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

[Paidiske]

Then how do you explain egalitarians abuse?

I don't, for one second, imagine that all egalitarians actually perfectly believe and live out that men and women are equal, that there is no sense of entitlement or privilege active in people who read the Scriptures and don't conclude that God is mandating particular power dynamics in the household. In fact, I know that that is not the case. Even men who work hard to overcome the messages they've been given early in life still find themselves tripping over their unconscious expectation that their household will revolve around them.

 

[tall73]

I don't, for one second, imagine that all egalitarians actually perfectly believe and live out that men and women are equal, that there is no sense of entitlement or privilege active in people who read the Scriptures and don't conclude that God is mandating particular power dynamics in the household. In fact, I know that that is not the case. Even men who work hard to overcome the messages they've been given early in life still find themselves tripping over their unconscious expectation that their household will revolve around them.

If the rates are statistically similar what did their "work" do? And what good was egalitariamism?

And how did all the other patriarchalists and egalitarians manage not to abuse?

 

[Paidiske]

If the rates are statistically similar what did their "work" do?

When I say that they find themselves tripping over their unconscious expectations, I don't mean that they're actually abusive.

To give you an example, I had a conversation recently with a wife - I know both of the couple, and he is genuinely supportive of women etc - but his wife still found that in a particular circumstance, he felt aggrieved because she didn't behave the way he unthinkingly expected. And then they had to both work through why he expected that, whether it was a reasonable expectation, and how they both communicated about that, etc, before they could get past that sense of grievance.

And that's from someone who is relatively aware of the issues and does genuinely do his best not to fall into inherited patriarchal patterns, but it's easy to revert to what we've had modelled for us (for example).

And what good was egalitariamism?

At the very least, in egalitarianism, there is no model being put forward which tells men they have a right to control, to be in power, to "chastise," or whatever such language. Ideally, what is being modelled and taught is something which cuts against those cultural norms, and which subverts them.

It's helping people to do that work of being aware of the issues of power and control, and being self-aware, and being willing to allow the other to flourish on her own terms.

 

[tall73]

When I say that they find themselves tripping over their unconscious expectations, I don't mean that they're actually abusive.

Then such were not the focus in the study I cited, and which you were responding to, because those were abusing.

The rates were statistically similar for egalitarian and patriarchal highly religious couples in those 11 nations. So what do you do with the highly religious egalitarians who were abusing? How is that possible if it is always due to attitudes about women?

 

[Paidiske]

Then such were not the focus in the study I cited, and which you were responding to, because those were abusing.

I said that "Even men who work hard..." struggle with this. By implication, men who have not done that work, who might think themselves egalitarian, or at least not consciously hold thought-through patriarchal beliefs, can fall into abusive behaviours due to unexamined attitudes about their role, power, control, etc.

So what do you do with the highly religious egalitarians who were abusing? How is that possible if it is always due to attitudes about women?

I don't assume that someone who considers themselves theologically egalitarian, holds none of the attitudes which underpin abuse. They just don't hold them on religious grounds.

Every bit of research I've seen on this - and I've seen plenty - ends up saying the same thing. Other risk factors come into play around incidence and severity and so forth of abuse, but the thing that is consistently the one differentiating factor between men who abuse their partners and men who don't, is that cluster of beliefs around acceptance of violence, gender hierarchy and rigid roles, and power and control.

 

[bèlla]

If the rates are statistically similar what did their "work" do? And what good was egalitariamism?

And how did all the other patriarchalists and egalitarians manage not to abuse?

The issue isn't equality or not. It's the reality that most abusers target their victims beforehand and look for attributes that support their position. It doesn't matter what he calls himself. If control is the goal he'll look for women most likely to comply or those he wants to bring to that position.

~bella

 

[tall73]

The issue isn't equality or not. It's the reality that most abusers target their victims beforehand and look for attributes that support their position. It doesn't matter what he calls himself. If control is the goal he'll look for women most likely to comply or those he wants to bring to that position.

~bella

And the same can apply to women who abuse, which were also documented.. Which is why it is not only an issue of male entitlement, but the willingness to use others for one's own ends.

 

[tall73]

I said that "Even men who work hard..." struggle with this. By implication, men who have not done that work, who might think themselves egalitarian, or at least not consciously hold thought-through patriarchal beliefs, can fall into abusive behaviours due to unexamined attitudes about their role, power, control, etc.

