Husbands Authority

[tall73]

But this is the part that I believe is cultural (and changing).

But that is the point. In the case of children there is still an imbalance that cannot help but be so, even today, despite culture.

And yes, we agree that slavery was meant to change, based on Paul's statement and action. But within the cultural concession there was still a disparity at that time.

The nature of childhood is such that we still see a disparity, and not because of archaic notions, but because of God's order, and because a child does not have the ability to order its own life.

Now I think we would agree that wives do have the ability to live independently as people. So that argument is different. The question remains whether God still intends a disparity within the relationship, or whether that too was a concession to culture.

By the way, one more wrinkle, the word for submission is used in regards to wives and slaves, but obey is used for children. They are all connected by the context, and there is some overlap in meaning, but it may not be an accident that obey is here used for children, as a stronger term. Or it could just be that variety is sometimes used to avoid repetition. We see that sometimes in Greek as well. But I still suspect the stronger term was used of Children because the nature of the relationship calls for strict obedience particularly.

 

[tall73]

What I am trying to say is that these are three roles that all have aspects in common in regards to submission. However, each has to be studied out individually, because they have some necessary characteristics that are different.

So let me diagram some possible arguments to show that there are similarities and differences in the handling of each, and so we need to determine cultural application individually.


- children
a. not able to care for themselves, in need of obedience apart from cultural concerns.
b. Nature of God's arrangement of the family to obey parents (which at times extended into adult hood in that culture), for the benefit of society and the family.

Both arguments could still be valid today.

-Slaves
a. Due to order in society should submit to masters
b. Due to nature of relationship have to obey as owe obligation.

Here neither would really apply today because we agree that the Scriptures indicate slavery is wrong.

-wives
a. Some would argue it was a concession to culture to not discredit the gospel
b. Some would argue was part of God's lasting structure of the family for better functioning.

a. would not apply to today's culture.
b. then is where the real question is at.

We cannot appeal to the other two to resolve b in this case because in one case Paul was making a concession to an institution (slavery) that he didn't even think ideally should exist. And in the second case he is endorsing a system that we would all agree should still exist (child/parent relations).

So the task would then be to look at all the texts relating to the marriage and gender dynamics and see if there is information to indicate God ordained disparate power dynamics in the marriage relation apart from just cultural concerns.

 

[Paidiske]

And that's where I would go back to seeing disparate power dynamics as a consequence of the fall, not part of God's good creation.

 

[tall73]

And that's where I would go back to seeing disparate power dynamics as a consequence of the fall, not part of God's good creation.

Yeah, when we get into the particulars, that is a big question. Certainly one of the curses raises the question. Was the power dynamic such because of the fall, or was it amplified because of the fall.

And then folks would ask whether we live according to the pre-fall state, or recognizing we are still in a fallen world, is that curse still something that God instituted for a reason (hard to decide things in a democracy of two is the usual argument).

This is related to how people take Eve being a helper for Adam, which was pre-fall.

 

[tall73]

And that's where I would go back to seeing disparate power dynamics as a consequence of the fall, not part of God's good creation.

By the way, clothes were post-fall too, but I am not joining a nudist colony!

 

[Paidiske]

I think it's only hard if people are impatient.

It's interesting, I was talking to someone recently who does a lot of consulting with churches, and he made an observation (I don't know if I fully believe him or not, but this was what he believed as a result of his experience). He said that when a group of people are men, or mostly men, they organise themselves very efficiently into a hierarchy, and they make decisions and act on them quickly. When a group of people are mostly women, they tend to be less hierarchical and less efficient; they take longer to make decisions. But the outcomes of the mostly-women decisions tended to be better for the group in the long term.

My guess is that that's not because women are better decision-makers, but because a process which listens to everybody and takes more into account is likely to avoid unwanted bad outcomes.

Seems to me that's a principle that would work in marriage, too...

