This is the bulk of Charity's comment from a previous post:
So, Ellen, are you saying that for you, the only alternative to unilateral authority is anarchy?
At the time that the Bible was written democracy did not exist anywhere - as far as I know the first emergence of democracy was roughly speaking about 1000 years after the last part of the New Testament was written. I think most Christians would however be in agreement that democracy is not anarchy, and again most Christians would prefer government by democracy to government by dictatorship.
I am not arguing in favour of anarchy, I am arguing in favour of adults treating each other as adults and finding a way of taking decisions together.
Abuse can occur in any system, but there’s a double whammy, if the abuse is shored up by what is seen as legitimate authority in the system.
Well that’s all well and good for the women who as he puts it have “chosen the right man” (and I would by the grace of God count myself among that number), but what about those who haven’t? Isn’t that the same thing as saying “well it’s their own fault for having chosen the wrong man”? I’m sorry, but I can’t go along with that.
Taken piece by piece:
So, Ellen, are you saying that for you, the only alternative to unilateral authority is anarchy?
No more so than having an authority in place is a dictatorship. No more so than a Godly husband as head of the home is "dictatorial".
By the way, why use "unilateral" as a qualifier? What authority is NOT unilateral? Is the qualifier needed by egalitarians to justify the portrayal of a wife as being without rights? I'm truly wondering.
I like the Oxford University Press's entry
A person, institution, or organization is said to have authority when the power it exercises is supposed legitimate, that is, authorized by some system of norms to which the speaker assents. The emergence of such norms in human society is a complex matter, with convention, habit, custom, and tradition playing different roles. Social contract theory is one kind of solution to the problem of the basis of authority; the evident utility of some rule-governed systems is another. While it is common to find scepticism about particular claims to authority, the idea that human co-ordination (and hence even communication) could exist without it is usually regarded as fanciful.
Back to Charity's comment:
At the time that the Bible was written democracy did not exist anywhere - as far as I know the first emergence of democracy was roughly speaking about 1000 years after the last part of the New Testament was written.
Actually...no.
Democracy was first introduced in the part of world where the New Testament was written...around 500 years BEFORE Christ walked this earth.
"It is called a government of the people (demokratia) becaue we live in considertion of not the few, but of the majority." - Thucydides on Pericle's view of democracy
Paul, being an educated man, would have had the words to describe democracy. He would even have had the word to use.
Charity said:
I think most Christians would however be in agreement that democracy is not anarchy, and again most Christians would prefer government by democracy to government by dictatorship.
That is true. Democracy is not anarchy. But...in order to have a democracy you must be able to have a majority. You cannot have a majority with two people, you can only have agreement or a tie.
On the other hand, usinfo.state.gov give the "pillars of democracy"
THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY
- Sovereignty of the people. (this could easily be the CBMW teaching of our equality before God)
- Government based upon consent of the governed. (If a woman chooses to marry, that could be the "consent of the governed)
- Majority rule. (here we have a problem, unless on spouse has the slight edge of the weight of the vote)
- Minority rights. (if we give the husband the slight edge of the vote, or the tie-breaker), then the wife, functioning as the minority, is protected by all of the Biblical mandates for how a husband should treat his wife. I don't have a problem with this)
- Guarantee of basic human rights. (Covered by Scripture - in either egalitarian or complementarian beliefs)
- Free and fair elections. (We could call these "marriage vows" and choosing your mate)
- Equality before the law. (or equality before God)
- Due process of law. (CBMW urges men to listen to their wives, take feelings, thoughts and convictions into consideration.)
- Constitutional limits on government. (Or Biblical limits - the limits that are placed by God)
- Social, economic, and political pluralism. (I'm not exactly sure how this translates to marriage, other than the "yours is yours and mine is mine does seem to be more suited to marital anarchy)
- Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise. (Read CBMW's "Love and Respect in Marriage"
- A wise husband will also value his wife's opinions and actively seek her counsel and insights (see Prov. 12:15; 20:18). He will seek to form a consensus with her on all decisions (cf. Matt. 12:25); if she has serious reservations about a particular decision, a wise husband will carefully reconsider the issue before proceeding. The basis for his evaluation must never be, "What will be pleasing or convenient for me?" Rather, he must ask, "What will please and glorify God, and what will be best for my wife (and children)?" If he and his wife cannot agree on the answer to that question, he is the one whom God has authorized to break the tie, and he is the one whom God will hold responsible for the results.