I don't assume that someone who considers themselves theologically egalitarian, holds none of the attitudes which underpin abuse. They just don't hold them on religious grounds.

Every bit of research I've seen on this - and I've seen plenty - ends up saying the same thing. Other risk factors come into play around incidence and severity and so forth of abuse, but the thing that is consistently the one differentiating factor between men who abuse their partners and men who don't, is that cluster of beliefs around acceptance of violence, gender hierarchy and rigid roles, and power and control.

So now you are using the no true Scottsman fallacy you earlier claimed we were using. No TRUE egalitarian would do it. Those who do abuse were not really egalitarian.

And the women who abuse men? Or the lesbian women who abuse lesbian women, cited in studies earlier?

The commonality is not just views about roles of men and women, but a willingness to use others.

 

[Paidiske]

So now you are using the no true Scottsman fallacy you earlier claimed we were using. No TRUE egalitarian would do it. Those who do abuse were not really egalitarian.

Not really. There are people out there who would put themselves on the egalitarian side of the issue (if they think about it), but who are abusive. I'm not saying they're not egalitarian. I'm not saying no egalitarians abuse. Some do; that happens.

But I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that the egalitarian men who abuse their wives, hold attitudes about how their own household should run, that are expressing a sense of entitlement about power, control, hierarchy, and so on.

And the women who abuse men?

The drivers for women's abuse of men (or of others) tend to be very different. I'm not particularly concerned with them here, because there's no line of theological argument being put forward for women's control over men.

The commonality is not just views about roles of men and women, but a willingness to use others.

But spefically, for men, that willingness to use women, comes with particular patriarchal baggage. When you've (generic you, not specific you) been told - explicitly or implicitly - all your life, that you have a right to use the woman in your life, that creates that sense of entitlement. And when religious teachings around things like headship contribute to that, it only reinforces the problem.

 

[bèlla]

And the same can apply to women who abuse, which were also documented.. Which is why it is not only an issue of male entitlement, but the willingness to use others for one's own ends.

Both are capable of harm and to suggest the issue is primarily male is false. Nor is he the lone person within the relationship who may need to adjust his thinking, behavior and expectations. Change is mutual and evenhandedness is required.

~bella

 

[tall73]

Not really. There are people out there who would put themselves on the egalitarian side of the issue (if they think about it), but who are abusive. I'm not saying they're not egalitarian. I'm not saying no egalitarians abuse. Some do; that happens. But I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that the egalitarian men who abuse their wives, hold attitudes about how their own household should run, that are expressing a sense of entitlement about power, control, hierarchy, and so on.

So not really....but yes? You just said in different words that the egalitarians who abuse are not really egalitarians in their attitudes.

The drivers for women's abuse of men (or of others) tend to be very different. I'm not particularly concerned with them here, because there's no line of theological argument being put forward for women's control over men.

So the only thing that matters in your view is that we should all be egalitarians--but anyone who abuses is not REALLY egalitarian.

Which is your way of explaining how the rates are about the same in the US between reported highly religious egalitarians and religious patriarchalists.

And we note that anyone who is abusing his wife is not really following the words of Scripture. But you claim that is a no true Scottsman fallacy. But somehow the other is not?

You are definitely applying a different standard.

There is no excuse for people abusing. Those abusing are not doing so with God's sanction.

We need people to walk in the Spirit, rather than doing the works of the flesh. So if I am going to promote that society change, it will be to promote that they accept Christ, and walk in the Spirit:

Galatians 5:16-25 16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.​

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.​

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (NKJV)​

But spefically, for men, that willingness to use women, comes with particular patriarchal baggage. When you've (generic you, not specific you) been told - explicitly or implicitly - all your life, that you have a right to use the woman in your life, that creates that sense of entitlement. And when religious teachings around things like headship contribute to that, it only reinforces the problem.

The text teaches loving your wife as Christ loved the church. There is no abuse in that. Christ did not abuse the church.

But you treat distortions of the text and distortions of egalitarianism differently. If someone distorts the text of Scripture and abuses their wife, you say that is the natural fruit of the husband being head and the wife submitting.

If an "egalitarian" abuses you say they were not really an egalitarian at all. It is a different standard.

When all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, if we have not repented of walking after the flesh, if we have continued abusing those around us--especially our spouses--we will not inherit the kingdom of God. And that will be the case for both male and female.

