Predictable? Probably.
Red herring? Certainly.
In my post from yesterday, I quoted Scripture that references three human institutions: governments, slavery, and marriage.
Suzanne, at the "Better Bible Blog" asked, "Would you ask a slave to go back to slavery if it could be proven that it was God's will." and further noted, "I assume you would." and challenged, "Then let those who accept real live slavery to another human being ask me if I would accept it. Only as an evil."
Later, (asking me) "You oppose slavery, and I suppose totalitarian government. Christians are clearly taught to submit to both. On what basis do you resist the clear teaching of the scripture? "
(I'm answering here instead of there because my full answer it likely to be more lengthy than most people want in their combox.)
First point: The reason this is a "red herring" (comparing slavery and totalitarian governments to marriage) is that (for most people) there are obvious differences.
The first thing we have to deal with is that "marriage" means "all marriages". "Slavery" means "all slavery", so we must consider "all governments", instead of only part of them.
Next, we can construct questions that are applicable to all of these human institutions.
Was the institution of _____ instituted by God?
- Was the institution of slavery instituted by God?
- Was the institution of government instituted by God?
- Was the institution of marriage instituted by God?
God said of marriage: "as it was from the beginning..." God instituted the union of man and woman in marriage.
Government is a little stickier - There did not appear to be an "official" government among the Israelites until after Egypt. After Egypt there was a theocracy that God set up, with His people ruled by priests, who were ruled by Him. So yes, in at least one case, God instituted the human institution of government.
Slavery: I can see no place in Scripture where God began the institution of slavery; it seems that slavery is a human invention.
CONCLUSION: slavery is a human-formed institution and sits apart from the God-given institutions of marriage and government. So we don't need to compare marriage with slavery.
Next question: Are all examples of __________ harmful to humans?
- Are all examples of marriage harmful to humans?
- are all examples of government harmful to humans?
- are all examples of slavery harmful to humans?
Obviously (at least I hope it is obvious) the answer to the first to is "no, not all examples of marriage or government are harmful to humans".
On slavery it may appear that I'm waffling, but I'm not. LET ME BE CLEAR: ALL SLAVERY THAT WE SEE IN THE WORLD TODAY IS EVIL THROUGH AND THROUGH. I will include in that a more recent institution than African slavery - the Magdelene laundries. Another example is the enslavement occurring today in parts of our own world.
ALTHOUGH...if the definition of "slavery" is coerced labor, is a military draft a form of "slavery"? Interesting question, as is the question of being able to "sell" oneself temporarily to pay off a debt or crime.
But in short, yes - all examples of slavery that we see in the world today are harmful to humans.
CONCLUSION: We cannot accurately compare the institution of slavery to marriage (and thus the submission of slaves in an ungodly institution to the submission of wives and citizens under godly institutions) with submission of people within Godly and God ordained institutions.
The next question is: where Paul's words meant to encourage those in submission to authority, both godly and ungodly? (yes) Do Paul's words prohibit us from working toward justice? (Certainly not).
Wayne Leman
Re: submission to governmental authorities, one of the clearest passages of explicit teaching on this is Rom. 13:1, which I cite in one of my blog posts. That teaching was addressed to Christians in Rome, who lived under a government which was far from democratic and sensitive to human rights. I assume that if Paul were writing to the Hebrews while they were enslaved in Egypt, he might have said the same thing. And we don't know what Paul would have said to Bonhoeffer who chose to resist the evil of Hitler's government and was executed for it.
Daniel is commended for defying the command of the government over him.
When authorities prohibited Peter and other disciples from preaching, Peter said that "We ought to obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29)
These are difficult issues which righteous people have been struggling with for millennia. I suspect that there is a basic principle about submission to governmental authorities which Paul explains in Rom. 13. But Paul himself defied the commands of some authorites to him. Yet he submitted to punishment which was given him when he did so.
Wouldn't it be nice if all of these issues were clearer, with no gray areas?
Ellen
I would say that if a husband is asking a wife to SIN, then she should obey God rather than man.
If a government is asking people to SIN, then we should obey God.
Outside of that direction to SIN, there are authority structures in place, are there not?
