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

[Paidiske]

But the apostles do not state the same ideal as you.

I disagree. In the balance of their advice to husbands and wives, they paint a picture of marriage as mutual love and service, in which relationships of control can never fit.

As to the rest, frankly your posts are descending to the level of personal accusation and attack. I am disinclined to continue with the discussion, but am satisfied to have made the clear point about the need to be careful about the potential to read these texts in ways which perpetuate abusive understandings of marriage, rather than mutuality.

Anyone who does what the text says is not abusing their spouse.

Which is exactly why any dynamic of control is excluded.

And you are right; the Anglican understanding of marriage has developed over time. We no longer have wives vow to obey in the wedding service. Partly because we recognise how harmful such a vow is.

This is a relevant document: https://anglican.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Ten-Commitments-April-2021.pdf

"We recognise that sin and gender inequality lie at the heart of domestic & family violence. Violent behaviour grows from attitudes and other behaviours which abuse a person’s power and exercise control over another. We affirm the life-giving words of Holy Scripture, but we also recognise that some Scripture has been used to justify unacceptable behaviours."

 

[tall73]

I disagree. In the balance of their advice to husbands and wives, they paint a picture of marriage as mutual love and service, in which relationships of control can never fit.

You disagree, but don't address any of the theological arguments they present. You trim out whole sections of the specific instruction on how to live out the Christian life in marriage in epistles, intended to instruct the church, by Apostles in the NT age. And then you speak of the "balance" of what remains. That is not convincing.

As to the rest, frankly your posts are descending to the level of personal accusation and attack.

Pointing out how your view is inconsistent with Scripture on a variety of points is not personal attack. This is especially the case since the thread was for the stated purpose of seeing what Scripture says on the topic.

Nor is trying to understand your view of inspiration, which you seem to acknowledge influences your interpretation, a personal attack.

Moreover, saying you bring in your own standard from outside the text is not a personal attack, because you have expressed your own view that you integrate secular academics into your analysis.

I am disinclined to continue with the discussion, but am satisfied to have made the clear point about the need to be careful about the potential to read these texts in ways which perpetuate abusive understandings of marriage, rather than mutuality.

You always have the choice whether to engage in the discussion.

However,

• You did not uphold your claim that it was based on Roman culture. Rather, they used a variety of theological arguments.
• You declined to engage on the submission to authorities argument, even though you indicated Roman law was part of your analysis. Because had you engaged it would be even more clear that God does give delegated authority, and to resist that is to resist God.
• And you expressed that apostles may not have met your standard, and may have spiritually abused people in Scripture, which shows you are not looking at what Scripture says as any authority, but rather wish to hold Scripture to account by your own standards regarding abuse. You even acknowledged your standard is rather recent.

Anyone who does what the text says is not abusing their spouse.

Which is exactly why any dynamic of control is excluded.

The text includes submission and headship. It is you that excluded the text. But, those who do what the text say are still not abusing.

And you are right; the Anglican understanding of marriage has developed over time. We no longer have wives vow to obey in the wedding service. Partly because we recognise how harmful such a vow is.

So when you said tradition, you meant....not really tradition as much as fairly recent innovation.

So not looking at all of Scripture, not going with tradition, but definitely going with secular academic literature, which you referenced.

This is a relevant document: https://anglican.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Ten-Commitments-April-2021.pdf

"We recognise that sin and gender inequality lie at the heart of domestic & family violence. Violent behaviour grows from attitudes and other behaviours which abuse a person’s power and exercise control over another. We affirm the life-giving words of Holy Scripture, but we also recognise that some Scripture has been used to justify unacceptable behaviours."

"We affirm the life-giving words of Holy Scripture, but..." is never a great way to start a sentence. And of course, as in your arguments, they do not point out actual problems with the text, but only with those who have not followed the text.

Scripture standards are not less true because some people didn't follow them.

 

[Paidiske]

Pointing out how your view is inconsistent with Scripture on a variety of points is not personal attack.

But claiming that I "ignore" particular Scriptures, or read in "whatever you feel like," are personal remarks, and are not particularly respectful or courteous. It comes across as dismissive and belittling, and I'm just not willing to continue engaging in that vein.