 

[Paidiske]

So not really....but yes? You just said in different words that the egalitarians who abuse are not really egalitarians in their attitudes.

By "egalitarian" I mean holding a particular set of theological convictions. You can hold that set of theological convictions, in the abstract, or in general, and still feel on some level that you have the right to control the person in front of you. It's really not all that unusual to see people whose behaviour doesn't entirely line up with their stated position.

So the only thing that matters in your view is that we should all be egalitarians

Not exactly. I'd be happy enough to agree to disagree with people about various points of theology, as long as they're not promoting the attitudes which underpin abuse.

So I'd be looking for views which are explicitly against gender based hierarchy and rigid roles, or dynamics of power and control. If you can be against those things, I don't really have a problem with (say) believing God holds men more accountable than women. I mean, I wouldn't agree, but it's not harmful in the same way.

--but anyone who abuses is not REALLY egalitarian.

Anyone who controls their spouse, doesn't really believe they have no right to control their spouse. However they characterise their theological convictions (or lack thereof). I mean... there's really no getting around that, is there?

And we note that anyone who is abusing his wife is not really following the words of Scripture. But you claim that is a no true Scottsman fallacy.

My objection was that it is a no true scotsman to claim that people who quote Scripture to justify their abuse, are not engaged in an "actual" reading of the text. They're reading the text. You might want to say they're reading it badly, but it's an actual reading of the text.

The text teaches loving your wife as Christ loved the church. There is no abuse in that. Christ did not abuse the church.

And if we stopped there, we'd have had nothing to discuss, would we? But we don't stop there.

But you treat distortions of the text and distortions of egalitarianism differently.

You say that as if egalitarianism did not arise from the Scriptures.

The Scriptural texts are capable of being read in a range of ways. Egalitarianism, by the very nature of its convictions, works against the attitudes which underpin abuse. But there are other readings of the text which promote the attitudes which underpin abuse.

So, I treat readings of the text which promote the attitudes which underpin abuse, and readings of the text which work against the attitudes which underpin abuse, differently. They're different in that very fundamental way.

 

[Tigran1245]

There is certainly no Scripture saying to beat your wife, and Ephesias indicates just the opposite. Jesus doesn't beat His church.

Jesus beats his Church constantly. All death, trials and suffering in the world are, in a certain sense, by the will of God. Thus, God sends trials to every person to teach him. And he punishes for the purpose of teaching.

And commenting on the passage, Chrystom did not hold to your view.

Neither, however, let the husband, when he hears these things, on the score of his having the supreme authority, betake himself to revilings and to blows; but let him exhort, let him admonish her, as being less perfect, let him persuade her with arguments. Let him never once lift his hand — far be this from a noble spirit, — no, nor give expression to insults, or taunts, or revilings; but let him regulate and direct her as being wanting in wisdom.​

John Chrysostom really does not see reasons from a practical point of view to apply physical force to a wife. And I agree with him in this. It is practically impossible to imagine cases when force must be applied.

However, Catholic scholastic theologians solve this problem from the point of view of the Natural Law and the Positive Law of God (theoretically). And I agree that the husband is the head of the wife and from the point of view of the nature of their relationship, he can use force. Similarly, the state can use force in relation to its citizens.

 

[Tigran1245]

And if she is not persuaded? She is free to disagree?

She may not agree when the husband's demand is not fair and contradicts the law. If the husband abuses his right, the Church (at least mine) allows the wife to divorce.

But if the husband's request is fair and corresponds to the Divine will and the Law, then the woman is obliged to fulfill it. And in this case, she has no freedom. Analogously, when the state issues a just law - we are obliged to execute it and we have no right not to execute it. We have no freedom not to pay taxes, for example.

 

[Paidiske]

in this case, she has no freedom.

Well, I think that just demonstrates the problem here perfectly.

 

[tall73]

John Chrysostom really does not see reasons from a practical point of view to apply physical force to a wife. And I agree with him in this. It is practically impossible to imagine cases when force must be applied.

However, Catholic scholastic theologians solve this problem from the point of view of the Natural Law and the Positive Law of God (theoretically). And I agree that the husband is the head of the wife and from the point of view of the nature of their relationship, he can use force. Similarly, the state can use force in relation to its citizens.