I think that democracy (not dictatorship) better describes a complementarian marriage (there is a majority and minority, there is a tie-breaker, there are the protected rights of the minority, the guarantee of basic human rights)
"Anarchy", on the other hand (per wikipedia)
- "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder. (Ellen says, absence or inefficiency of a "supreme power" (in a marriage, that would be either the husband or the wife. In so-called egalitarianism [the so-called being a hat tip to Charity] there is an absence of the primary decision maker. To this definition fits)
- "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder). (Ellen say, "Again, this sounds like egalitarianism. No governing person, each individual has liberty, [without the implication of disorder)
- "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere." (I recognize that some egalitarians would say that one person has authority in one arena, the other in another arena. HOWEVER, egalitarians seem to balk at the idea of one person having authority over another)
All in all, "anarchy" (which can come without implication of disorder) seems better suited to egalitarian marriages than does democracy (which by definition is rule by the majority and you cannot have a majority with two people, unless one has a more heavily weighted vote).
And (all in all) "democracy" (with its protection of the minority, the limits placed by consitution (or Bible) and the values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise) are well within CBMW teaching.
Back to Charity:
I am not arguing in favour of anarchy, I am arguing in favour of adults treating each other as adults and finding a way of taking decisions together.
Right...And this is exactly what CBMW teaches.
- A wise husband will also value his wife's opinions and actively seek her counsel and insights (see Prov. 12:15; 20:18). He will seek to form a consensus with her on all decisions (cf. Matt. 12:25); if she has serious reservations about a particular decision, a wise husband will carefully reconsider the issue before proceeding. The basis for his evaluation must never be, "What will be pleasing or convenient for me?" Rather, he must ask, "What will please and glorify God, and what will be best for my wife (and children)?" If he and his wife cannot agree on the answer to that question, he is the one whom God has authorized to break the tie, and he is the one whom God will hold responsible for the results.B
Back to Charity:
Abuse can occur in any system, but there’s a double whammy, if the abuse is shored up by what is seen as legitimate authority in the system.
Here are some more actual quotes from CBMW
Unfortunately, secular society and even the Christian church often fail to protect women, and often blame the woman for physical or sexual violence perpetrated upon her.29 Feminists rightly criticize the church for failing to protect women. In one research project on domestic violence, 27% of pastors surveyed said that if a woman submits to her husband as God decrees, then the abuse will stop or God will give the woman grace to endure the beatings.30 In fact, the beatings often do not stop and we should not presume on God's grace to endure avoidable suffering.31 These pastors have misunderstood the nature of domestic violence, and have seriously distorted the nature of biblical submission. Churches should aggressively confront abusers and pursue all means possible to protect vulnerable women. True masculine headship is reflected in the sensitive care and protection of women.
and another
We believe that abuse is sin. It is destructive and evil. Abuse is the hallmark of the devil and is in direct opposition to the purpose of God. Abuse ought not to be tolerated in the Christian community.
Charity, how does this "shore up" abuse?
On the flip side, a wife in marital anarchy could easily neglect her home and family, reasoning "he's not the boss of me!" There is the potential of abuse on both sides, from both spouses.
Charity says,
Well that’s all well and good for the women who as he puts it have “chosen the right man” (and I would by the grace of God count myself among that number), but what about those who haven’t? Isn’t that the same thing as saying “well it’s their own fault for having chosen the wrong man”? I’m sorry, but I can’t go along with that.
So we should have no consequences for our choices? (NOTE: I am NOT saying that an ABUSED woman should stay in an abusive situation. Abuse is sin, complementarianism is not sin)
But...I know a couple who is in a wretched situation. They are "egalitarian" and they both have a "you're not the boss of me" attitude. Neither one has primary responsibility and they both go their own way. Sexual neglect is the norm. But, they both have what they chose.
Life without consequences does not exist.
There is one question that has not been answered: How do egalitarians handle abusive marriages?
Sue
I do have friends who have been in abusive egalitarian marriages. The marriages are often, in my experience, short-lived, that is 5-15 years, not 30 to lifetime, as for complementarian ones. (Just anecdotal.)
Since abuse pretty much doesn't change and leads to divorce, the results for egalitarian women, that I have seen, is more or less, to pick up and carry on. The results for women influenced by comp teaching is total bewilderment toward God.
