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

[tall73]

Only if you read it in isolation, and specifically, without verse 21. Read together, the egalitarian sense is quite straightforward.

As discussed at length in the thread, submitting to one another can happen within relationships that involve differing authority in roles.

A parent can yield in a matter to their child, even though the parent is in authority.

An overseer can yield to a congregant even though an overseer is in authority.

In the most extreme example, Jesus submitted to His parents, though He is God.

So submitting to one another does not rule out positiions of authority, and Vs. 23-24 do not change meaning by including vs. 21.

In the sense that, you asked if I thought everyone should be egalitarian. I am saying no, but I think everyone should not be promoting the attitudes which underpin abuse.

The Spirit is not going to inspire abuse. But plenty of people read the text in abusive ways, so we need to read with some principles which rule out such readings. Otherwise anyone can justify any reading, and we've seen some examples of that even in this thread.

You don't need to impose an outside test to rule out the reading given, because it is the opposite of what the text says. It speaks of laying down one's life for your wife, and loving her as your own body. It certainly doesn't say beating your wife.

 

[tall73]

The Spirit is not going to inspire abuse. But plenty of people read the text in abusive ways, so we need to read with some principles which rule out such readings.

In the interest of bringing the thread to a close, since we both expressed it was at times a taxing conversation, we can find common ground in the notion that the text does not contain any warrant for abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

As discussed at length in the thread, submitting to one another can happen within relationships that involve differing authority in roles.

I'm not really concerned with authority, though; or at least, the difficulty I have with complementarian views is not about authority.

You don't need to impose an outside test to rule out the reading given, because it is the opposite of what the text says.

Well, clearly, just saying that isn't exactly cutting through adequately. And I'm concerned with a lot more than just beating (although beating tends to be the obvious point at which most people can agree).

 

[Paidiske]

we can find common ground in the notion that the text does not contain any warrant for abuse.

I agree; but I am concerned that the church does not have a clear, shared, robust understanding of abuse.

 

[tall73]

I agree; but I am concerned that the church does not have a clear, shared, robust understanding of abuse.

If you feel the 766 posts to this point have not discussed that issue, we can continue.

 

[Paidiske]

If you feel the 766 posts to this point have not discussed that issue, we can continue.

I don't think this thread is really going to make any headway on that particular problem.

 

[tall73]

I don't think this thread is really going to make any headway on that particular problem.

Understood. Thank you for participating. I realize it was frustrating at points, but I still learned some things from the conversation. I will ask for the thread to be closed.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed at OP request. ​