Power and Control-Check Out this Wheel

[teresa]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

View attachment 241444

Should it bother us that God, Himself, has resorted to many of these social measures at one time or another? If so, is there something missing in this quasi-Marxist matrix that we should also consider?

I'm not attempting to blow a hole in the wheel itself, humanly speaking, nor as a fairly egalitarian Christian myself am I trying to justify abuses by one human being upon another............but we do need to be careful when we are thinking about adopting philosophies that other have been "clearly laid out" for us by others. And I think both Jesus and His Apostles would say the same.............................

 

[mkgal1]

I think you're going to have to elaborate on how [you believe] God resorted to many of these social measures. That does seem to be where the mainstream church gets hung up on how they respond to relational abuses (believing it's "God's way").

 

[PloverWing]

I'm not seeing a Marxist element here.

Everything in the wheel is a form of power. It's not an exhaustive list of the forms of power -- you can only fit so much into a single graphic -- but it's a good beginning.

There are some situations in which the exercise of power and control is appropriate, and in those contexts, some of the items on the wheel could be legitimately used, for the benefit of the person being controlled and for the benefit of the larger society. "Making and/or carrying out threats to do something to hurt her/him" is a standard government exercise of power: Steal a car, and you'll be imprisoned. Run a red light, and you'll pay a fine. "Controlling what she/he does", within reasonable limits, is power exercised by parents over their toddler children who cannot yet make good choices of their own. God, as creator of the universe, legitimately exercises power over God's creation. Note also that some items on the list are uses of power that are never appropriate.

The kinds of power listed in the wheel are not appropriate in an egalitarian marriage relationship. These uses of power would violate the trust that exists in an egalitarian relationship.

How much power is appropriate in a hierarchical/"complementarian" marriage, I'll have to leave to the folks who approve of hierarchical marriages. Some of the items listed under "male privilege" and "economic abuse" are standard components of a hierarchical marriage. I myself would never want to enter into a hierarchical marriage, exactly because I would not want to be on the receiving end of any of the kinds of power listed in the wheel in an intimate relationship.

 

[grasping the after wind]

View attachment 241444

Shouldn't the one section actually read Using Male/Female privilege? with the addition of the following. Using the cultural taboo in which it is seen as absolutely forbidden for a male to use violence against a women for any reason but not for a women to use violence against a man. To subjugate the male/female spouse and physically harm him/her knowing there can be no excuse for retaliation?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'm not seeing a Marxist element here.

Everything in the wheel is a form of power.

That is the Marxist element. Everything in Marxist thought is a form of power.

 

[mkgal1]

we do need to be careful when we are thinking about adopting philosophies that other have been "clearly laid out" for us by others. And I think both Jesus and His Apostles would say the same.............................

About this: the Bible has a plot....a story....and it's not really an answer to everything. What the Bible *does* say about how we treat others (and how God treats us), though, are things like this:

Colossians 3:12 ~ Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

Isaiah 54:10 ~ Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,” says the LORD, who has compassion on you.

Philippians 2:3 ~ Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves.

1 Peter 3:8 Live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers and sisters, be compassionate and humble.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 ~ Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends.


​

 

[mkgal1]

I had come across this article years ago, and this part is what's always stood out to me:

------->Love freely given. One of the most misunderstood aspects of marital love is the fact that true love is totally voluntary, unforced, and free of manipulation or control. God declared that this was the way He loved His people when He promised, “I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely” (Hos. 14:4). The word freely in this verse means voluntarily. In other words, God is explaining that His love can’t be forced or manipulated by others and that He has chosen to love His people for His own reasons. Jesus said the same thing about the love that motivated Him to go to the cross. “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself” (John 10:17-18). Jesus was declaring that no one was controlling His decisions. He was voluntarily giving up His life because He loved us.

Why is this aspect of your love so important to maintaining your relationship? Because many husbands and wives tell me that they have fallen out of love with their mate and at the same time declare that they have a controlling, manipulating, pressuring, nagging, jealous, or clingy spouse. All of these behaviors destroy the voluntary nature of love. Couples also relate to me that when they first dated and became engaged they did so out of a voluntary choice, but now all they sense is force or control strangling the desire to love. ~

What It Means To Love Your Spouse
If you are the spouse that is attempting to control, let me say to you that this manipulation is destroying the very love that you are attempting to keep or renew. Love must always be given out of a free choice by the one loving. The more you seek to force, manipulate, and control your mate, the less you will be loved.

If you have fallen into this trap, ask your mate’s forgiveness and return to loving freely without nagging and control. Seek your mate’s best interest and encourage activities that promote freedom and trust. If you can’t seem to give up these behaviors, you should seek personal counseling for yourself. ~ What It Means To Love Your Spouse

 

[PloverWing]

Shouldn't the one section actually read Using Male/Female privilege? with the addition of the following.

I could see revising the title of that section, though I don't have a good alternative title in my head at the moment. Something like "Acting Like You Have Authority Over Your Spouse", but that's not very concise. I have seen wives treating their husbands like servants, and that is a destructive use of power, just like the reverse.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I could see revising the title of that section, though I don't have a good alternative title in my head at the moment. Something like "Acting Like You Have Authority Over Your Spouse", but that's not very concise. I have seen wives treating their husbands like servants, and that is a destructive use of power, just like the reverse.

It is not the reverse it is the same power of manipulation for those that wish to manipulate others. Some people seem to think you are either a manipulator or the manipulated and if they see themselves as the former they wish to continue the status quo to be but if they see themselves as the latter they wish to flip the situation rather than just end the manipulation. They do not seem to realize that one can decide to be neither.

 

[PloverWing]

It is not the reverse it is the same power of manipulation for those that wish to manipulate others. Some people seem to think you are either a manipulator or the manipulated and if they see themselves as the former they wish to continue the status quo to be but if they see themselves as the latter they wish to flip the situation rather than just end the manipulation. They do not seem to realize that one can decide to be neither.

I meant that a wife treating a husband as a servant is bad, and a husband treating a wife as a servant is also bad. I agree that in a marriage, neither spouse should be treating the other as a servant.

I also agree with your observation about how "some people seem to think you are either a manipulator or the manipulated". I've seen this hiding as an assumption in some people's writing on marriage: "Well, somebody has to be in charge, so here are some reasons why it's the man..." As you say, it's an important moment of enlightenment to realize that we can set aside power hierarchies altogether, that relationships can exist without one person being in charge of the other.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you're going to have to elaborate on how [you believe] God resorted to many of these social measures. That does seem to be where the mainstream church gets hung up on how they respond to relational abuses (believing it's "God's way").

Shall we start at the beginning and work ourselves all the way to the end of Scripture in order to see that God has applied "vengeance" upon His adversaries at various times and in various ways. Nah. That would be a bit tedious if we did so, and any Christian who has actually read the Bible from cover to cover already knows that what I'm saying is true. But of course, ethically speaking, what we're really concerned with here is how human beings treat one another, and in that context, particularly as it applies to our ideas of social egalitarianism and also to our understandings of Church social propriety, care, and also discipline, we would be very hard pressed to find examples that betray the notions lined up in the Wheel as presented in the OP.

So, while God WILL BE meting out appropriate punishments in the future, as He's done in the past, we the Church are to seek for peace, reconciliation, love, grace, compassion, mercy, and holiness while we all do our best to emulate Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The problem with the wheel is that it is .... one sided. Simply adhering to a principle of "do no harm" isn't enough to actually move us ethically onto the level of Jesus and within the state of God's Holiness; it also doesn't prevent semantic abuses where seemingly 'good rules of conduct' are used to inhibit people from doing things they should be doing ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not seeing a Marxist element here.

Everything in the wheel is a form of power. It's not an exhaustive list of the forms of power -- you can only fit so much into a single graphic -- but it's a good beginning.

...your citing to us what isn't in the graphic is to align your initial intuitions about its content with what I've already said. And thus we also notice that nowhere in the Wheel is God a centerpiece; see the problem? It's kind of like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in which there is NO theologically authoritative ethical foundation that prevents a reflexive application by its protagonists to inhibit Christians from, say, opening their mouths prophetically and calling "sin" what it is.

There are some situations in which the exercise of power and control is appropriate, and in those contexts, some of the items on the wheel could be legitimately used, for the benefit of the person being controlled and for the benefit of the larger society. "Making and/or carrying out threats to do something to hurt her/him" is a standard government exercise of power: Steal a car, and you'll be imprisoned. Run a red light, and you'll pay a fine. "Controlling what she/he does", within reasonable limits, is power exercised by parents over their toddler children who cannot yet make good choices of their own. God, as creator of the universe, legitimately exercises power over God's creation. Note also that some items on the list are uses of power that are never appropriate.

The kinds of power listed in the wheel are not appropriate in an egalitarian marriage relationship. These uses of power would violate the trust that exists in an egalitarian relationship.

How much power is appropriate in a hierarchical/"complementarian" marriage, I'll have to leave to the folks who approve of hierarchical marriages. Some of the items listed under "male privilege" and "economic abuse" are standard components of a hierarchical marriage. I myself would never want to enter into a hierarchical marriage, exactly because I would not want to be on the receiving end of any of the kinds of power listed in the wheel in an intimate relationship.

Yes, I understand all of that. BUT, we need to be careful about how the context or lack of context of a suppose truth can then allow that truth to be used as some kind of "weapon" that either supplants or replaces God's Word and His judgements.

As far as I'm concerned, I chimed in here because I didn't realize this was going to begin to become a "just the marriage issue" discussion; I was looking at it on a more universal, societal level. But, if we're going to bring the issue of equity and egalitarianism in marriage up, let's just be careful that we're not simply replacing one questionable idea, like Patriarchy, with another questionable idea, like Matriarchy.

And my main point is, like your main point, that what appears as our "truth" can be used as a social bludgeon upon others who aren't actually abusing us but are rather simply disagreeing with us.

 

[PloverWing]

Since this is the Egalitarian Christians forum, I was assuming that marriage (and other romantic partnerships) was the context for the graphic.

 

[mkgal1]

Shall we start at the beginning and work ourselves all the way to the end of Scripture in order to see that God has applied "vengeance" upon His adversaries at various times and in various ways. Nah. That would be a bit tedious if we did so, and any Christian who has actually read the Bible from cover to cover already knows that what I'm saying is true

It really depends upon how a person looks at all that (in the bigger picture). Personally, I only see that vengeance as being for a specific time frame - and I believe the purpose was to demonstrate a contrast between a system of "do wrong - get punished" and His grace/restoration through genuine love.

It *does* matter how we perceive God (and His ways) since we are to emulate His ways. If we believe it's okay for one person (especially a spouse) to ever mete out any vengeance on the other....then there's a problem (in my opinion - and in my experience).

we the Church are to seek for peace, reconciliation, love, grace, compassion, mercy, and holiness while we all do our best to emulate Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

As I said above.....it's important that we have an accurate understanding as to what that even means to "emulate Christ" (I've seen some horrible examples of people that claim to be -and I believe they're being sincere- acting "like Christ" and even have the support of many others).

The problem with the wheel is that it is .... one sided. Simply adhering to a principle of "do no harm" isn't enough to actually move us ethically onto the level of Jesus and within the state of God's Holiness.

Well.....power is one-sided, so that's probably why the wheel is that way.

This isn't meant to be anything more than a way to point out unhealthy/abusive behavior or relational characteristics.

....it also doesn't prevent semantic abuses where seemingly 'good rules of conduct' are used to inhibit people from doing things they should be doing ..

What do you mean by "semantic abuses" ? Can you give an example where 'good rules of conduct' are used to inhibit people from doing the things they should be doing? I'm just not sure what you have on your mind here.

 

[mkgal1]

let's just be careful that we're not simply replacing one questionable idea, like Patriarchy, with another questionable idea, like Matriarchy.

This is an egalitarian forum.....so that's what we are in support of. Equality means just that - no one person holds power over the other.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Since this is the Egalitarian Christians forum, I was assuming that marriage (and other romantic partnerships) was the context for the graphic.

Actually, the term 'egalitarian' applies to much, much more than just social tensions between men and women; it also refers to the defining and activation of civil and human rights between diverse groups involving social and economic class, and ethnicity, among other things. So, "Egalitarian Christianity" SHOULD be about bringing social parity between people of all kinds, and not just between men and women, husbands and wives, etc. (...and this is basically what we see in Paul's writing).

Of course, I realize that we have the Liberal Christians section, but some of the same underlying philosophical and social critique could be levied at it as well.

But, since I didn't see the heading designating that this is 'reduced' down to just discussions over the 'Complementarian vs. Egalitarian' views on women's roles in society and church, I'll just stand to the side [even though I stand about half-way between both views...probably more egalitarian, but I don't want to have to curb my philosophical predilections for the sake of labels].

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[mkgal1]

Actually, the term 'egalitarian' applies to much, much more than just social tensions between men and women; it also refers to the defining and activation of civil and human rights between diverse groups involving social and economic class, and ethnicity, among other things. So, "Egalitarian Christianity" SHOULD be about bringing social parity between people of all kinds, and not just between men and women, husbands and wives, etc.

Of course, I realize that we have the Liberal Christians section, but some of the same underlying philosophical and social critique could be levied at it as well.

I absolutely agree that's the appropriate definition of "egalitarian", and I wonder if there should either be an amendment to the SOP for this forum (it focuses on men/women).....or some sort of title change. I don't believe it was a goal to discuss other imbalances (like economic/racial/social).....but I don't see why not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I absolutely agree that's the appropriate definition of "egalitarian", and I wonder if there should either be an amendment to the SOP for this forum (it focuses on men/women).....or some sort of title change. I don't believe it was a goal to discuss other imbalances (like economic/racial/social).....but I don't see why not.

....well, on the other hand, I don't want to pull the rug out from having a 'safe haven' in which the ladies can come together to discuss all of these tough issues involving "dealing with men."

 

[grasping the after wind]

I meant that a wife treating a husband as a servant is bad, and a husband treating a wife as a servant is also bad. I agree that in a marriage, neither spouse should be treating the other as a servant.

I also agree with your observation about how "some people seem to think you are either a manipulator or the manipulated". I've seen this hiding as an assumption in some people's writing on marriage: "Well, somebody has to be in charge, so here are some reasons why it's the man..." As you say, it's an important moment of enlightenment to realize that we can set aside power hierarchies altogether, that relationships can exist without one person being in charge of the other.

that is also true of every other kind of relationship and every situation one finds oneself in. If one decides not to manipulate or be manipulated they can pursue happiness. If one insists upon manipulating or if one insists that they are helpless to resist manipulation unless they themselves are doing the manipulating, then happiness will never be attainable. IMO political philosophies based upon the latter POV i.e. one cannot resist manipulation unless one becomes the manipulator have been the cause of more evil than any other POV in the history of mankind.