And you have expressed your own view that you integrate secular academics into your analysis.

Of course. To do so would be profoundly dangerous. We cannot afford to ignore all the resources for wisdom and understanding that God has placed at our disposal.

It is only you that excluded the text.

I did not exclude the text. I read it within a wider context.

So when you said tradition, you meant....not really tradition as much as fairly recent innovation.

Tradition is not the despotism of the oldest source.

 

[tall73]

But claiming that I "ignore" particular Scriptures, or read in "whatever you feel like," are personal remarks, and are not particularly respectful or courteous. It comes across as dismissive and belittling, and I'm just not willing to continue engaging in that vein.

Yet you did ignore the theological arguments made for submission and headship.

The particulars are still there to address should you choose to.

And yes, by your own admission you read in from secular academics, when the thread was on what the Scriptures say.

 

[tall73]

Tradition is not the despotism of the oldest source.

Tradition was not the topic either, but if you're going to use it as an argument, it doesn't bolster much your position regarding Scripture to acknowledge your take is a rather new innovation, based partly on secular academics.

 

[Paidiske]

Yet you did ignore the theological arguments made for submission and headship.

I didn't ignore them. I just don't think they change the fundamental reality; husbands and wives are called to a relationship of mutual love and service. That is the dynamic within which wives submit. Not one-sided submission and control.

 

[tall73]

I didn't ignore them. I just don't think they change the fundamental reality; husbands and wives are called to a relationship of mutual love and service. That is the dynamic within which wives submit. Not one-sided submission and control.

You did not address the specific theological arguments, however you would like to describe your lack of addressing them.

You have stated previously and now, you don't think they change the "fundamental reality", or the "big picture." But you still did not go through the theological rationales to engage how it speaks to the fundamental reality.

Since the topic is on what the Scriptures say, choosing to not get into parts of what they say doesn't bolster your case.

You still have the opportunity.

 

[Tigran1245]

Women seem to be dissatisfied and opposed to the dominance of men, saying to themselves: «Why are men installed over us as leaders, and we must be executors of their orders?» And since they cannot openly resist, knowing that this is done according to the divine order, they begin to silently resist and complain about men, saying: «they treat us like despots.»


(Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople Poghos Adrianopolsetsi 1763 – 1853)

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Women seem to be dissatisfied and opposed to the dominance of men, saying to themselves: «Why are men installed over us as leaders, and we must be executors of their orders?» And since they cannot openly resist, knowing that this is done according to the divine order, they begin to silently resist and complain about men, saying: «they treat us like despots.»


(Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople Poghos Adrianopolsetsi 1763 – 1853)

so you admit that women are to obey not just God but males as well or they are in rebellion to God?

 

[Tigran1245]

so you admit that women are to obey not just God but males as well or they are in rebellion to God?

Yes, sure

 

[Rose_bud]

Jesus is not born into a perfect world. But yet it is this very world he comes to redeem.

How he interacts with the woman at the well, shows us that He would transcend the boundaries of social norms to redeem, to the disbelief of his disciples. He is counter-cultural. His interaction with the woman caught in adultery speaks volumes of his concern for how woman are treated. For the law of Moses was to both parties transgressing the marriage covenant.

But what is interesting is that when asked about divorce. Jesus points back to Genesis 1 as the ideal. Not Moses law, for it was allowed due to the unforgiving nature of humanity. But it was never the ideal.

Jesus redeems both male and female to mutual service and submission, to lay down there lives for the other. Both are called to do as He did.

Jesus came to set us free, free from sin, free from failing God's righteous standards. Sin we know had consequences that affected how we relate to God, to each other, to ourselves, to His creation.

Jesus came to die to all those things, He rescued us. He did it by coming down to the ground, Born as a man, born of a woman.

Because of what He did, we can now do the same. We are free, we have only one master Christ.

Both male and female are free to submit. Men to woman and woman to men.

