with my interpretation of Paul? If the former, I don't see how this discussion is likely to be fruitful, as I am coming into the discussion assuming that Scripture is authoritative. If, however, you are disagreeing with my understanding and application of Scripture, I would encourage you to discuss the issue in terms of Scripture and its socio-historical and literary context rather than appealing to your opinions and logic.

Certainly you can and should apply logical reasoning to Scripture, but if you accept Scripture as authoritative, then your own logic will never serve to invalidate Scripture. If you do not accept Scripture as authoritative, then just say so, so that I can at least know what presuppostitions you are bringing to the discussion, so as to avoid talking past you.

Frankly, you seem to be arguing that the Bible is wrong, rather than merely misunterpreted or misunderstood, on this point. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Ringo84 · May 13, 2009

I have never seen a relationship, whether Christian or not, that truly works this way. In any relationship there is going to be difference of opinion, and if the relationship is to survive this, then inevitably someone will be the arbiter of what is best and not.

That's why I say that compromise - not hierarchy - is the key to a good marriage.

Let me ask you, however, are you disagreeing with Paul or are you disagreeing with my interpretation of Paul? If the former, I don't see how this discussion is likely to be fruitful, as I am coming into the discussion assuming that Scripture is authoritative. If, however, you are disagreeing with my understanding and application of Scripture, I would encourage you to discuss the issue in terms of Scripture and its socio-historical and literary context rather than appealing to your opinions and logic.

Certainly you can and should apply logical reasoning to Scripture, but if you accept Scripture as authoritative, then your own logic will never serve to invalidate Scripture. If you do not accept Scripture as authoritative, then just say so, so that I can at least know what presuppostitions you are bringing to the discussion, so as to avoid talking past you.

Frankly, you seem to be arguing that the Bible is wrong, rather than merely misunterpreted or misunderstood, on this point. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I'd rather discuss the issue at hand than my particular Biblical interpretation. To repeat: what is it about the man that somehow gives him special authority?

I'm not looking for a pat answer like "because this verse gives man authority". I know what the verse says. What I want to know is why men have supposedly been given this authority over women. What's special about us men that isn't special about women?
Ringo

dies-l · May 13, 2009

Ringo84 said:
That's why I say that compromise - not hierarchy - is the key to a good marriage.

Compromise is not an option in every situation. Sometimes a decision needs to be made that will favor one party over another. See the personal example I cited two posts prior.

I'd rather discuss the issue at hand than my particular Biblical interpretation.

It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion about Scripture without discussing interpretative methodologies and beliefs about the authority of Scripture itself. If you do not accept that Scripture is authoritative, then inevitably, we will never come to a point of agreement on this issue unless one of us changes our presuppositions.

I assume from your evasiveness and from your comments to this point that you do not believe that Scripture is authoritative.

To repeat: what is it about the man that somehow gives him special authority?

I'm not looking for a pat answer like "because this verse gives man authority". I know what the verse says. What I want to know is why men have supposedly been given this authority over women. What's special about us men that isn't special about women?
Ringo

It seems that you are looking to have a reasoned debate about whether this particular passage of Scripture is true. This being a Christian forum, I would expect that that much would be already mutually understood, and the debate would concern the proper interpretation of Scripture, not whether the passage is valid.

I am perfectly willing to have a reasoned debate about the interpretation of Scripture, but I accept that Scripture is authoritative (more so than our own assumptions) as a presupposition to any meaningful debate about Christian theology.

The answer to your question is that man is not more special or less special than woman -- rather that man has been given one duty and woman another. You are assuming that the man's task is better, which is an assumption that I am not making.

Ringo84 · May 13, 2009

Compromise is not an option in every situation. Sometimes a decision needs to be made that will favor one party over another. See the personal example I cited two posts prior.

Yes. In most cases, however, both the man and the woman collaborate because their decisions affect them both.

The answer to your question is that man is not more special or less special than woman -- rather that man has been given one duty and woman another. You are assuming that the man's task is better, which is an assumption that I am not making.

If neither gender is more special than one another, and compromise - from both parties - should happen in a relationship, and both partners willingly submit to one another in a relationship, why does this verse only ask men to submit?
Ringo

MrJG · May 13, 2009

Ringo84 said:
I'm not looking for a pat answer like "because this verse gives man authority". I know what the verse says. What I want to know is why men have supposedly been given this authority over women. What's special about us men that isn't special about women?

The answer to the question that you have asked several times but it doesn't seem that you have received an answer that has satisfied you. The reason that the man has been placed in authority over the woman can be seen by a study of several verses in scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:7-10 => This passage clearly teaches us that the woman is of the man. This makes sense because woman literally means "out of man." What Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) is saying here is that the man is created in the image of God (v. 7) and that the woman is created from man or in the image of man (and thus also in the image of God), but this is why man is over the woman. Verse 10 says that for this "cause ought the woman to have power on her head..." or because of this, the woman ought to have an authority over her (the man).