The woman more or less says to God "What were you thinking?" because the woman cannot possibly imagine a human male without sin. So the abuse creates enormous spiritual dissonance and mistrust. The abused woman will never find a human male that is good enough or intelligent enough to trust. She may find egalitarian friendship with men, she does, in fact. But the male who says, "I have authority given by God that you do not have," that human male is someone that the abused woman will never allow herself to be in physical proximity with, without severe anxiety. She regards this as severe self deception on the part of the male, mostly because these men insist that their maleness makes up for what they lack in ability to read Greek. The ones who do read Greek, just don't go there.
Sue
Paul, as a Roman citizen was unlikely to write about democracy.
In a democracy, the govt is responsible to the people who can vote it out of power. The wife cannot do this. If the husband does not believe it is his role to submit she is up creek without a paddle.
Charity
Well, I was about to write a very quick comment to say that's it's way past my bedtime here and that I'll get back to you tomorrow. However having read Sue's comments, I just want to say that she has said a lot of what I would want to say and far more eloquently than I could.
I will however write more tomorrow.
Ellen
Sue, you are saying that if we could all read Greek, we would all agree with you?
Neither is Godly marriage "dictatorial" (is that the new derogatory word?)
As you indicate, "marital anarchy" is not without abuse. Yes, complementarian churches should (and many do) stand up against abuse. I have posted quotes from CBMW that condemn abuse (although that teaching of CBMW is ignored by those who embrace marital anarchy).
Sue
I admit that some C churches take a strong stand against abuse.
However, they do not admit that the abuse suffered in a "male authority" marriage is reinforced by submission as Marilyn explained, nor that the belief that God wants the male to have authority is spiritually distressing to the abused female.
.....
Nobody needs to know Greek, they just need to treat others as they themselves want to be treated. However, this concept seems to have sailed right past the CBMW.
So, about Greek. I don't know of one complementarian who has studied Greek as a language, that is, apart from the NT.
This means that if you read the NT in English first, and develop beliefs, you then invest all the Greek words you learn after with the meanings you have already learned in church.
On the other hand, kids used to study Greek in high school and then later grow up to be theologians. Yes, in those days women were silent, because of 1 Cor. 14. However, almost every single comment regarding Greek made by C people now betrays errors in very basic, fundamental rules. Even those who have written textbooks on Greek.
There are a few who are more nuanced, who are good language scholars, but they take the back seat in terms of pronouncing on women.
The men I know, who know some classical Greek, don't argue the submission of women. Probably I am just lucky in that respect. It could just be chance, I really don't know.
Charity
OK, an attempt at some answers... sorry it’s taken so long, but I’ve been too busy to take the time.
the only alternative to unilateral authority is anarch... No more so than having an authority in place is a dictatorship.
I don’t think I said anywhere that all authority is a dictatorship – just unilateral authority. You say
By the way, why use “unilateral” as a qualifier? What authority is NOT unilateral?
To my mind, “unilateral” authority is an authority which is one-sided, where there is no balance of power. Now, as I’ve said before, some will argue that is a good thing. However, I don’t think it’s a good model for a partnership. It seems to me that partners should have equal power, otherwise it’s not a partnership.
Democracy was first introduced in the part of world where the New Testament was written…around 500 years BEFORE Christ walked this earth.
I’ll agree that there was a form of democracy in Ancient Greece, and that this is where our modern word “democracy” comes from. I’m less sure though that those living in democratic countries today, would have recognised it as what we have come to call democracy. That’s another debate though.
I think that democracy (not dictatorship) better describes a complementarian marriage (there is a majority and minority, there is a tie-breaker, there are the protected rights of the minority, the guarantee of basic human rights)
If you’re happy to describe that kind of power structure a democracy, you are of course free to go ahead and do so. I however stick to my original appraisal, that dictatorship is a more accurate description. Again, I repeat that I’m using dictatorship neutrally and not derogatively. But as Sue says, and this is the really important point: In a democracy, the govt is responsible to the people who can vote it out of power. A wife cannot vote her husband out of power – therefore, to my mind it cannot be described as a democracy.
Now to your decision to apply anarchy to what some call “egalitarian marriages”. I agree that some marriages may exist in what could in strictu sensu be described as anarchy, meaning “absence of government”, and even lawlessness yes, in an anything goes mentality – this would be to my mind the egalitarian pitfall paralleling that of what I call “abuse” in “complementarianism”.