As Christians we know we are free (both male and female). We are free to live out our purpose on this earth. Because we know it's Christ living and breathing through us. As He did in the Garden. Because it is only His breath that could empower/ fill in order for them to be fruitful and multiply.

Christ asks us to do something, do what He did, ie subvert the power and authority in place by serving. He had no problem submitting because He was truly free.

In Matthew he asks his disciples to do the same. When they request that they be elevated to a position of power. He tells them it is not to be so amongst them. But that they serve. Although it is said to the twelve, it was meant for us all. To men and women.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Yes, sure

So you admit that women were slaves from the beginning.

 

[Tigran1245]

So you admit that women were slaves from the beginning.

Women are absolutely equal to men in human nature and dignity. Therefore, they are not slaves, because a slave is one who is inferior in dignity.

However, due to their natural role, they must be subordinate to men. Subordination is not slavery, just as being subordinate to your parents, your boss, or the government is not slavery.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Women are absolutely equal to men in human nature and dignity. Therefore, they are not slaves, because a slave is one who is inferior in dignity.

no, a slave is inferior in power, authority & rights, you are saying women are inferior in power, authority & rights

However, due to their natural role,

what dose this mean.

they must be subordinate to men. Subordination is not slavery, just as being subordinate to your parents, your boss, or the government is not slavery.

yes subordination is slavery, someone rules over you and makes decisions about your life without your consent. They do not necessarily have your well-being in mind. They are concerned with their agenda and power.

you cannot have dignity without having say over your own life. when someone else has say over your life you are at their wish and whim.

until you understand this is about power who has it and who does not, you will never understand what the problem is. you are saying that some people will never be allowed to have power and it is God ordained. What sickness what evil. it is not a matter of law or behavior or ability, but something they cannot control. gender. This kind of thinking has been used to justify slavery and abuse.

I have to ask the question why do people obsess with this issue if they have the well-being of others in mind? In my experience, people who obsess with power rarely have the benefit of others in mind. People in power usually use others to benefit themselves.

 

[tall73]

I would still group the texts you cited under the following elements.

1. Creation
2. Rebellion/(Fall)
3. Redemption/Rescue
4. Consummation

So I'll respond in that manner. As I've indicated before my opinion is that the best approach would be a biblical theology which takes into account the whole corpus of Scripture. Tracing the theme through the four elements. To determine what God intended as He progressively reveals Himself throughout the text.

Since it looks like you are progressing through the elements, and part of the argument is tracing through so as to see them as a whole, could you please, when you are finished, post all of them together again in succession for folks to get the desired impact? Then we could address the observations and arguments made regarding the text.

I realize you already indicated we could, and you have to some degree interacted. But, because in the other thread you indicated it may take you a while, I have waited to get the whole picture.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Since it looks like you are progressing through the elements, and part of the argument is tracing through so as to see them as a whole, could you please, when you are finished, post all of them together again in succession for folks to get the desired impact? Then we could address the observations and arguments made regarding the text.

I realize you already indicated we could, and you have to some degree interacted. But, because in the other thread you indicated it may take you a while, I have waited to get the whole picture.

what is your obsession with this issue? you are overly obsessed with this? Why? What are you trying to get at? What are you trying to accomplish?

 

[tall73]

what is your obsession with this issue? you are overly obsessed with this? Why? What are you trying to get at? What are you trying to accomplish?

My specific response to the poster was to offer that she re-post her work that she indicated was a unified picture so that people could see the scope. She had offered to do such in the previous thread, and has been following through, so I wanted to let her know I was reviewing it to understand her position.

Perhaps you just quoted that as the most recent.

I am overly obsessed with this topic? I have many posts on the forum. Very few are on this topic. And of course, I usually am accused of being obsessed with Adventist doctrine, but you know the story on that.

Recently I have been revisiting things a bit due to offline happenings in my son-in-law's American Baptist church, where he is the pastor. By the way, I am an American Baptist, as you may recall, but I have not mentioned to others.

There is a wide-variety of views in the American Baptist Church, which is a good thing. It allows for a lot of discussion of various viewpoints. They have a long history as a convention of ordaining women. But each church may vary on that point, as is common with congregationally structured Baptist conventions.