 

[tall73]

It's interesting, I was talking to someone recently who does a lot of consulting with churches, and he made an observation (I don't know if I fully believe him or not, but this was what he believed as a result of his experience). He said that when a group of people are men, or mostly men, they organise themselves very efficiently into a hierarchy, and they make decisions and act on them quickly. When a group of people are mostly women, they tend to be less hierarchical and less efficient; they take longer to make decisions. But the outcomes of the mostly-women decisions tended to be better for the group in the long term.

My guess is that that's not because women are better decision-makers, but because a process which listens to everybody and takes more into account is likely to avoid unwanted bad outcomes.

Seems to me that's a principle that would work in marriage, too...

Either way if a man is to love his wife as Christ loves the church he has to listen to her. So this would not be an issue for either side. It would only be an issue for those who abuse the text to make it do what I say, and only that.

Moreover, we see even in the church that Christ appointed apostles, and they appointed elders in the church. They might listen to the needs of all (such as appointing the seven to help with widow's food distribution), but it was not a democracy. That is neither an argument for or against a particular model in the family, but it is noting that God did not always want decisions to be made by opinion polls either.

That is the extreme, but the point is, God had no problem with authority chains.

Additionally the church in the NT was not operating under the rules of human organization, but the Spirit living in them. And their leaders were chosen on spiritual criteria. In such cases the decisions made by the elders are more than just a dominance hierarchy. The hope would be the same is true in the home.

 

[Paidiske]

The problem is when women are told they must submit whether their husbands are treating them well or not. When he is abusing his authority (or abusing her) and she's told the only godly thing to do is to perpetuate that dynamic by submitting... that's the problem I have with the one-sidedness of this. There's no recourse for the woman, who is made deliberately powerless and helpless, when things go wrong.

 

[tall73]

I think it's only hard if people are impatient.

I am guessing this is in relation to the democracy of two comment.

Well, I think we have had this conversation before, but there were about three occasions where even with protracted listening and trying to compromise on both sides we could not figure out an agreement.

I seem to recall you relating something similar, and that it pained you the result.

I don't think married life has to be always having a showdown, or one person always backing down. And I certainly don't see Ephesians 5 saying that either. Most times you should talk and agree. But there are some rare times that is difficult.

 

[tall73]

The problem is when women are told they must submit whether their husbands are treating them well or not. When he is abusing his authority (or abusing her) and she's told the only godly thing to do is to perpetuate that dynamic by submitting... that's the problem I have with the one-sidedness of this. There's no recourse for the woman, who is made deliberately powerless and helpless, when things go wrong.

Well it is certainly true that has happened in some cases. However, the Scripture spells out obligations on both sides, and those who are in leadership in the church should be able to see that. I agree some do not, and wind up supporting abuse.

One of my friends who was a pastor was holding an evangelistic meeting in an African country. Partway through the time he was there he observed that nearly all the African pastors beat their wives. He said this was not right. They would not reform and told him they would not continue the meetings if he continued to object.

I think he then did not continue and call their bluff. He should have. But I understand that it would potentially mean disruption of a lot of people's opportunity to hear the gospel...that was a lousy situation.

 

[Paidiske]

I am guessing this is in relation to the democracy of two comment.

Well, I think we have had this conversation before, but there were about three occasions where even with protracted listening and trying to compromise on both sides we could not figure out an agreement.

I seem to recall you relating something similar, and that it pained you the result.

I don't think married life has to be always having a showdown, or one person always backing down. And I certainly don't see Ephesians 5 saying that either. Most times you should talk and agree. But there are some rare times that is difficult.

Sure, there are times it is difficult. What I object to is then giving one party an "I get my way" card to short circuit the whole process.

Here's the thing... say there is a man who is mistreating his wife, and he will not listen to all the stuff about loving and serving her.

In a paradigm where she must submit... what can she do to improve things? I don't see that paradigm offering her anything other than a lifetime of suffering.

 

[tall73]

Sure, there are times it is difficult. What I object to is then giving one party an "I get my way" card to short circuit the whole process.

Here's the thing... say there is a man who is mistreating his wife, and he will not listen to all the stuff about loving and serving her.

In a paradigm where she must submit... what can she do to improve things? I don't see that paradigm offering her anything other than a lifetime of suffering.