It does not however need to be anarchy. The other model is what could be called “power-sharing” (though this may have some unnecessary connotations of previously warring factions, which hopefully would not be the case in all couples!) This is largely what we have in the European Union, where for major decisions, the representatives of all member states have a vote, and a full consensus is required, all states having the power of veto.
Charity, how does this “shore up” abuse?
The way it shores up abuse, is as that the teaching is that the husband has the authority and the wife must obey and submit, and that this is a God-ordained state of affairs. It takes a long time (typically several years) for people who are abused in this kind of situation to even realise they are being abused – they first of all think that it must be their own submission that is faulty.
Charity says,
Well that’s all well and good for the women who as he puts it have “chosen the right man” (and I would by the grace of God count myself among that number), but what about those who haven’t? Isn’t that the same thing as saying “well it’s their own fault for having chosen the wrong man”? I’m sorry, but I can’t go along with that.
So we should have no consequences for our choices?
Of course all our choices have consequences. However, an abused wife (or abuse victim in any situation) is never responsible for the abuse. Typically, abusers will never appear as abusers until the relationship is “sealed”. I have yet to meet a guy, who has said to a girl “please, marry me, so that I can beat you up”. This kind of person often appears completely kind and affable when in company. The abuse goes on behind closed doors.
Ellen
Abuse is a sin.
Complementarianism is not a sin.
If you prefer the term "dictatorial" (regardless of the examples I gave of when CBMW teaches that UNsubmission is fine, which does NOT fall under a "dictatorship", where unsubmission is never fine)...then I will continue to call your so-called egalitarianism as "marital anarchy".
Abuse is a sin.
Complementarianism is not a sin.
I (of course) do not mean it in a derogatory way, it is merely the way that I see it.
Abuse is a sin.
Complementarianism is not a sin.
Is it not wearying to have to continue to bring up abuse?
Abuse is a sin.
Complementarianism is not a sin.
When CBMW so clearly states that
Abuse is a sin.
Complementarianism is not a sin.
Anon
However, you do not admit that the abuse suffered in a “male authority” marriage is reinforced by submission as Marilyn explained, nor that the belief that God wants the male to have authority is spiritually distressing to the abused female.
Tony
"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved his Church"
Whenever I read this line, I think of Mel Gibson's movie and Christ trudging up the Via Dolorosa, bleeding all over his body, exhausted and broken on the way to his excruciating death.
This is what husbands are asked to do.
Should a husband approach his marriage with this idea in his head, To lead, braving the dangers himself first, dedicating his life first to God, second to his wife and children, what godly woman would not consent to follow a man like that?
Submission is not a one way street. Everyone has someone they are responsible to. If a husband is following the path of Christ, and a wife refuses to follow him, isn't she refusing to follow the path of Christ?
Sue
If a husband is following the path of Christ, and a wife refuses to follow him, isn’t she refusing to follow the path of Christ?
Tony, there is not one word or verse in the Bible which says that the husband leads the wife. If you think of one, please let me know. Godly women follow the path of Christ in the same way that men do, directly.
I am not aware that men in general have greater access to the will of God than women, nor a greater sense of God's calling in their life.
Eve was named Adam's "help" and this same word was one of the church's titles for Christ, "Jesus Christ, our salvation, the high priest of our offerings, and our guardian and our help in weakness."
Phoebe was "guardian" and Eve was "help." Women are not perfect but we certainly were created to be imitators of Christ, as men were.
Thomas A Kempis' famous book, The Imitation of Christ, is made a mockery of by those who teach that men imitate Christ and women imitate the church. I was chilled to read this exhortation in a book sponsored by CBMW. How disturbing, that women are pulled away from their Saviour of their souls to treat men as God.
Tony
I wrote: "If a husband is following the path of Christ, and a wife refuses to follow him, isn’t she refusing to follow the path of Christ?"
Sue wrote: "Tony, there is not one word or verse in the Bible which says that the husband leads the wife. If you think of one, please let me know. Godly women follow the path of Christ in the same way that men do, directly."
Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (KJV)
I'm coming into this late. Maybe you've argued away Paul's words. Maybe your particular denomination has found some sort of alternate interpretation of this. But it seems pretty clear to me.
Sue
Sorry for bothering you Tony. I don't have the energy to engage further.