If a Christian marriage is to reflect Christ and the church – if a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ, because the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church…and if the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church…
what does that mean? What are the Biblical references for Christ (and God the Father in the Old Testament) as husband?
How do Christ the Son and God the Father relate to the church and to Israel?
Husbands, love your wives,
as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
that he might sanctify her,
having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
so that he might present the church to himself in splendor,
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,
that she might be holy and without blemish.
In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one ever hated his own flesh,
but nourishes and cherishes it,
just as Christ does the church,
because we are members of his body.
“Therefore a man shall leave his father
and mother and hold fast to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.”
This mystery is profound, and
I am saying that it refers to Christ
and the church. (Eph 5:25-32)
Can wives be “sanctified” by their husbands? Maybe not, but they can be saturated with Scripture. She can be loved and cherished and nourished, with Christ as his model.
For your Maker is your husband,
the LORD of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called.
For the LORD has called you like a wife
deserted and grieved in spirit, (Isa. 54:5-6)
For a short time, the Husband had turned His face from His bride. She had been faithless, yet He redeemed her.
“Hallelujah!For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.
Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;
it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen,
bright and pure”— (Rev. 6-8)
The bride of the Lamb…
You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD,
and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
You shall no more be termed Forsaken,
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate,
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
and your land Married;
for the LORD delights in you,
and your land shall be married.
For as a young man marries a young woman,
so shall your sons marry you,
and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
so shall your God rejoice over you. (Isa. 62:3-5)
You shall be called “My Delight Is In Her…”
In the New Testament, it was John the Baptist who recognized the Bridegroom:
You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,
but I have been sent before him.’
The one who has the bride is the bridegroom.
The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him,
rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice.
Therefore this joy of mine is now complete.
He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:28-30)
God presented Israel with a graphic picture when He told Hosea to marry Gomer, a prostitute – knowing that she will act as prostitutes will act…and that he will bring her back.
“Therefore, behold, I will allure her,
and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her.
And there I will give her her vineyards
and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.
And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth,
as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt.
“And in that day, declares the LORD,
you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’
For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth,
and they shall be remembered by name no more.
And I will make for them a covenant on that day
with the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens,
and the creeping things of the ground.
And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land,
and I will make you lie down in safety.
And I will betroth you to me forever.
I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice,
in steadfast love and in mercy.
I will betroth you to me in faithfulness.
And you shall know the LORD. (Hosea 2:14-20)
There is a Biblical reason to see a Christian marriage as a reflection of God the Father with Israel and of Christ the Son with His bride, the church.
For I feel a divine jealousy for you,
since I betrothed you to one husband,
to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.”
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning,
your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere
and pure devotion to Christ. (1 Cor. 11:2-3)
How can the church expect to be treated by her Bridegroom?
…He is her refuge, (Psa 61)
…He stands up for her (Psa 94)
…He nourishes and cherishes her (Eph 5)
…She trust in His steadfast love (Psa 52)
…He speaks tenderly to her (Hos 2)
…He is merciful and full of loving kindness (Tit 2)
…He will wipe away tears (Isa 25)
…He makes her beautiful (Isa 60)
…He carries her sorrows (Isa 53)
…He came to serve (Matt 20)
…He restores her soul, He leads her in paths of righteousness (Psa 23)
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Israel is God’s son, so I am having some difficulty with the way you use the feminine pronoun in your citations.
Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, Ex. 4:22
But Zion is God’s daughter, the daughter of God’s womb,
Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. Is. 49
God is father, mother and husband to the people. Not wife, but always the “help” and that is Eve.
Puzzling somehow, the use of gender in the Bible. I think the role of the Hebrew wife in Prov. 31 is to be the provider so her husband can sit in the gates full time and not have to earn money. That is the proper role of the Jewish wife, metaphorically speaking.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
One the gates…more happened there concerning commerce than just sitting and letting your wife support you. That’s quite a straw man.
On gender in Scripture: God has two wives, Israel and Judah. It is very clear that the metaphor of God as husband is Scriptural.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Yes, the metaphor is scriptural. But it is metaphor. Israel is also the “son.” You cannot just take metaphor and say that all interaction between people and God is female to male. That is not true. The use of masculine and feminine is just metaphor.
For example, water is life-giving and also destructive. Fire is life-giving and destructive.
We cannot say that water is life and fire is death. These are not universal assignments of reality. God is husband and mother.
So, yes, the metaphors are scriptural but they are metaphor. The woman who protects others, as Rahab, Deborah and Ruth, these women are “mother” or they are the “helper” as God is the “helper.”
Men are not God, nor have they any characteristics that make them more like God than women. This is all metaphor and not reality.
In Proverbs 31 I think that the commentary agrees that the husband does not earn a living but acts as judge and student of the Torah. His wife supports him. The role of husband as protector and provider is not in the scritpures that I know of.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Great straw man…that’s not what I said.
HOWEVER…Christ and the church ARE given to a husband and wife as an example to follow. The church IS referred to as the bride of Christ. These are not avoidable, regardless of your fear. The church as the bride of Christ IS Scriptural reality.
There is a lot that when on at the city gates and you know that well. It is not clear in Proverbs what the husband was doing there, only that his wife honored him.
More rabbit trails…more fear. Does that not get wearying?
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Ellen,
At least admit that my fear is real. Don’t mock me! I am just sick at the thought of what might happen to someone who needed help. I will tell you right out that an abused wife will not say, “I am being abuse, I need help with the abuse.” She will simply say “I need help getting out of my husband’s authority.”
If people don’t respond to that, then she may stay a lifetime. Women do not say that they are abused, when they are in the situation. So if a woman expresses any fear at all ever, this ought to be taken very seriously and not be made a matter of mockery.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
It is unfortunate that you need to build straw men and misrepresent the good.
If I had ever written of your fear, you might have a point. But ALL along, I have stated that you have been horribly abused and that abuse is a sin.
We agree that abuse is a problem. I disagree with your solution.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
When you write,
More rabbit trails…more fear make it clear that you are not talking to any woman who actually is running the risk of abuse. The problem is that no one knows who these people are.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Let me add…you have two avenues that you can take. You could face up to the fact that there are people who believe that godly men make godly leaders and that God has ordained an order in the home and church. We COULD work together within that framework to teach about the dangers of abuse in BOTH camps.
But you set yourself up as an adversary of the FRAMEWORK…not as the adversary of the abuse.
That makes you a perceived enemy of the framework, not a real enemy of the abuse.
You undermine yourself.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
“you are not talking to any woman who actually is running the risk of abuse. The problem is that no one knows who these people are.
Again, it is unfortunate that you must resort to that which you do not know in order to attempt to make a point.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
I think it is pretty standard commentary that “sitting in the gates judging” was not a monetary position. The husband was supported by his wife in this chapter.
I don’t know what straw man you are referring to.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Of course you don’t.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Have you ever played six degrees of separation?
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Unfortunately many women need to understand that their husband’s does not have a position of authority over them in order to get help. If the wife is ordered not to ever tell anyone about the abuse, then she has to deeply resist all the teachings of male authority.
A woman who wants to escape abuse must
- believe that she should do things behind her husbands back
- accept that the marriage may be over
-accept that people don’t change all that much
- accept that she will have to earn her own living and raise the children on her own
- plan her own life
- accept being divorced
- make decisions independently of her husband
It is very difficult for a woman who only receives C teaching to do all this, because her situation in no way resembles anything she ever hears in C teaching. The male is in no way like Christ or God. There is no connection to reality. The wife is given no recourse, no way of expressing what is happening.
I am not going to support a position that offers many women no help whatsoever. The experience of real life abused women should not be dismissed in favour of the teaching of C men who have not been abused. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Have you seen the World Vision statement here?