I would say in most cases it could be resolved by I Corinthians 6, taking it to the church. However, I do acknowledge that some churches would just tell her to do whatever he says.

On the other hand, again this is an abuse of the passage. The passage does say to love your wife. And someone who is going to be abusive would be regardless of the wife's persuasion regarding this text.

The text does not sanction ordering your wife without showing love. So you cannot fault what the text says for the abuse of it.

In cases of physical abuse it may be best today to resolve it by means of the authorities, as they still bear the sword, per Romans 13, and punish the wrong-doer. There may be cases where for safety that is the only route.

 

[Paidiske]

Sure, an abusive person will be abusive no matter what; but in an equal marriage she can, for example, insist on counselling, or separation, or the like.

The problem is that the text doesn't give any remedy when power/authority is abused, if you read it as saying that a wife must submit no matter what.

 

[tall73]

Sure, an abusive person will be abusive no matter what; but in an equal marriage she can, for example, insist on counselling, or separation, or the like.

The problem is that the text doesn't give any remedy when power/authority is abused, if you read it as saying that a wife must submit no matter what.

Except I Cor. 6 is a remedy. And today at least Romans 13 as well.

 

[Paidiske]

Except I Cor. 6 is a remedy.

I don't see any remedy there. What does it allow her to do if he is doing the wrong thing?

 

[tall73]

I don't see any remedy there. What does it allow her to do if he is doing the wrong thing?

Take it to the church to decide the disagreement. If he is acting abusively they should explain to him that this is not what the text is saying, and that he is to love her as Christ loves the church.

I had people come to me as their pastor to deal with family dynamics. If the husband was treating her harshly then we would have to go over that and ask him to follow the text as it actually reads.

Also we would preach on the text and highlight the husband's responsibility, so it was clear that it was not just an excuse to order your spouse.

 

[tall73]

Additionally I have known women who when their husband quotes the submission part simply quotes the other part and asks him to do it.

If he is sincerely confused (usually not the case if he is using it that way) then he can correct his behavior. If he is abusive he will not regardless.

Just as the disciples refused to comply with the order of the Sanhedrin to not preach in the name of Jesus, saying decide for yourselves whether we should listen to you or God, so a wife can say similarly to her husband who is abusing his authority that he is using his authority contrary to God and she will not follow it.

 

[Paidiske]

But what if he doesn't listen to the elder/pastor/minister? Stops going to church or finds a church more to his taste or just ignores them?

"Get your pastor to tell him" isn't an adequate answer.

 

[tall73]

But what if he doesn't listen to the elder/pastor/minister? Stops going to church or finds a church more to his taste or just ignores them?

"Get your pastor to tell him" isn't an adequate answer.

a. Romans 13 as already noted.

b. Have you found any egalitarian church that completely eliminated abuse?

The text gives God's will, as do many texts. People often go against God's will and act sinfully. Is there a guaranteed way to stop people sinning? No. But going to your church is an option. If that doesn't work refusing to comply is an option if he is going against God. And if that doesn't work the government is God's agent to punish the wrong-doer.

And after all that, it is no different than other ways of viewing the text, God carries out vengeance on the sinner if they do not repent, but sin still exists.

 

[Paidiske]

a. Romans 13 as already noted.

b. Have you found any egalitarian church that completely eliminated abuse?

The text gives God's will, as do many texts. People often go against God's will and act sinfully. Is there a guaranteed way to stop people sinning? No. But going to your church is an option. If that doesn't work refusing to comply is an option if he is going against God. And if that doesn't work the government is God's agent to punish the wrong-doer.

And after all that, it is no different than other ways of viewing the text, God carries out vengeance on the sinner if they do not repent, but sin still exists.

I think you're missing my point. If we say to her that she doesn't have to submit in every circumstance, no matter what, that gives her options. For example, she can separate from him.

But if you tell her she must submit in every circumstance, no matter what, then if he doesn't want to listen to his church or whatever she's stuck. And that's the bit I'm having a problem with.

It's absolutely wrong to put someone in a situation of powerlessness and then tell her there's no way out, ever, no matter what. It's why we allow people to be refugees from evil governments, after all!