Chrysostom says a noble spirit would not do it, not just that it wouldn't work--though he also says it won't work as well.

But if you agree with him as he interprets Ephesians, and you say you see no reason to beat your wife--then why is there a "problem" that still needed solving for you to quote the quite later Catholic writers? If it won't work, and it should not be done, and you have no text saying you should beat your wife, what is the problem needing solving? Do you just want to reserve a right to beat her in case you decide to, on the flimsiest of pretext? Notice the two quotes you give don't put any text either, because there is no justification for it.

Jesus beats his Church constantly. All death, trials and suffering in the world are, in a certain sense, by the will of God. Thus, God sends trials to every person to teach him. And he punishes for the purpose of teaching.

Hebrews 12 and James refer to enduring trials, etc. But of course you have taken these out of context as well. The Christians being written to by the author of Hebrews had already suffered for their faith, and now were in danger of discouragement due to further persecution. They were not being beaten for being unfaithful.

Hebrews 10:32 But recall the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings: 33 partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated; 34 for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven. 35 Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise. (NKJV)​

He then encourages them not to fall away, but to follow the example of Jesus who endured the cross, and the hostility of sinners for us, laying down His life.

Hebrews 12:1 Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. 4 You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin. 5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons:​

“My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD,​

Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him;​

6 For whom the LORD loves He chastens,​

And scourges every son whom He receives.”​

7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. 11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (NKJV)​

​

For you to twist that into an excuse for you to beat your wife, when you acknowledge it would not work, is ridiculous, And if anyone actually follows your "solution" and abuses their wife, that will be adding to the things you have to give account for. Sin is bound to come, but woe to him through who it comes.

Stop looking for reason to beat your wife, and instead lay down your life for her.

 

[tall73]

The Scriptural texts are capable of being read in a range of ways.

No, Paul did not write Ephesians 5 to justify abusing spouses, and went to some lengths to spell out the love that a husband should have, following the example of Christ.

Every reading is not a legitimate reading.

 

[Paidiske]

No, Paul did not write Ephesians 5 to justify abusing spouses, and went to some lengths to spell out the love that a husband should have, following the example of Christ.

Every reading is not a legitimate reading.

That completely misses the point I was making.

 

[tall73]

That completely misses the point I was making.

I don't think so.

My objection was that it is a no true scotsman to claim that people who quote Scripture to justify their abuse, are not engaged in an "actual" reading of the text. They're reading the text. You might want to say they're reading it badly, but it's an actual reading of the text.

Reading the text to say the opposite of what it says is not a valid reading, it is a twisting of Scripture to justify the behavior they already wanted. I don't have to take seriously a reading that indicates Jesus laying down His life for the church, and the husband loving his wife as his own body means that husbands should beat their wives. It is not at all supported by the text, and they are reading it in from their own desires.

In the same way, when you change the simile to where it no longer functions as a legitimate simile, and have it saying the opposite of what it says, you are changing the text.

It says:

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)​

It does not say:

For the husband is not head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so but let the wives be in equal partnership with their husbands in everything.​

You say that as if egalitarianism did not arise from the Scriptures.

I am saying you have to change what is stated in Ephesians 5:23-24 to get an egalitarian notion out of it. And the other poster has changed what is stated in Ephesians 5:25-29 to somehow get beating your wife out of it.

You indicated you are "looking for" views:

Paidiske said:​

So I'd be looking for views which are explicitly against gender based hierarchy and rigid roles, or dynamics of power and control.​

​

We should start by looking at what the text says, not picking our end-point and going from there.​

​

The Scriptural texts are capable of being read in a range of ways. Egalitarianism, by the very nature of its convictions, works against the attitudes which underpin abuse. But there are other readings of the text which promote the attitudes which underpin abuse.

The Spirit is not going to inspire abuse. So we can safely look at what the text says, and start with that, We don't need to start with our definition of what would be safe, and then read back from there, trying to find it in the text.

 

[Paidiske]

I am saying you have to change what is stated in Ephesians 5:23-24 to get an egalitarian notion out of it.

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

You indicated you are "looking for" views:

Paidiske said:​

So I'd be looking for views which are explicitly against gender based hierarchy and rigid roles, or dynamics of power and control.​

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. So we can safely look at what the text says, and start with that, We don't need to start with our definition of what would be safe, and then read back from there, trying to find it in the text.

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.