Saturday, 12. April 2008
we disagree that a husband has no authority. Where I believe that young should be taught to love and lead on godly ways, you set yourself up as the enemy of a wife submitting to her husband as the church submits to Christ. We could work together but you set yourrself up as the adversary.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
I was presented with the model of a submissive wife by a woman I knew who controlled her family in subtle ways but was the model wife. This was a huge contribution to the experience of abuse. I don’t know if I will ever recover from the tremendous damage done by women who “modeled” that they were being submissive, and then recommended this. Somehow some women get control this way, and then they have to defend this as “the right way.” They don’t understand that the silent of protesting women is not a rabid feminist but a person in very deep trouble.
I advocate for the silent victims.
Besides, all those feminine pronouns in your post are jarring. Yes, God is the God of the woman as well as of the man. So, if that is what you are representing, fine. But, no, the people of God are not always feminine in relation to God. That is one of many metahpors.
There is no God-like masculinity and people-like femininity. Men are not stronger and better than women. Sad, but true. Make authority gender-based and you contradict everything World Vision stands for. And what the church ought to stand for.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
I am trying to share some real life experience and talk about what was most dangerous and damaging to me. Most damaging were women who said “It works for me.”
And most helpful were egal women who were advocates and protectors for me. Women who finally acted as my protectors when men would not.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
it ses that wordpress does not like comments from my iPod.
Sue, we agree that abuse Is sin. We disagree that there is God ordained order in church and home. You are not a woman who I can stand shoulder to shoulder with against abuse because you have set yourself up as an adversary. Not by my choice but yours
We could teach young men to lead in love. To see the scriptures posted as a lesson in how to love as Christ loves the church.
It can be done.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
I just want to protect other women from teaching that could really hurt them, that’s all. You cannot support me and I cannot support your teaching.
Just think that every women you ever tell to obey her husband could be one of the unlucky women. Just take care of others. That is the most important.
All I see is a sacrifice of morality to maleness. We cannot worship two Gods. God is not the God of gender, God is the God of righteousness. Unless it can be proven that men uniquely reflect God’s righteousness, we should just backpedal male authority and step out for justice.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
I lost a comment. Look at the World Vision statement some time. When people’s safety is at stake it is no time to be ideological.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Oops there it is. PS If you could eliminate abuse by teaching men to love, that would be a first.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
I have looked at the comment. I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
That was what this post was about.
You may choose to argue Scripture, I prefer not.
Until you can show me the specific teaching to husbands to submit to their wives specifically as the church submits to Christ I cannot and will not accept that submission to the other is identical.
If you could eliminate abuse by teaching men to love, that would be a first.
One at a time. Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church…
I choose not to see you as the enemy, regardless of how you wish to set yourself up.
When dealing with the sin of abuse it is no time to ignore Biblical teaching.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
I cannot and will not accept that submission to the other is identical.
Of course it is not identical. That is not the issue.
Very clearly I state my case,
1. The wife should not vow to obey her husband.
2. The husband does not have authority over the wife.
You may choose to argue Scripture, I prefer not.
Why do you say things like this to me? On what basis? They are very hurtful and not in any way true.
I have no idea why anyone would think I am arguing against scripture. These things are not stated in scripture, they are antithetical to scripture.
I do believe that in a situation where a husband believes that he has authority over the wife, then the submission of the wife will reinforce that attitude and lead to deeper abuse. So submission could be dangerous and we agree on that.
But I believe that in any situation where two people intend to remain married they both have to submit, both wife and husband. Of course, it may look different, but it does not look like “authority and submission.” The Bible simply does not teach that.
The Bible does not teach that the fundamental male female relationship is ruler and subject.
I wrote,
If you could eliminate abuse by teaching men to love, that would be a first.
You wrote,
One at a time.
That is why organizations like World Vision exist. But people choose to ignore the truth.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
The false accusations that you have made are just as hurtful.
Until you can show me the specific teaching to husbands to submit to their wives specifically as the church submits to Christ I cannot and will not accept that submission to the other is identical.
Can you do that?
I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Okay, I hear you. I guess I would want to ask what that looks like to you. Not “in all things” I would guess.
However, for the husband to actually physically die for his wife – not offer to – but actually do it – that would have to be on the table as well. That comes first. So I take it you do accept this as metaphor. I do also. I think we can agree on that. It is metaphor and we can only describe it in terms that are derived from scripture but are not exact. We know it means respect, but surely we believe that the husband must respect the wife also. I don’t know how scripture separates what the wife does from what the husband does. It can only be deduced to the best of our ability.
But I understand that you agree that the scriptures do not give the husband “authority over” nor do they tell the wife that she is to make a vow to “obey.” These are not scriptural.
Of course, a successful marriage can only be built by both sides submitting in ways that make the marriage work. Since males and females are different it will look different. Maybe the husband buys flowers and the wife buys herself a new negligee. I guess that would look different.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Sue, you will continue to read into what I say whatever you want to believe that I am saying. Reality does not appear to come into play.
However, for the husband to actually physically die for his wife – not offer to – but actually do it – that would have to be on the table as well.
Yes. Agreed.
But I understand that you agree that the scriptures do not give the husband “authority over”
I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
Of course, a successful marriage can only be built by both sides submitting in ways that make the marriage work.
Just as the submission of the church has to Christ is different than the way that Christ submitted to the needs of the church.
I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Perfect. We agree.
So let’s not give husbands the impression that they are to have “authority over” the wife as the king has authority over his subjects and God has authority over his people. That is, we don’t want the ten commandments on the bedspread, do we?
We don’t think that the function of the husband is in all ways, as God is to humans, but only that “as Christ sacrifices, so the husband sacrifices” and “as the church submits, so the wife submits.”
This is a far cry from the submissive assistant that some teach. This teaches that the husband is for the wife and the wife is for the husband. But some C people teach that the wife is for the husband and the husband is for God, a one way street. But, of course, that is not what the Bible says.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Sue, as I said, you will continue to read into what I say whatever you want to believe that I am saying. Reality does not appear to come into play.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Perfect. We agree.
We agree that abuse is sin.
Complementarianism is not sin.
A husband has the authority given to him by his wife’s submission – which is the same submission that the church owes to Christ.
You have yet to show me a Scripture that says otherwise.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
A husband has the authority given to him by his wife’s submission
You know that there is no authority given by submission. A king can submit to his people and each of us can submit to the other. No authority given.
If you insist on adding to scripture what is not there you must be careful not to teach this to others. Once the wife thinks her husband is like Christ she has a problem. The husband only has the command to sacrifice as Christ does, the husband is in no other way like Christ.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
We disagree.
If you insist on adding to scripture what is not there you must be careful not to teach this to others.
Stop taking away from Scripture that which IS there.
I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Question: How much should the church submit to Christ?
Saturday, 12. April 2008
I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
Yes, this is what scripture says. But the vow to obey is not scriptural and the authority of the husband is not in scripture.
How much should the church submit to Christ?
Rather rephrase it as how much should the wife submit to the husband. Does she question every decision from a moral point of view? Does she express her preferences but just live with it if the husband thinks he knows better than her what is for her own good? Does she submit to selfishness? Does she submit to wrong exegesis?
What does it look like and is the vow to obey really appropriate if the wife intends to be morally responsible in the way in which she responds to her husband’s decision-making?
Saturday, 12. April 2008
Rather rephrase it as how much should the wife submit to the husband.
Sorry, I have that answer already. The wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ.
You just don’t like the implications.
I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
You just don’t like the implications.
Well, I can’t keep responding to some mysterious accusations of yours.
Obviously you yourself are not backwards about coming forward in terms of telling the husband where when and how he has to wash his wife’s feet. So, I can only say that if the implications are that the wife tells the husband where when and how he is to be like Christ, that’s the wife in authority over the husband. Just as off putting to me as the other way around.