So, what we have is this:
1) God made man in His image.
2) God formed woman from man and thus she is also made in God's image.
3) Because woman was formed from man, she has man as the authority over her. 1 Peter 3:7 says that the woman is like a weaker vessel. The man has been placed in authority over the woman because of this.

I hope this helps answer your question.

leothelioness · May 14, 2009

Blood-washed Baptist said:
So, what we have is this:
1) God made man in His image.
2) God formed woman from man and thus she is also made in God's image.
3) Because woman was formed from man, she has man as the authority over her. 1 Peter 3:7 says that the woman is like a weaker vessel. The man has been placed in authority over the woman because of this.

I hope this helps answer your question.

But, what does it mean by "weaker vessel"? Physically weak? Emotionally vulnerable? And why was woman created as the weaker vessel? Was man favored more by God?

LiturgyInDMinor · May 14, 2009

leothelioness said:
But, what does it mean by "weaker vessel"? Physically weak? Emotionally vulnerable? And why was woman created as the weaker vessel? Was man favored more by God?

Ask our Lord and savior 'bout that one.

leothelioness · May 14, 2009

NoRaptureBaptist said:
Ask our Lord and savior 'bout that one.

Well, I was kinda hoping somebody here could explain it. I'm guessing you don't have an answer for it?

mlqurgw · May 14, 2009

leothelioness said:
Well, I was kinda hoping somebody here could explain it. I'm guessing you don't have an answer for it?

It is very clear in the Scriptures that Eve was deceived not Adam. The Serpent beguiled Eve but he didn't beguile Adam. Adam was a federal head of all that would be born by him. He represented all of the human race before God. Rom. 5 If Eve had eaten of the fruit and Adam had not we would all be in paradise because nothing would have been lost but Eve. Eve was deceived but Adam wasn't. Adam went into sin with his eyes wide open. He wanted Eve more than he wanted God.
Now part of the curse on Eve, and all women by her, is that her husband will rule over her. Gen, 3:17?

MrJG · May 14, 2009

leothelioness said:
But, what does it mean by "weaker vessel"? Physically weak? Emotionally vulnerable? And why was woman created as the weaker vessel? Was man favored more by God?

Well...in Genesis 5:1 the Bible tells us that God made man in His likeness. It says that Adam begat Seth in his likeness, and thus in the likeness of God but we can see that the likeness is being transferred down through man. 1 Corinthians 11:7 says that man is the "image and glory of God" and the woman is the "glory of the man." The woman was created as a help to the man. Not that she is any less important, just that she serves a different purpose. She is a weaker vessel because she was not created for the same purpose as the man was. God has a plan and a divine order with the marriage relationship. God has made man to be the head of the home. His responsiblity is to provide for the needs of his wife and to sacrifice of himself as Christ did for the church. The woman's responsibility is to be in submission to the husband since he is the authority over her.

Ringo84 · May 14, 2009

1 Corinthians 11:7-10 => This passage clearly teaches us that the woman is of the man. This makes sense because woman literally means "out of man." What Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) is saying here is that the man is created in the image of God (v. 7) and that the woman is created from man or in the image of man (and thus also in the image of God), but this is why man is over the woman. Verse 10 says that for this "cause ought the woman to have power on her head..." or because of this, the woman ought to have an authority over her (the man).

So since God supposedly took a rib out of Adam and made Eve, that means that women are the "weaker vessel" (which is bogus), that they aren't made in the image of God (if men are made in the image of God and women are supposedly made from man, then women, too, are made in the image of God), and must submit?

I have to admit that this makes little sense to me. mlgurgw was making more sense than that.

The woman was created as a help to the man.

And of course, helpers can be equal.

just that she serves a different purpose. She is a weaker vessel because she was not created for the same purpose as the man was.

I serve a different purpose than you. Does that make me a "weaker vessel"?

Menstruation, pregnancy, labor, menopause, and all the other things that women must face seem to indicate that they are not, in fact, a "weaker vessel".

mlgurgw said:
It is very clear in the Scriptures that Eve was deceived not Adam. The Serpent beguiled Eve but he didn't beguile Adam. Adam was a federal head of all that would be born by him. He represented all of the human race before God. Rom. 5 If Eve had eaten of the fruit and Adam had not we would all be in paradise because nothing would have been lost but Eve. Eve was deceived but Adam wasn't. Adam went into sin with his eyes wide open. He wanted Eve more than he wanted God.

Adam was also deceived. He did not have to take the apple that was offered to him, but he did. Since he was deceived by Eve, and since Eve was deceived by the serpent, then Adam was equally as deceived as Eve. That makes him just as guilty for the events of the Garden.

Now assuming all that is true (I believe that it is), why would God punish Eve more than Adam?
Ringo

MrJG · May 14, 2009

Ringo84 said:
So since God supposedly took a rib out of Adam and made Eve, that means that women are the "weaker vessel" (which is bogus) What about this is bogus, and why do you say "supposedly," do you not believe the account of creation?, that they aren't made in the image of God (if men are made in the image of God and women are supposedly made from man, then women, too, are made in the image of God) I never said that women were not made in the image of God, please go back and reread post #171, and must submit?