The church that I was at the longest had a husband and wife team of pastors. I was in the wife's sunday school class and enjoyed it considerably. The church had a history of not ordaining women, so it was a point of controversy for a while, but that was before we arrived there. That is more of a conversation for the potential follow-up thread on the texts related to teaching, in any case, but gives some background as to my current interest in the topic. We had read some of the literature that the pastoral couple shared with us on these issues some years ago, but have not done a thorough review of all the literature, due to other theological interests.

My son-in-law and I were discussing a potential controversy in his church, which now seems averted, due to varying views in the congregation on this topic. He is from an egalitarian viewpoint, and we had some interesting discussions while disc golfing, which we do pretty regularly. He talked through the viewpoints with those who had a concern, and I don't know the particulars, but my daughter said there seems to be no further issue with controversy, though some still hold different views.

I likewise found at the American Baptist Church I pastored there was a variety of views, but people were able to discuss the issues from the Scriptures without dividing over it. I think that is a good approach.

I also have been discussing with my other children and their families, as two of the children belong to churches that quite clearly articulate male headship.

So when the other thread came up, and I saw you discussing with folks, and pointing out that there is a different approach to the Scriptures, I wanted to see what various approaches people took, and if there were other viewpoints I had not yet seen expressed.

Since three people (all now in this thread) indicated a different way of seeing the text, I am asking them to spell it out.

Yet, as with all of the Scripture topics in the debate area, I am going to follow up with questions to better understand the view of inspiration, consistency with the text, etc., and I hope others do too.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

My specific response to the poster was to offer that she re-post her work that she indicated was a unified picture so that people could see the scope. She had offered to do such in the previous thread, and has been following through, so I wanted to let her know I was reviewing it to understand her position.

Perhaps you just quoted that as the most recent.

I am overly obsessed with this topic? I have many posts on the forum. Very few are on this topic. And of course, I usually am accused of being obsessed with Adventist doctrine, but you know the story on that.

Recently I have been revisiting things a bit due to offline happenings in my son-in-law's American Baptist church, where he is the pastor. By the way, I am an American Baptist, as you may recall, but I have not mentioned to others.

There is a wide-variety of views in the American Baptist Church, which is a good thing. It allows for a lot of discussion of various viewpoints. They have a long history as a convention of ordaining women. But each church may vary on that point, as is common with congregationally structured Baptist conventions.

The church that I was at the longest had a husband and wife team of pastors. I was in the wife's sunday school class and enjoyed it considerably. The church had a history of not ordaining women, so it was a point of controversy for a while, but that was before we arrived there. That is more of a conversation for the potential follow-up thread on the texts related to teaching, in any case, but gives some background as to my current interest in the topic. We had read some of the literature that the pastoral couple shared with us on these issues some years ago, but have not done a thorough review of all the literature, due to other theological interests.

My son-in-law and I were discussing a potential controversy in his church, which now seems averted, due to varying views in the congregation on this topic. He is from an egalitarian viewpoint, and we had some interesting discussions while disc golfing, which we do pretty regularly. He talked through the viewpoints with those who had a concern, and I don't know the particulars, but my daughter said there seems to be no further issue with controversy, though some still hold different views.

I likewise found at the American Baptist Church I pastored there was a variety of views, but people were able to discuss the issues from the Scriptures without dividing over it. I think that is a good approach.

I also have been discussing with my other children and their families, as two of the children belong to churches that quite clearly articulate male headship.

So when the other thread came up, and I saw you discussing with folks, and pointing out that there is a different approach to the Scriptures, I wanted to see what various approaches people took, and if there were other viewpoints I had not yet seen expressed.

Since three people (all now in this thread) indicated a different way of seeing the text, I am asking them to spell it out.

Yet, as with all of the Scripture topics in the debate area, I am going to follow up with questions to better understand the view of inspiration, consistency with the text, etc., and I hope others do too.

ok, that explains Why? you are trying to get a comprehensive view.

 

[tall73]

you are trying to get a comprehensive view.

Yes, that is correct.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Yes, that is correct.

it does not come across like that.