But as long as the submissive wife understands this as part of her task of submission, I suppose … strange to me.
On other matters, your post implying that “leading into paths of righteousness” is a male to female activity, seems pretty odd to me. Do you really think that men are, in general, more righteous, or do you only believe that the men who are more righteous than women should marry? Do you think a man has to deliberately choose a wife who is less righteous than himself?
I just can’t associate “the Lord is my Shepherd” with what the man is to the woman, considering 50% of men will end up physically and perhaps cognitively dependent on their wives in old age.
The elevation of the male to God is a far cry from the metaphors of scripture. I am uneasy with the way you use scripture in this post. I guess since you don’t plan to teach anyone its okay, but if you do teach women, um, the way you have used scripture in this post is not appropriate.
You can write me off in other ways, and disregard the solution that I have experienced but don’t teach the feminization of the church and the psalmist this way. Israel is masculine. Sometimes feminine metaphors are also used. But be respectful of the text.
Saturday, 12. April 2008
I continue to believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. And that a husband should love his wife the way that Christ loves the church.
Tuesday, 15. April 2008
Hello Ellen
Do you think it is possible that there are other people who have as great a desire as you to put the teachings of the Bible into practice, but do not come to the same conclusions as you?
I too believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ, but it would appear that we disagree on what the little word ‘as’ means in that sentence.
Firstly because when I see that word used elsewhere in the New Testament, it does not seem to me to mean “in an identical or imitated fashion” and secondly because I don’t believe that the submission of the church as a whole is often such a fantastic example to follow.
Tuesday, 15. April 2008
Hello Charity, of course it is possible.
One of my favorite female relatives serves her church in a capacity that we debate about.
Even if “as” does not mean “in an identical fashion”, the church is still set up as a role model – the guide. So what does that mean to you?
Tuesday, 15. April 2008
Maybe it will be easier for me to explain what I mean if I ask a question.
When we pray “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us” do you think we are asking God to take us as role models for how to forgive us?
I do not believe that Jesus would have taught us to ask God to take us as role models. So I do not believe the word “as” when used in this way in Scripture, implies a role model.
To me it simply means that both are desirable.
Tuesday, 15. April 2008
Charity, which Bible translation are you using?
Tuesday, 15. April 2008
And are you taking the quote from Matthew or Luke?
Tuesday, 15. April 2008
The “as” is in the Matthew 6 version of the Lord’s prayer. I’ve checked all my English translations and they all have “as” in them, though I did see in the Bible gateway that the message translation is the only one that doesn’t. Most of my Bible reading is in French though, and all my French Bibles have “comme” which is the equivalent of “as”.
I’ve also taken a closer look at the Greek and the word translated by “as” in Matthew 6:12 is the same as the one that is translated “as” in Ephesians 5:23: “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour” and in verse 24 “as the church submits to Christ”.
It’s the same word in the Greek text in the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6 and in Ephesians 5.
For the reasons I have already stated I do not think that the meaning can be that of a role model.
Tuesday, 15. April 2008
I am clarifying…or asking for clarification…
you are saying (?) (regardless of the inclusion of the submission of the church to Christ – in relation to the submission of a wife to her husband), that the submission of the church is NOT a role model for a wife?
Tuesday, 15. April 2008
What I am saying is that the wording of the Ephesians 5 passage cannot be taken to mean that the submission of the church to Christ is to be taken as a role model for the submission of a wife to her husband…
in the same way that it does not make sense, to say the least, to suggest that God should take us as his role models for how to forgive.
The wording is the same in Greek (and indeed in all the translations I have found) in both passages.
Tuesday, 15. April 2008
The Greek is subtly different, but no matter.
why do you think God put the comparison in Scripture, if we are not to put it to use?
Wednesday, 16. April 2008
So in what way is the small two letter word (‘ws’ – sorry I don’t know how to type Greek in this format) subtly different?
That is the whole point I’m trying to make. I don’t believe it is meant to be a comparison as I don’t believe it is meant to be a comparison in the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6.
The way I understand it is: “as one thing is true/desirable… so is the other thing”. It’s a way of expressing both and, not a way of comparing two things. Peter has breakfast in the morning as Paul has breakfast in the morning. This does not mean that Peter and Paul both eat the same thing, or have breakfast at the same time, in the same position or whatever. It means both Peter and Paul have breakfast at the same time.
Wednesday, 16. April 2008
Sorry, I was looking at the Lord’s Prayer in Luke.
I do see a direct connection and comparison in the way that we forgive and the way that forgives us. If we do not forgive, then God will not forgive us. So in a way, God IS using our forgiveness as a “model” for the way that He will forgive us. (Read Jay Adams’ “From Forgiving to Forgiveness”)
The way that we forgive is the way that we can expect that God will forgive us.
The way that the church submits to Christ is the way that we can expect to submit to our husbands.
Looking at other ways the word (tranliterated hos) is used…do you think that when the Bible says that Joseph did AS the angel said…that was not what he actually did?
Or when Matthew says, “be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves, that’s not REALLY meant to be an instruction?
That the mention of the church and Christ is rather meaningless, since there is no comparison anyway?
Wednesday, 16. April 2008
Sorry, I was looking at the Lord’s Prayer in Luke.
I’m sorry I did say in two separate posts that it was the same wording as in Matthew. I’m afraid I disagree with you when you say that God uses us as a model for his forgiveness. I believe that our forgiveness comes from Christ’s finished work on the cross and that our salvation cannot be earned by our forgiving other people.
Looking at other ways the word (tranliterated hos) is used…do you think that when the Bible says that Joseph did AS the angel said…that was not what he actually did?
Or when Matthew says, “be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves, that’s not REALLY meant to be an instruction?
That the mention of the church and Christ is rather meaningless, since there is no comparison anyway?
I really do not understand how you have managed to infer all this. Of course it is an instruction, I haven’t heard anyone here actually disputing that. Where I don’t agree with you is the way in which you take the relationship between the church and Christ and that between a wife and her husband to be absolutely identical in its structure.
Do you really believe that your wisdom should be identical to that of serpents?
I do not believe that is what is implied in the meaning of ‘ws’. The angel told Joseph not to repudiate Mary and he did not repudiate her. Serpents are wise (or crafty) and we are to be wise in situations that call for that, doves are harmless and we are to be harmless, the church submits to Christ and wives should submit to their husbands. I really do not see that the passage calls for us to read more into it than that.
God forgives us and we should forgive others.
Wednesday, 16. April 2008
But not required.
Wednesday, 16. April 2008
What do you mean by “But not required”?
I take it that was addressed to me?
Thursday, 17. April 2008
The way that we forgive is the way that we can expect that God will forgive us.
Ouch.
The Greek isn’t any clearer than the English here. It can mean what either of you suggest linguistically, but pragmatically I think there is only one possibility.
Thursday, 17. April 2008
Thanks Sue
That’s my point. Where the Greek isn’t unambiguous it’s not a brilliant idea to hang an entire doctrine on it, which can have such a huge detrimental effect on the lives of so many people.
If we believe that God is using us as a model for how to forgive, I think we can all forget about being forgiven by him in any meaningful way!
Thursday, 17. April 2008
you mean like in verse 14: “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”?
If we believe that God is using us as a model for how to forgive, I think we can all forget about being forgiven by him in any meaningful way!
Yes. You are correct. If we do not forgive, we should be questioning whether or not we are forgiven.
(my internet connection is goofy again and I can’t at tech out here until tomorrow)
Thursday, 17. April 2008
My whole point is that I can’t think of a single person Christian or not who has forgiven everybody who has ever wronged them. In which case, according to your theory, there is absolutely nobody who has been forgiven by God.