I have to admit that this makes little sense to me. mlgurgw was making more sense than that. I won't even comment here.

And of course, helpers can be equal.

I serve a different purpose than you. If you are a man then you serve the same purpose as me. Does that make me a "weaker vessel"?

Menstruation, pregnancy, labor, menopause, and all the other things that women must face seem to indicate that they are not, in fact, a "weaker vessel". This is a mute point as the pains of child bearing are a punishment for Eve's sin in the garden, and this is not how things were originally created.

It seems plain and clear to me that whatever scriptural reasons I provide to show you that God has placed the man in authority over the woman, you deny because they aren't logical to you. Are you then saying that you are more logical than God and that you know better than God? The Bible says in Romans 1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." 1 Peter 3:7 compares women to a weaker vessel. To say that this is "bogus" because you don't agree with it is nonsensical.

Okay, so why is the woman not the weaker vessel (please provide scripture)?
Why is the man not in authority over the woman (please provide scripture)?

Ringo84 · May 14, 2009

What about this is bogus, and why do you say "supposedly," do you not believe the account of creation?

It's bogus to call the woman a "weaker vessel" when she clearly isn't.

If you are a man then you serve the same purpose as me.

I'm a different person than you, which means that my function in life is different from yours. But I am not a "weaker vessel" simply because I'm different than you.

This is a mute point as the pains of child bearing are a punishment for Eve's sin in the garden, and this is not how things were originally created.

The word is moot point, and I fail to see how it doesn't relate. Women are supposedly a "weaker vessel", but they are the ones who experience pregnancy and labor - which men would likely not be able to handle.

It seems plain and clear to me that whatever scriptural reasons I provide to show you that God has placed the man in authority over the woman, you deny because they aren't logical to you.

No..they don't make much sense to me.

Are you then saying that you are more logical than God and that you know better than God?

Nope.

1 Peter 3:7 compares women to a weaker vessel. To say that this is "bogus" because you don't agree with it is nonsensical.

I know what the verse says, but women aren't the weaker vessel.

Okay, so why is the woman not the weaker vessel (please provide scripture)?

I told you: they are, in many ways, stronger than men because they are the ones who experience pregnancy and labor.

Why is the man not in authority over the woman (please provide scripture)?

Because in a relationship, the man and the woman are accountable to one another and must submit to one another for the relationship to work.
Ringo

MrJG · May 14, 2009

Ringo84 said:
[/b][/i][/color]

It's bogus to call the woman a "weaker vessel" when she clearly isn't.
So then the Bible is bogus?
[/color][/b][/i]

I'm a different person than you, which means that my function in life is different from yours. But I am not a "weaker vessel" simply because I'm different than you.
You are a different individual, but we are the same gender, therefore we serve the same purpose.
[/b][/i][/color]

The word is moot point, and I fail to see how it doesn't relate. Women are supposedly a "weaker vessel", but they are the ones who experience pregnancy and labor - which men would likely not be able to handle.
God has made the woman the weaker vessel for a purpose. It might be that women are weaker because God's plan is for the two together to be stronger or it might be for a reason still unknown to us. Either way, God has made women that way and has placed man in a position of authority over women.

No..they don't make much sense to me.

Nope.
Yes you are, when you say that women are not the weaker vessel and the Bible says they are.

I know what the verse says, but women aren't the weaker vessel.
Here is the example of above.

I told you: they are, in many ways, stronger than men because they are the ones who experience pregnancy and labor.
I asked for scripture that shows this and the below question. Since this is a Baptist thread and Baptist's historically have only used the Bible to confirm beliefs, I would like for you to do the same instead of just saying "It doesn't make sense to me" or "It isn't logical."

Because in a relationship, the man and the woman are accountable to one another and must submit to one another for the relationship to work.
Ringo

Mutual submission is necessary for a relationship, but you deny any authority of man over the woman even though this is what the Bible clearly states. It doesn't come any clearer. It is clear that the Bible compares the husband and wife relationship to that of Christ and His Bride the church. Which came first? God patterned the husband/wife relationship after the coming relationship of Christ and the church. That is why the Bible compares these.

Baptist views on feminism

dies-l

Guest

Separation of Church and State expert

dies-l

Guest

Separation of Church and State expert

dies-l

Guest

Separation of Church and State expert

dies-l

Guest

Separation of Church and State expert

dies-l

Guest

Separation of Church and State expert

Better to be quiet and not prove anyone's theory

Well-Known Member

Celtic Rite Old Catholic Church

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Better to be quiet and not prove anyone's theory

Separation of Church and State expert

Better to be quiet and not prove anyone's theory

Separation of Church and State expert

Better to be quiet and not prove anyone's theory

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency