For reasons that have been covered off line, I will not be commenting on the comp-egal blog. I welcome readers, commenters, I will read there and comment here. Email addresses will not be disclosed (shoot, I have an alternate email address for using when I know my email address will be disclosed).
Charity said:
Taking the first definiton of someone who has "absolute, unrestricted control" here in a marriage relationship rather than a government, it seems to me that dictatorship is exactly the model propounded by CBMW for the government of marriages/households.
CBMW says:(From “Love and Respect in Marriage“) Since God himself cannot sin, he has not delegated to anyone the authority to command someone else to sin. Thus, if a husband instructs his wife to do something that contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, she may properly refuse to obey, saying, “God has not given you authority to command me to do that” (see Acts 4:19-20; 5:27-32).
Thus, in just this one quote (used before on this blog) that CBMW teaches that a husband's authority is NOT absolute, and thus does not follow the first definition that Charity refers to.
I also looked up the definitions within the defintion
absolute: (the definitions that I think are most likely to be relevant)
- Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
- Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See Usage Note at infinite.
- Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an absolute ruler.
As I have already shown, husbands ARE limited (by God), authority IS conditional (a wife may refuse to submit and/or obey if the husband is sinning or telling her to sin) and IS constrained by Scripture.
Thus, "absolute, unrestricted control" is not applicable, even with your chosen definition.
Sue
I can't read all your posts, but IMO, the CBMW should pay for someone to go and study Greek at an accredited university and then sift through their website and clean it up.
Sue
PS Seven years, not an undergrad level.
Charity
As I have already shown, husbands ARE limited (by God), authority IS conditional (a wife may refuse to submit and/or obey if the husband is sinning or telling her to sin) and IS constrained by Scripture.
Thus, “absolute, unrestricted control” is not applicable, even with your chosen definition.
I really don’t see that this makes any difference. I think there are a lot of Christians through the centuries who have agreed with the notion of civil disobedience, whereby they would disobey instructions to sin – the form of government does not affect this at all. Way back in the time of Daniel, there were people who were prepared to disobey the “law of the Medes and the Persians”.
Ellen
Abuse is a sin.
Complementarianism is not a sin.
You defined the term "dictatorial", not me, remember?
Abuse is a sin.
Complementarianism is not a sin.
The authority of a husband IS limited BY God. That does not fall under YOUR own definition of "absolute, unrestricted control".
Abuse is a sin.
Complementarianism is not a sin.
Charity
Ellen
I don't find it particularly helpful when you repeatedly "shout" the same sentences over and over.
I don't think dictatorship is sin. But dictatorship can lead to sins being committed. I don't think complementarianism is a sin. But I believe that complementarian teachings can lead to sins being committed.
I believe that anybody and everybody's authority is limited by God, as I pointed out in my comment. This does unfortunately does not prevent them, in human terms, form having absolute, unrestricted control - I pointed out what I meant by that, in reponse to your assertion that complementarianism = democracy. No-one can vote the husband out. The only way out is to remove yourself from the relationship, which is not a restriction of control, as the relationship no longer exists.
Ellen
If you all don’t like the number of times that the phrase
Abuse is a sin.
Complementarianism is not a sin.
is repeated, count the number of times that abuse has been brought into the conversation, regardless of the number of times that CBMW has been directly quoted that says:
Abuse is a sin.
It is. And we should deal with it as such.
Complementarianism is not a sin.
Complementarianism is what this conversation is about.
So…how do those people in marital anarchy think that the church should submit to Christ?
Ellen
I should ask that last question a different way:
How do people in marital anarchy believe that the bride of Christ should submit to the dictator called "Jesus"?
Ellen
If you would like, I will limit my use of the phrase
Abuse is a sin.
Complementarianism is not a sin.
to the number of times that the word "abuse" (or synonyms) is used. Fair enough?
Charity
Well, believe it or not if you ask a question about abuse, it's difficult to answer without using that word. Also you don't need to repeat the same mantra each time a word you don't appear to like is mentioned.
And here was I deluding myself that we were having a constructive discussion.
And somehow I still hope that it may be so.
To come back to your question in 6 + 7, which I believe I have already answered before, but can't remember if it was here or on the blog you no longer wish to comment on...
Maybe Sue can correct me on this if she is still around, but as far as I know in Greek, the word that is translated as "as" does not necessarily mean "in the same (identical) way as".
Ellen
You are correct, of course. It is just very wearying to continue to have such terms as "dictatorial, abuse, slavery" all used in connection with Godly leadership.
as far as "as", why use the parallel?
And if we can use the alternative meaning for that, does "submit to one another" mean in identical ways, or can it also mean that a wife's submission to her husband is different than the way a husband submits to his wife (the rest of the passage)?
Sue
I have written about these ideas on my own blog. I have posted a link here. I hope this helps. Since you have hosted the conversation here you might want to paste the excerpt from Clement into your own blog and ask discuss it. It is, in itself, not a radical egalitarian document.
Sue
I'll look at the "as" question later this evening. It is a good question.
Sue
I'll look at this some other time. I am done blogging for now.
Leigh Ann
Ellen, it is so refreshing to read your thoughts. There is so much good stuff to think about. Keep it up.