I simply do not believe that our salvation depends on our having forgiven everybody else. I believe that our salvation is bought by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.
Of course if we refuse to forgive those who have repented of the wrong they have done us, we can question whether or not we have received God’s forgiveness. But not the other way round…
Thursday, 17. April 2008
So we are left with…
“a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ…” but that’s not a comparason.
And
“if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses”, but you apparently don’t think that plays in much either.
Thursday, 17. April 2008
So Ellen, do you think we are saved/forgiven by our forgiving others? Do you believe that to be God’s plan of salvation?
Thursday, 17. April 2008
I believe that if we do not forgive, we have good reason to doubt our salvation.
I believe that the Bible is more than a book of “desirable” suggestions.
Thursday, 17. April 2008
You haven’t really answered my question.
What you have said just now is not at all what you were suggesting previously.
On what basis are we saved?
Thursday, 17. April 2008
There is nothing that we can do (or not do) that saves us. It is not of ourselves; even faith is the work of the Holy Spirit that regenerates us.
If we are in Christ, we are a new creature. If we love Christ, we obey His commandments; if we do not, that is evidence that we are not new creatures, we may not be saved.
You may believe that the Bible is full of suggestions, I believe that Scripture tells us of the Gospel and gives us the description of what that “new creature” that we become when the Spirit regenerates looks like.
If one believe that forgiveness is merely “desirable”, not a characteristic of a changed heart, it might be a good idea to examine oneself.
How do you read, “if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses”?
That seems pretty clear cut.
Have you read “From Forgiven to Forgiveness”?
Thursday, 17. April 2008
How does anyone know that their interpretation of the Bible is the only one? All I know is that my interpretation of the scriptures is possible and that it is consistent with the major teachings of the Bible – that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, … and our neighbour as ourselves. I don’t know that it is the only one.
However, given that my interpretation is possible and is consistent with Christ’s teaching about love and power, it seems best to me to follow it and speak out about the harm that I see around me. If I see someone engaging in a dangerous behaviour then I get worried. I don’t worry about if their interpretation of the Bible is slightly different from mine unless this is causing people to harm each other.
Another woman came to me today with a story of great grief. Her husband is involved in ministry and well respected. I have know him for 35 years. The wife is dying by degrees. She attends counseling twice a week to little avail. I hope she leaves him before she loses her sanity.
There will never be any visible abuse for her to accuse him of, he has always done what he thought was best for her. He has always lead and made the decisions in her best interest. He is the one who acts for both of them. She is fading out.
I don’t know how to communicate the extreme pain and agony that lies silently beneath the surface of the male authority doctrine. It is beyond words.
Thursday, 17. April 2008
Thank you so MUCH for making my point! Seriously!
That was the point of the post about a husband making a point of loving his wife the way that Christ loves the church; putting her needs ahead of his.
I’m so glad that we agree.
Thursday, 17. April 2008
Oh…sorry. I’m guessing that the “as” isn’t supposed to be a comparison.
Thursday, 17. April 2008
Well she is suffering incredibly. In fact, I don’t think I have ever met anyone in worse pain than this woman. She will leave him shortly I am sure, but she doesn’t really see how it will all work out. She knows that because the abuse is not physical no one will support her. He doesn’t swear and yell either. Why should he? He has total control.
I am completely horrified at the suffering that I observe and I hope that God will tear apart the unholy teaching of male authority and replace it with the godly doctrine of male responsibility. I am terribly disturbed that the suffering of women who have lost authority over themselves should be so disregarded and discounted.
Thursday, 17. April 2008
Right now I am feeling sick because this woman’s husband may soon be ordained (as a second career for him) in the soft comp church I attended. It is nauseating to me to see the men exalted and the women silent and unable to articulate what has happened to them, why they have lost their desire to live.
Thursday, 17. April 2008
It’s too bad that the “as” is not a comparison. I would call his lack of loving as Christ loves the church a “sin”.
Thursday, 17. April 2008
I’m glad this woman has you on her side. I believe it’s unfortunate that we are asked to “throw the baby out with the bath water”.
If we teach men to love their wives as Christ loves the church, and to be Godly leaders, instead of driving them “underground”, the women such as you describe would be easier to find.
Thursday, 17. April 2008
Do you have any further comments about the actual post?
Thursday, 17. April 2008
You know my problems with the post. The masculine and feminine are only metaphors. The people of God are sometimes masculine and sometimes feminine. Men are not God-like and women people-like.
I don’t think your list at the end is an appropriate way to use scripture.
Any woman who expects a man to be like Christ to her is in for major trouble. The actual abuse suffered under male authority is a hidden suffering. Sometimes if the wife has a stronger personality the husband will suffer as the wife instructs him in all the ways that he is not like Christ.
I am pretty much turned off right now. I cannot believe what people ascribe to scripture. Just knowing that the kephale study misrepresented so many texts in order to prove that kephale (head) means “ruler over subject” just makes me want to throw up. What kind of marriage is that? Thank God for divorce.
Sorry, I am a little upset. The truth is that I used to date this guy. I am slowly realizing that what I went through myself is typical of my whole generation. And we were all well educated. But we believed that men should have the lead.
My parents were traditional AND equal. Whatever happened to that? He worked, she stayed home and they shared the decision-making fairly. At least I saw what a good marriage can be. There was NO talk of submission and authority. Just a couple who lived an entire life together without hurting each other.
Thursday, 17. April 2008
What you’re saying is that the love of Christ is not to be an example for husbands. Sorry. We disagree.
You must also be saying that the church is not the bride of Christ.
???
Also…the post was about love and not abuse…like six degrees of separation.
Thursday, 17. April 2008
Are you saying:
1) a husband should not be a wife’s refuge
a husband should not make his wife beautiful (or maybe even feel so)
2) a husband should not stand up for his wife
3) a husband should not nourish and cherish his wife
4) a wife should not be able to trust in the steadfast love of her husband
5) a husband should not speak tenderly to her
6) a husband should not be merciful and full of loving kindness
7) a husband should not wipe his wife’s tears
9) a husband should not carry his wife’s sorrows
10)a husband should not serve his wife
11) a husband should not be restorative to his wife’s soul and he should not lead her in the ways of God
That is what I posted and you are objecting
Thursday, 17. April 2008
I am saying that these attributes do not belong to masculinity. They are to be exercised by all Christians to each other. All of these things must be mutual in marriage, and every single one of these things is useless if the husband believes he has the right to control/lead his wife.
Maybe a mother is what is needed. Mothers are quite practised at these things. God as as mother of the people of God, another illustration from scripture. Should a man obey his mother all his life. Do you think a woman surrenders her own will to the man in return for these things?
Thursday, 17. April 2008
every single one of these things is useless if the husband believes he has the right to control/lead his wife
I believe that a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ.
You need to prove your above statement from Scripture.
Thursday, 17. April 2008
Sorry. Not really. The Bible does not say that you have to allow the wife to go to the bathroom when she needs to. All the rest follows. The wife does need to relieve herself when she needs to. If a husband does all else and does not allow his wife to go to the bathroom when needed then all is lost. No matter what it is, being deprived of self will, of autonomy is a terrible thing and cannot be compensated no matter whether the scriptures spell this out in detail or not.
The only passage that speaks to this is that the whole law, (towards our fellow humans) is that we love our neighbour as ourselves. If a man leads/controls his wife, he does not love her. He may wipe her tears, he probably does, because there are so many.
On the matter of slavery and authority marriages, I think the scriptures teach that these things can be endured as slavery, as unto the Lord. I did this until my youngest was 18 because I thought it was right. We are given grace to endure. BUT, I do not think that living under authority reflects any kind of love at all, except God’s love that we can endure it. However, better off single.
Friday, 18. April 2008
So much has been said during my night that it’s difficult to back up thread, but Ellen you say:
There is nothing that we can do (or not do) that saves us. It is not of ourselves; even faith is the work of the Holy Spirit that regenerates us.
It seems to me that that is in contradiction with your earlier assertions that our forgiveness is based on whether or not we forgive others.
And you say:
You may believe that the Bible is full of suggestions,
I can find no reason why you should ascribe such ideas to anything I said. Now you said in your first response to me on this thread that you believe it is possible that there are other people who have as great a desire as you to put the teachings of the Bible into practice, but do not come to the same conclusions as you. And yet you are very disparaging when people do not agree with you. This makes dialogue difficult.
I have not read “From Forgiven to Forgiveness” for several reasons. Firstly I doubt that I could get hold of it where I am, unless it has been translated into French. I have however read a number of books on forgiveness and find that many of them include teaching that I do not find lines up with the whole of Scripture, and can actually be quite dangerous. From your summary I am not encouraged to read this book, but if it is available in the UK I may look for it when I am there in the summer. The one thing that makes me prepared to do this is the title “From Forgiven to Forgiveness” rather than “From Forgiveness to Forgiven” which is what you seem to be suggesting.
I agree with the side of your argument which says that when we are forgiven, we become a new creation and have a desire to forgive. I believe that it is that way round and not the contrary, which was your original argument.
Unlike you, I do not believe that the statement “If you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” is clear cut. because on face value it is a message of salvation by works, which does not square up with the entire message of the New Testament and the rest of the Bible. One possibility is that it is hyperbole, but there may be others that I am unaware of. As I say, if we take it at face value, I can say with confidence that absolutely nobody will be forgiven because nobody on this earth forgives absolutely everybody that has wronged them.
Friday, 18. April 2008
Unlike you, I do not believe that the statement “If you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” is clear cut.
I asked how you do read it, but you chose not to answer.
Another possibility is that if a person are living in unforgiveness, they may not be a Christian.
How do interpret the parable of the unforgiving servant?
“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
“The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
“But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.
“His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’
“But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.”
The one thing that makes me prepared to do this is the title “From Forgiven to Forgiveness” rather than “From Forgiveness to Forgiven” which is what you seem to be suggesting.
I asked how you read those passages – I am directly quoting Scripture and you all don’t seem to agree.
Friday, 18. April 2008
Sorry…I got distracted…
I have however read a number of books on forgiveness and find that many of them include teaching that I do not find lines up with the whole of Scripture, and can actually be quite dangerous.
maybe. Radical obedience can be rather frightening. And freeing.
And yet you are very disparaging when people do not agree with you. This makes dialogue difficult.
since I do not know whether or not you refuse to forgive those who sin against you and repent, I’m not speaking of you at all…I’m speaking of the idea…the doctrine.
Radical forgiveness.
It is also Sue that brings up abuse into every conversation that involves leadership…but to the amazement of those comp women who feel very cherished and loved by their servant-leader husbands who strive to love them as Christ loves the church.
Abuse is sin. Leadership is not sin. Complementarianism is not abuse. azaZComplementarianism is not sin.
Friday, 18. April 2008
Er… I think I did answer your question – maybe you missed the answer.
I said that it was not easy to understand, and that taking it at face value did not line up with the rest of what I understand the teaching of Scripture to be on the nature of salvation.
I do not believe that we are saved on the basis of our works – otherwise no-one would be saved. So it cannot mean that God forgives us because we forgive other people.
Where I find that you are disparaging, is that you assume that people who do not share your doctrine of “you must forgive in order to be forgiven” are not seeking to live in obedience to God. Which reminds me again of the question I asked you when I first came into this conversation.
Can you possibly entertain the idea that others may not interpret things in the same way as you – and be living in radical obedience to what they have understood?
I do not believe that obedience to a good and righteous God is frightening, but reassuring. Obedience to a tyrant is frightening, but I do not believe that God is a tyrant.
I believe that the parable of the unforgiving servant teaches us, that as God as forgiven us so we too are to forgive others who come to us in repentance. That is what is modelled there. It is that way round and not the other way round.
Friday, 18. April 2008
Is forgiveness required of Christians? What if a person is unforgiving?
Friday, 18. April 2008
Where I find that you are disparaging, is that you assume that people who do not share your doctrine of “you must forgive in order to be forgiven” are not seeking to live in obedience to God.
Unlike those who use words like “immature”, “heresy”, “blasphemy”.
One “suggestions: – let me use a real life example. A professor gives a study assignment, but it is not required. It is “suggested”. If forgiveness is not required, it is a suggestion.
If there is nothing that needs to be done by a Christian, then what Scripture gives us are mere suggestions.
Friday, 18. April 2008
I don’t think I’ve ever used the words “immature”, “heresy” or “blasphemy” when trying to discuss with you, in fact I’m pretty sure I haven’t. If I’m mistaken, please show me where.
Do you think that the only two alternatives for describing the way God tells us he wants us to live are “suggestions” or “requirements”. Personally I do not find either of those words adequate.
Friday, 18. April 2008
Can you possibly entertain the idea that others may not interpret things in the same way as you – and be living in radical obedience to what they have understood?
After I asked your interpretation of the passages (and you made the statement that my reading is “dangerous” – and then said that I am disparaging of those who do not agree – I could also say that those who do not teach radical forgiveness are dangerous)…but you speak of possibilities.
When Christ said, “If you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses”, what do you think He meant?
When Christ said, “In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.”…what do you think He meant?
Friday, 18. April 2008
I’ve already answered that question at least 3 times. Do you really want you to tell you again?
Friday, 18. April 2008
I think that a complemenatarian marriage may be fine for those where the men are not authoritarian. However, the teaching of male authority gives those men who are authoritarian, or simply want to get their own way, a weapon to use against their wife. That is why I hear from woman after woman who are terribly damaged. I also meet many men and women who come from egalitarian or non-Christian backgrounds. Yes, they come from broken relationships too. But the damage is not to the soul. Give me a man who finds me unsexy any day over the one who says that God wants me to live in the bondage of their authority.
The damage to the soul of the woman who was under a man who believed himself to be her governing authority is beyond description.
Add to that how people take parables as if each element were true, instead of an illustration. Do you think that God is really like the king in this parable?
As I said, I am upset.
Friday, 18. April 2008
I have an idea, Sue…let’s talk about the post.
Friday, 18. April 2008
Charity, on forgiveness, I’ve started another post, since this one is about to rotate off.
Friday, 18. April 2008
I’m transerring comments to the post about forgiveness…
Friday, 18. April 2008
However, given that my interpretation is possible and is consistent with Christ’s teaching about love and power, it seems best to me to follow it and speak out about the harm that I see around me.
Harm? certainly. But you have yet to prove from Scripture that leadership = harm. From Scripture.
Friday, 18. April 2008
I talk about the post and you ignore it. I have said lots of things about the post. It is downright creepy to talk as if all these are attributed to the male and not to the female. To talk as is God really is male and the people of God really are female. And then to talk as if men are God-like and women are human-like. It is all too weird for me. It is metaphor. People are not really sheep that go baa-baa and are covered in wool. It is metaphor. The Good Shepherd carries us all in his arms. But women can be the shepherd for the sheep as well as men. This is not about gender.
Friday, 18. April 2008
Well I can’t prove that being denied bathroom rights is a harm from scripture either. But if a woman has to submit in all things well all things is all things. And the imagination knows no bounds on this one.
Friday, 18. April 2008
I talk about the post and you ignore it.
Not until your comments are only about abuse.
It is downright creepy to talk as if all these are attributed to the male and not to the female
Show me where I said that. I cannot win, right?
Friday, 18. April 2008
Well I can’t prove that being denied bathroom rights is a harm from scripture either. But if a woman has to submit in all things well all things is all things. And the imagination knows no bounds on this one.
Sue, it really hasn’t dawned on you the point of the post. I am so sorry.
Friday, 18. April 2008
I don’t know why you are so sorry. A woman needs to act on her own authority to get out of an abusive situation. She must transcend any notion of male authority. I have learned that lesson and I feel sorry for those who haven’t.
Saturday, 19. April 2008
I am truly sorry that you can read a post about love and read it as about abuse.
Saturday, 19. April 2008
No, I tried to discuss your post first. I wanted to discuss the nature of metaphor but this did not generate any response from you.
You were the one to bring up “fear” – not me.
Saturday, 19. April 2008
Sue, how many passages describe God as husband and the church as wife? Clearly, God meant for marriage to be a metaphor for Christ and the church (or the other way around).
Whether you like it or not, Scripture does say that a husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church.
You are correct, I was the first to write “fear”. But (and a big but)…
I really believe that any teaching regarding gender, your fear will drive you to disagree, based on your fear, not on the teaching. The teaching could be totally love-based and you would still disagree, because of your own personal beliefs. Witness this post, which was all about love, yet you disagree with the metaphor.
Metaphors are used to teach a lesson. They exist for a reason. You can miss the lesson out of a belief that leadership is abuse.
But leadership is not abuse. Complementarianism is not sin.
Saturday, 19. April 2008
The teaching regarding gender that the woman be strong and wise and the provider and supporter and teacher that is found in Proverbs 31 does not make me fear. The examples of Sarah, Rebekah, Tamar, Deborah, Lydia, Nympha, Phoebe and so on do not make me fear. There is nothing in the Bible about gender that makes me fear.
I have seen men and women destroyed by the male authority teaching. It makes me fear. It is not in the Bible.
Slavery is in the Bible. It makes me fear.
This is your choice of topic, and not mine. Be careful of how you treat other people. Don’t tell other people to live in male authority. This could hurt them badly.
Tuesday, 22. April 2008
Be careful of how you treat other people.
Right back atcha.
I will continue to shout from the rooftops that which I believe is the most accurate Biblical teaching.
Tuesday, 22. April 2008
Right. I want something that is safe and Biblical. I actually do not endorse snake-handling, myself. I think we need to ask ourselves, is the man always the best person to make the decision about the affairs of the wife. If the wife was expecting a baby and her water broke, for example? Can the husband decide how many pregnancies the wife can endure?
If not, if there is a limit to what the wife can endure, then we need a rule book. If we don’t want a rule book then make decision-making participatory.
Tuesday, 22. April 2008
Sue, you teach what you believe is Biblical. I believe that marital anarchy is wrong and that the loving leadership of the husband is right, proper and Biblical.
You have yet to answer crucial questions that would convince me otherwise. All you do is fear-monger and teach to the rare extreme.
Wednesday, 23. April 2008
I do not teach marital anarchy. My parents were well respected in the church and by all acquaintances and there was absolutely no anarchy in our home. My parents fostered and cared for many other people. They were upright fundamentalist Christians who did not practice male authority because of the love and respect they had for each other.
As a single mother, I allow no anarchy in my home. My children are respectful and quiet, very well behaved young people. Exactly why would you make bring this up? Are you accusing me of this?
Yes, I teach what I believe to be biblical. I don’t remember anyone telling me that I have made an error in my understanding of the scripture. Most people just say they don’t have time to get into it in the depth that I do. However, you do have the time so thank you very much.
I just don’t see any scripture that says that the husband is the leader of the wife. The word “leader” is used of both men and women in the Greek so the word is there. It just isn’t applied to husbands.
The “rare extreme” is half the population. All those women who will live without their husbands are done a disservice by husbands who want them not to work to serve the husbands career, and then the husband does the financial planning and so on and then the wife has to later live on her own. The leadership of the husband is a disservice to 50% of women.
Wednesday, 23. April 2008
You believe that the leadership of the husband is a disservice to God. I believe that to deny godly leadership by the husband is a disservice to God.
Do you not think that telling another person what is right and wrong without the “I believe” and without the possibility that you could be wrong…is that not spiritual abuse?
Wednesday, 23. April 2008
I believe that the leadership of the husband is not in the Bible. I can’t find it anywhere.
Spiritual abuse is when you tell someone to put themselves under an authority whose measure is other than the moral good. Gender-based authority is as useful to society as putting short people under the authority of tall people, or black people under the authority of white people. It has no moral good. Therefore, to obey this kind of authority is abuse.
I am not telling anyone to put themselves under any authority except what is actually in the Bible and what is morally good.
Wednesday, 23. April 2008
I believe that the leadership of the husband is not in the Bible. I can’t find it anywhere.
This is my “surprised” look.
I am not telling anyone to put themselves under any authority except what is actually in the Bible and what is morally good.
Wrong. You are telling everybody that you can find that will listen to your soapbox that they should accept YOUR interpretation, regardless of what they see in Scripture.
When you have the nerve to tell another person – on their own blog – “Don’t tell other people to live in male authority” – that is (whether you have to intellectual honesty to admit it to yourself or not) an attempt to put them under your spiritual authority and tell them what they may or may not say on their own blog.
This puts YOU in the position of telling ME what I may or may not believe and teach on MY own blog.
Yes. Spiritual abuse and control is what you are after.
And I am not signing off on your abuse or your control.
Wednesday, 23. April 2008
I’m sort of like a woman whose family was killed by a drunk driver pleading with someone not to serve drinks. I admit it can’t be done. Too bad.
Wednesday, 23. April 2008
You are an abusive bully. The abuse that you suffer does not give you permission to abuse anybody who disagrees with you.
While I sympathize and empathize with your past and while I condemn abuse, I refuse to submit to your attempted abuse of me.
Just as abuse of alcohol does not justify a ban of a God-given substance that is not condemned in Scripture, neither does an abuse of a wife justify the denial of the godly leadership that I believe Scripture most accurately represents.
I will not submit to your abuse.
Wednesday, 23. April 2008
You are an abusive bully.
Ad feminam.
Wednesday, 23. April 2008
Actually, if I were saying that your arguments are wrong because you are a bully, you would have a point.
I am saying that you are wrong AND a bully. Totally separate, but both correct
Wednesday, 23. April 2008
All this means is that I will continue to dialog, but will not allow you to bully me into silence.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
How are you defining bully, Ellen?
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Answers.com
1. To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner. See synonyms at intimidate.
2. To make (one’s way) aggressively.
To go to another individual’s personal website and attempt to tell them to not teach something is overbearing.
To continually do that is aggressive.
To admit that “I’m sort of like a woman whose family was killed by a drunk driver pleading with someone not to serve drinks. I admit it can’t be done.” is to admit aggression and to be proud of it.
And to indicate that you do not even care by adding “Too bad.” is insensitive to the feelings of the person who feels bullied on their own website.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Ellen, maybe you didn’t notice that it was me, Charity, that asked how you’re defining “bully” not Sue.
I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that you invited us to come here and comment. I’m sure I wouldn’t have found your website otherwise.
Personally I do not think the word “pleading” connotes aggression or overbearingness. However I hear that you feel threatened by Sue’s comments that you have invited.
I’m not sure you welcome my comments, but I found your use of the word bullying strange. I now understand that you feel threatened.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Charity, comments are welcome here.
The attempt to tell me what I may or may not say on my own blog (Sue’s direct statement, “don’t tell…” is not.
What Sue does is not “plead”
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Let me add: do I feel threatened? No. I do not.
Do I believe that Sue is attempting to intimidate others into backing down from their sincerely held religious beliefs? Absolutely I do.
But I am not intimidated and I am not threatened. And I will continue to teach and say on my blog that which I believe until Scripture and the Holy Spirit convinces me otherwise.
In a personal space, I get the impression that others believe that Sue can tell me “don’t tell…” (what I can say on my own blog) and that I’m also told how I am supposed to feel about it.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Thanks for your reply, Ellen.
I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder. I certainly perceive what Sue is doing as pleading. You feel it differently (to clarify: I understood that you felt intimidated because of your use of the word bullying – if you don’t feel intimidated, I still don’t understand your use of that word). I don’t perceive her to be giving you orders, but asking you. The problem in the written format is that tone of voice doesn’t come across.
Of course you are free to write whatever you want to on your own blog. And it is my understanding from your answer to me that you welcome comments.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
I’m sort of like a woman whose family was killed by a drunk driver pleading with someone not to serve drinks.
I spent last night listening to a missionary’s wife telling me about her rape by locals and isolation, living for years on the mission field. She never told her Christian husband because she could not be sure of his support.
This man is adulated by his congregation now. She refuses to go public.
Yes, I plead the case of deeply damaged women.
I admit it can’t be done
I also recognize that what I am trying to do cannot be done. One cannot make those who have no empathy have empathy. I am not directing this comment at any particular group. I am discouraged by the overall lack of empathy.
The church does not want to know the broken history of this woman’s life. She is one more silent woman.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Abuse is sin.
Complementarianism is not sin
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Charity, “bully” is both a noun and a verb – it describes the one doing the bullying, not the one who chooses to stand up or to cave in.
Standing up is the only way to stop it.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
The church does not want to know the broken history of this woman’s life. She is one more silent woman.
The saddest part is that she never gave them a chance to prove them wrong.
A terrible sin was committed against her and NOW
1) her husband was never given the chance to support her and now
2) her church is not given the chance to support her AND
3) it is assumed (perhaps a false accusation) that they don’t want to know.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Ellen, I’m afraid I don’t understand you latest comment to me. Of course I understand that bully is a noun or a verb… I don’t understand what you mean by the rest of your comment.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
It simply means that a bully is a bully, whether somebody stands up to him/her or not.
A bully who is allowed to continue bullying will continue. A bully who is stopped will stop (at least in the arena where bullying is not allowed).
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Want to add…you said,
Of course I understand that bully is a noun or a verb…
I didn’t want to take it for granted. I am learning a foreign language and those nuances can escape me. I believe that English is not your first language so I added that (meaningless) comment
Thursday, 24. April 2008
The point I was making was that your accusation of bully appears to me to be a subjective one.
Objectively I do not think that Sue’s comments can be taken as bullying, but as pleading as she herself pointed out, with the comparison she gave.
So I asked you what meaning you were giving to bullying. The answer you gave me led me to understand that you felt intimidated because you used words like “agressive” and “intimidating”. When I echoed those words back to you, you suggested that I was trying to tell you how you should be feeling and denied feeling any of those things.
Now, there’s nothing wrong, in my view, of feeling those things. However if you do not feel them, I cannot see why you use the word bully to describe Sue.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Is an abuse any less of an abuser because he(or hse) is not abusing ME? No, they are still an abuser.
Is a gambler any less of a gambler if I call his (or her) bluff? No, they are still a gambler.
Is a bully any less of a bully because somebody stands up to them? No – their tactics are still that of a bully.
However if you do not feel them, I cannot see why you use the word bully to describe Sue.
Oh…I “feel” as though Sue is attempting to bully me into backing down. I simply refuse to be intimidated.
Every school yard has a bully – they learn who will allow themselves to be made targets and who will not. That does not mean the child is any less of a bully; they are only more selective about who they bully.
You notice that Sue is not denying it.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
A terrible sin was committed against her and NOW
1) her husband was never given the chance to support her and now
Sorry, my mistake, she did tell him recently, 18 years later, after they had left that country.
2) her church is not given the chance to support her
No, the church as a whole does not know. They feel that she is a potential drag on the stellar performance of her husband. He has not told anyone privately I guess. He accepts every position offered to him. He wants public service and recognition.
She also does not want her children to know. She didn’t tell her husband earlier because he had not been and still is not sympathetic to her concerns.
3) it is assumed (perhaps a false accusation) that they don’t want to know.
They do know my story. They divide men into the Christian men who are the “heads” of their wives, and the non-Christian men who are not worthy to be “heads.”
This man has never hit his wife. He is an outwardly exemplary Christian in every way and will enter a new ministry with much pomp and ceremony this weekend.
This is how I see it.
1. Complementarianism does not make unkind men kind.
2. Egalitarianism does not make unkind men kind.
3. Egalitarianism makes women less dependent on their husbands than complementarianism. It enables women to more easily survive the unkindness of their husbands.
It is certain that some Christian men and women will experience severe abuse. How can we best arm men and women against the abuse of their spouses?
We know that we cannot force all husbands or wives to be loving. This woman was in a mission all her life. Because of the enormous shame and lack of empathy expressed to her she did not get help until recently. This is a very common story. How can we prevent things like this?
I think women need to learn to be more whole in themselves, and that means that they do not see the husband as an integral “head” but understand this language metaphorically. Women need to have women in leadership, women who model strength and right action and a connection to the Lord, independent of the husband.
How can we stem the pain?
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Ps I am not denying being a bully because that word has no connection to who I am. No one who knows me would make any connection between that word and me. I really have no need to protest something like that.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Sue, I had doubts about whether you would even stop to consider how your treatment of others on-line would come across. You do not surprise me.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
He wants public service and recognition.
My husband was like that as well. And complementarianism had nothing to do with it. So it hardly makes your case.
It does NOT make your case.
This is a very common story. How can we prevent things like this?
We could start with honesty. With our spouse. That’s one thing that this woman didn’t give her husband. Make that two things.
Trust…honesty.
and (remember the topic of this post?)
Teach young men to love and lead their wives with Christ’s love and leadership as their model.
Stop making our young men into pussy cats. Let them be men.
Expect them to be men of God, not wimps of the world.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Sue, another thought.
There are two ways that you could have gone.
“Wow…my words must really have offended Ellen – maybe I should examine myself. Perhaps I could even be a little more aware of how I could be coming across.”
Or
“That’s not me. I don’t have to worry about that.”
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Ellen,
I have repeated told you how your words have deeply hurt me. You don’t blink, so why should I.
I have said explicitly,
“When you say …. that hurts me because …..”
You completely ignored this.
However, you outright accuse me. I am just going to ignore it.
My husband was like that as well. And complementarianism had nothing to do with it. So it hardly makes your case.
That was my case. I have explicitly said that complementarianism does not make men cruel, violent and negligent. They are this way because they are human, as are women. These unhappy characterisitics are evenly distributed to Christians and non-Christians.
Complementarianism ensures that the wives of men who are emotionally and physically cruel will be more vulnerable to their husbands. This means more liklihood of physical and emotional damage.
The definition of complementarianism is that women are more vulnerable to their husbands so this cannot be denied. The question is, to what extent should women try to protect themselves and their children from damage and now is this best done. I think this is an equal concern of both of us.
We could start with honesty. With our spouse. That’s one thing that this woman didn’t give her husband. Make that two things.
I do know the reason why. It is valid. The rest of the story is beyond belief terrible. It is unbelievable but I know the people involved and I know it is true. There are some things that can never be told in public and these are some of them. It is such a terrible story that anything that you and I know pales in comparison and I do not say this lightly. I say it respectfully.
The husband will be in a very visible and high profile position with very high profile complemenrarian leaders. I simply do not see anyway that anything can be done, and the very competent counselor who is involved has not been able to give any better counsel either.
In some cases, it is best for the woman, (or man, if that is the case) to disappear overnight and go into hiding or begin life over somewhere else. I really don’t know what else can be done. I can’t tell you anymore. Sorry, but think worse than we already know about.
Given that these things happen in complementarian homes, how can women be protected. I personally do not see the local church as the answer. It can contribrute but it is only one peice of the puzzle.
Women need other women in positions of leadership. They need permission to disobey their husband. They need permission to get help. They need permission to take up life on their own. They need permission to leave their husband without making the reason public. They need permission to make the big decisions on their own.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Given that these things happen in complementarian homes, how can women be protected.
What I mean to say is that these things can happen in any home, including complementarian homes.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
What really stands out for me is that this woman is with a very competent counsellor and has experienced unusual cruelty in her life and your first reaction is to criticize her.
That really makes me feel uncomfortable. Above all I plead for an attitude of tenderness towards those who are deeply damaged by the power of someone else in their life – man, woman or child.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
I have repeated told you how your words have deeply hurt me. You don’t blink, so why should I.
That is because you ask me to walk away from deeply held religious convictions and continue to refuse to back up your request with Scripture.
I go to Scripture. I do not find a leadership vacuum in Scripture.
I will remember to blink the next time I go your personal blog and tell you specifically not to tell people something. Oh…Right. I don’t go to your blog and tell you what to post.
What really stands out for me is that this woman is with a very competent counsellor and has experienced unusual cruelty in her life and your first reaction is to criticize her.
Are you telling me that she WAS honest with her husband? That she was open and trusting?
Since you do not know how I treat those who come to me, I trust that you will trust me to treat real live people face to face with
Thursday, 24. April 2008
(continued…)
That really makes me feel uncomfortable. Above all I plead for an attitude of tenderness towards those who are deeply damaged by the power of someone else in their life – man, woman or child.
The are damaged by abuse and the abuse of power, not the power in and of itself.
Unless you can supply Biblical references that tells me that power is the problem, not sin and not the person, I will ask you not to accuse power (not the sin and not the person) on my personal blog.
At least be intellectually honest and blame the person, not the structure.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Sue asked, “This is a very common story. How can we prevent things like this?
My answer: by being honest about it.
Sue’s response: That really makes me feel uncomfortable.
Some questions before we go any further:
Why does the expectation of honesty make you uncomfortable?
If honesty makes us uncomfortable, what hope do we have to prevent abuse?
Why does expecting a woman to be open and honest about abuse make you uncomfortable?
Do you want women to be uncomfortable with openness – do you want them to hide their abuse?
Honesty is required. Openness is required. Without it, the abused one remains in silence. That thought should make you feel uncomfortable.
While you may find silence comforting, I do not.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
What makes me uncomfortable is this.
When women are beaten and raped, they frequently do not tell for some very valid reasons. The last thing they need is to be accused of not being honest. The fact is women are frequently silent on issues of rape and violence. So should we criticize them for being fearful. Is that a useful approach?
Yes, I do think power is the problem. That is why Jesus modeled how to give up power. That is the message of the gospel IMO.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
I feel sick. Why should a woman have to paint the picture of her rape in public in order to justify herself? Why should people have to make the cause of divorce public? Why should a woman have to expose herself to everyone?
She suffers injustice. There is not always justice on earth. Women need to get out of their heads that men have authority over them. At least then a woman could live a whole life. Why should men have priority? Why would God want a woman, beaten and raped and unsupported by the Christian men in her life, to feel that men have authority over her?
Being honest is no guarantee of getting justice.
Because no one else can solve these problems and put a woman’s life back together, she should be taught that she has as much right to make decisions for her life as anyone else. What right does a man have to make a decision for his wife?
Thursday, 24. April 2008
So should we criticize them for being fearful. Is that a useful approach?
Is she here?
Do you continue to tell you to tell lies of omission?
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Sue, you said that she never told her husband If that makes you sick, then it seems you have a rather warped view of “one flesh”
you said, Sorry, my mistake, she did tell him recently, 18 years later, after they had left that country.
She waited 18 years for honesty toward her husband.
If you manage to wrest “public” out of that one-flesh relationship…?!?!?
I’m advocating that a wife be honest with her husband (instead of waiting for 18 years). I’m sorry you disagree.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Yes, I do think power is the problem. That is why Jesus modeled how to give up power. That is the message of the gospel IMO.
Scripture please?
I belong to a sovereign God who is in control of the universe. I belong to the Word by whom all things were made.
I belong to the One who upholds the universe by the word of His power.
Christ never ceased to be God, in all of His power and glory.
He was a servant-leader, He was always in control.
I am sorry that you have a such a small god.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
I am grateful that Jesus was a man or sorrows and acquainted with grief.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Men should imitate Christ and not seek power.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
I am grateful that Jesus was a man or sorrows and acquainted with grief.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
agreed. But He was still God. He still had authority.
Nobody took His life, He laid it down.
Men should imitate Christ and not seek power.
Christ didn’t have to seek power. He had it from eternity, He had it on earth and He will reign in eternity.
And women are to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.
Do you advocate for women to commit lies of omission to their husbands for 18 years? Do you not think that a husband would find it helpful to know that his wife had been raped?
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Do you believe that Christ became “not God” while walking on earth?
8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Yes. And God is the head of Christ. That is an old debate.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
I might add – it is this example of submission to the Father that makes (to me) the concept of submission to authority not a “dirty word” to be suppressed.
This is a passage that shows authority and submission within the Godhead. It becomes difficult to teach that authority is bad, because you just taught it within the Godhead.
Thursday, 24. April 2008
Do you not think that a husband would find it helpful to know that his wife had been raped?
I regret that you cannot imagine the reasons why women don’t tell their husbands why they have been raped. It is usually because they don’t feel loved.
Friday, 25. April 2008
Never mind. I now know why people don’t tell others about abuse. It is clear.
Friday, 25. April 2008
Never mind. I now know why people don’t tell others about abuse. It is clear.
Sounds like a very thinly veiled innuendo. And from your previous writing a thinly veiled accusation. Another false one at that.
I’m pretty much done here. I would like to say that I find it stunning that you would say that lying to your husband (in the face of a lack of abuse on his part) is okay.
Why would a woman lie to her husband about being raped? We only have her side of the story, but every complementarian man that I know would have dropped everything to get her help. Women don’t get help because they don’t reach out.
I guess that’s okay with you.
Friday, 25. April 2008
Oh. And, since this post is far, far away from the topic of loving a wife the way Christ loves the church, I’m closing comments.
Friday, 25. April 2008
Okay…comments are now opened.
Then answer: Why do you advocate a woman lying to her husband about abuse by an outside party? You are defending a betrayal of trust.
Friday, 25. April 2008
And I’m assuming that you also support the lies of omission of a husband to his wife?
Seriously…I find that supporting this sort of untruths to be – in a Christian context I have no words!
If a woman who had been keeping this secret from her husband came to me, I would not support lies! I would gently counsel her that she needed to be honest with her husband. No confrontation of the past, but a clean slate for the future.
I can only imagine the feeling of being betrayed that the husband must feel – as well a being robbed of the opportunity to support his wife! Would he have supported her? He will never, ever have the opportunity to show her, will he – her dishonesty robbed him of that.
It is entirely possible that he withdrew from her as a result of her withdrawal from him – we all know that as human beings we remember event differently – this is not an accusation of lying about the reason for lying or about the withdrawal of her husband – it is merely an observation of the human brain and I would not take her side because of her “femaleness” without hearing both sides of the lie of omission.
A Christian defending a lie like this?
Friday, 25. April 2008
testing…1…2…3
yes. comments are on