Wayne Leman
Ellen, I forget now what I suggested Paul might have said to the Hebrews under slavery of the government in Egypt. I don't know what he would have told them. I want to think he would not have told them to simply submit to their governmental authority but would have agreed with God who told Moses to lead the Hebrews out of slavery.
Again, no easy answers when governments act in unbiblical ways. Christians over the ages have chosen different ways to respond. Many became martyrs for their faith because they would not acquiesce to commands of authorities.
Yet, the principle remains clearly taught in the Bible that we are to submit to governmental authority. I guess Paul didn't give us every detail about what to do when governmental commands conflict with God's commands.
Wayne Leman
"Outside of that direction to SIN, there are authority structures in place, are there not?"
Yes, there are. It is clearly said so in the Bible.
Ellen
If that includes within marriage, it certainly should give young (and not so young) women encouragement to choose their men wisely.
Wayne Leman
"If that includes within marriage, it certainly should give young (and not so young) women encouragement to choose their men wisely."
Both men and women need to choose their life partners carefully. But I don't think it is connected to authority in marriage. In fact, I'm not aware of any Bible teaching about authority structures in marriage. See my blog posts about this. There is plenty of the Bible that teaches us how to relate to each other whether or not there is an authority relationship. Sometimes there are authority relationships and sometimes there are not. It depends on the relationship. The Bible explicitly lists a number of authority relationships. I'm not aware of any passages that include marriage within that list. But I'm sure open to being wrong. I've been wrong many other times.
Ellen
Read 1 Peter 3 and 4 as a letter.
Be subject to every human institution...servants, be subject to your masters...likewise...
What does the "likewise" (in the same way) refer back to - in a way that would reflect the use of the word "subject"?
Suzanne
Ellen,
I think this really means that women were then and sometimes still are in a position where they have to be submissive and put up with some really bad stuff.
However, I believe that the church must fight to provide equality for women internationally. This is the mission of our age, just as abolition of slavery was the mission earlier. We need to set an example for the world so that the condition of women around the world can be improved by women having access to equal decision-making power. Men should voluntarily treat women as equals and thus fulfill the teachings of Christ.
Ellen
And (of course) "equality" (which I've never denied) does not in any mean that the roles (helpmeet and leader) are the same.
Suzanne
Ellen,
It is the hierarchy, the lack of human dignity in not being able to make decisions for oneself.
Suzanne
These are quotes from the World Vision paper.
* Create programmes and raise awareness among men and women to acknowledge and alleviate the burdens of women’s triple role in their home, workplace, and community, and promote women’s equal participation in decision-making.
* Enhance the social support system to enable women to work outside of the home by providing free/subsidised and good quality day-care centres for infants and elders.
* Governmental and international agencies, NGOs, employers, and trade unions must ensure equal rights and equal pay for all women.
* Women in leadership must be encouraged to build their capacity, confidence, assertiveness, and leadership skills while increasing the number of female staff who serve as role models. At the same time, men must be made aware of the shared benefits of gender equality, enabling them to relate to and work positively with empowered women.
* Furthermore, World Vision suggests partnership with social institutions such as churches, council of elders, community leaders and other sources of influence to remove barriers that prevent women from full participation.
* Educate men and women on shared gender roles that allow familial and social equity leading to households and societies where both genders have equal opportunities and access to resources and decision making.
Ellen
That's nice. I don't see Scripture.
Egalitarian teaching seeks to change centuries of church understanding of Paul's words - asserting that understanding is wrong.
"He/she who asserts must prove" (in this case, Biblically) that centuries of church teaching is wrong, and you're not going to do that by not using Scripture.
Suzanne
Here is more from the report. I am sure you will see that this is not nice. If we see to do good and do not do it ...
Did you know that girls in impoverished countries are less likely to receive adequate medical care or food, compared to boys? Here are some grim statistics I recently received from World Vision:
- Seven out of ten of the world's hungry are women.
- Nearly half of all girls born in the 50 least developed countries will never attend school, sentencing them to a life of poverty and disease.
- Due to poverty, illiteracy, and the denial of decision-making power, women are becoming infected with HIV faster than men in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.
- Every six seconds a girl under five dies of preventable causes.
- Of the 800 million who lack basic work skills to rise out of poverty, two-thirds are female.
Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. Another little girl has died. It's almost overwhelming to comprehend.
Suzanne
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
An underrated text.
Ellen
Suzanne, appeal to emotion is a "logical fallacy". It doesn't play with me.
Yes. Women are abused and neglected and that is sin. We should treat it as sin.
Face it - starving Muslims in Northern Africa are not going to be helped by preventing Joe Blow down the street from being a Godly leader to his family. Implying such is intellectually dishonest.
Question: how many of these poverty stricken countries are primarily Christian?
How many men who bring AIDS home to their wives are Christians?
You are attempting to make your case out of fear. If Joe Blow is the leader of his family, girls will die of starvation in India. Tick. Tick. Tick.
Sin is sin. We are a fallen race. We need Jesus. Scripture is His Word.
How many places in Scripture, where it tells spouses how to relate to each other, are wives instructed to submit? How many times are husbands (specifically) told to submit?
What is the purpose of a "head"?
From Scripture, please.
Suzanne
Thanks Ellen for this response. I understand that these things don't interest you.
To respond to your post more closely. You write,
* Are all examples of marriage harmful to humans?
* are all examples of government harmful to humans?
* are all examples of slavery harmful to humans?
This doesn't work. Try,
A1. Are all examples of hierarchy in marriage harmful to humans?
A2. Are all examples of absolute monarchy harmful to humans?
A3. Are all examples of slave labour harmful to humans?
Now, ask
B1. Was hierarchy in marriage instituted by God?
B2. Was an absolute monarchy instituted by God?
B3. Was slave labour instituted by God?
All examples of slavery are not necessarily harmful to humans in an obvious way. Many think that slavery in some cultures was a way for people to be cared for and given security, especially in a godly household. Slaves are commanded to obey. Nowhere does the Bible say to abolish slavery and many churches in the US fought to preserve slavery.
In fact, it was the Quakers, who believed in equal rights for women, who were the most instrumental in abolishing slavery. They believed in equality as a whole package. This is the heritage of the Quakers in the US.
Now monarchy. Monarchy was instituted by God and a king was called "God's anointed". Christians during the 16 - 18th centuries struggled with the command in the Bible to obey your ruler and not stretch out a hand against him/her.
The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed. 1 Sam. 2:10
1 Sam. 24:6
Lancelot Andrewes, the translator of the King James Bible, preached extensively on these verses in the early 17th century. However, only a few decades later, Cromwell felt that the English nation was under the tyranny of its ruler. And so, against the clear teaching of scripture, Cromwell tried King Charles I and had him executed. The power of the monarchy has been limited ever since and made responsible to the people. This form of government, known as a constitutional monarchy is also considered a democracy, the government is "by the people." This is of course, against the clear teaching of 1 Peter 2, and 1 Samuel.
The Puritans also did not submit to the monarch. They voted with their feet. The colonies also did not submit to the monarch. They revolted.
An absolute monarchy, like slavery, allows for abuse. Is it harmful? It can be. Is slavery harmful? It can be. Is a hierarchical marriage harmful? It can be.
Are democratic governments without abuse? no. Are employers without abuse? No. Are egalitarian marriages without abuse? No.
Nonetheless, we have abolished absolute monarchies, instituted and protected by God, and we have abolished slavery, regulated and not abolished in scripture. We understand that a relationship which in which power is not shared, is harmful. We act on these things as civil matters. We do not say, "But if the monarch was a Christian, a monarch would serve the people" We do not say "If the master is a Christian he will serve his slaves."
And yet, those things were said, that a master supplied security for his slaves, in Aristotle, and in 1 Peter we see that a ruler is the minister of God.
And yet we live in countries without monarchs, without masters, because we believe them to be wrong.
Monarchy was most definitely instituted by God. Was hierarchy in marriage? That is much less clear. There is no verse that I know of in which God institutes hierarchic relations in marriage. God tells Abraham to listen (obey) Sarah. Abraham appeals to kindness to get her to agree with his wishes.
If we live by scripture only and not by the history of the nation, then we must return to a monarchy and slavery.
In a country in which freedom from slavery and absolute monarchy has been won, it is a shame not to understand that freedom from living under the authority of another human being, who is not in turn responsible back to you, is God's will and in accordance with Jesus repeated teaching to "love your neighbour as yourself."
Suzanne
I cannot discuss "head" tonight. I had to deal with the many very serious inconsistencies in your post first. It should not be left to stand as it is.
Psalmist has posted several additional comments on our original thread on the BBB>
Suzanne
PS I did not write the material from World Vision. (Tick, tick tick) That was Carolyn McCulley of Solofemininity.
I am asking this question a little belatedly. Do you find other peoples pain a subject for sarcasm?
Suzanne
He said to his men, "The LORD forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the LORD's anointed, or lift my hand against him; for he is the anointed of the LORD." 1 Sam. 24:6.
Ellen
An absolute monarchy, like slavery, allows for abuse. Is it harmful? It can be. Is slavery harmful? It can be. Is a hierarchical marriage harmful? It can be.
Appeal to fear. It doesn't play.
I have asked several questions that you apparently either can or cannot answer.
You are assuming that no woman wants godly leadership in a marriage because you do not. I am assuming that you also do not wish to sit under leadership in any other human relations, such as church pastors and elders, based on the same concept.
Actually, my questions do work, Suzanne. You just don't like them.
Psalmist has posted several additional comments on our original thread on the BBB>
That's nice. After your threat to bear false witness against me, I'm not visiting. In fact, due to your attitude (sorry, regardless of you denial, your words exist) that complentarianism equals abuse, I have little desire at this point to interact with you at all.
I am asking this question a little belatedly. Do you find other peoples pain a subject for sarcasm?
No. I'm finding your logical fallacies a subject for irony.
And yet we live in countries without monarchs, without masters, because we believe them to be wrong.
Here in the States, we broke from England because the king was a tyrant, not because monarchy in and of itself was wrong.
If we live by scripture only and not by the history of the nation, then we must return to a monarchy and slavery.
1) see above, your not listening to history very well either.
2) Are you familiar with the Westminster Shorter Catechism? Q2?
Nowhere does the Bible say to abolish slavery and many churches in the US fought to preserve slavery.
Here's the thing, Suzanna. Even if you cannot prove that slavery in an of itself is wrong, it is easily proven by Scripture that what we see today, and what we saw in the United States IS and WAS sin. A person could become a slave because of debt, or because of war.
Kidnapping populations and enslaving them because of race or religion was worthy of the death penalty.
You don't make a very good case, but you do very well at alienation.
He said to his men, “The LORD forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the LORD’s anointed, or lift my hand against him; for he is the anointed of the LORD.” 1 Sam. 24:6.
I don't understand how it relates to marriage, but it makes a good case for supporting Godly leadership - there are earthly authorities that are ordained by God and I believe a wife sits under one called "husband".
Ellen
Thanks Ellen for this response. I understand that these things don’t interest you.
More false testimony. Thank you so much for making value judgments about my attitude concerning the sin of abuse and neglect. It weakens your case if you feel the need to do that.
PS I did not write the material from World Vision. (Tick, tick tick) That was Carolyn McCulley of Solofemininity.
Yes. I know, I read that blog. I consider abuse and neglect sin and we should deal with abuse and neglect as sin. You simply fail to prove that a godly husband in leadership and a godly wife in submission to that leadership is sin.
Another logical fallacy. That women in poverty stricken countries suffer from abuse and neglect does not prove that godly complementarian marriages equal sin.
Your false testimony and your threat of false testimony, and your appeals to fear and emotion, as well lumping complimentarianism in with abusers; Suzanne, it weakens your case. A lot.
Suzanne
Thanks for the chat, Ellen. I wish you well.
Suzanne
Thanks for taking the time for such a long and interesting debate, Ellen. I wish you well.
Suzanne
Oops. I thought it hadn't gone through. I know you have a long day so I'll be off.
Suzanne
PS. 1 Sam 24:6 was one of the verses that Cromwell struggled with when he executed Charles 1. Eventually monarchs were made responsible to the people and the monarchy became a democracy.
Sara
My take on the submission thing is that the bible is encouraging women to become slaves of their husband. They are like children and slaves, unable to make decisions on their own, without help from their master/head. By making our own decisions and choices, that is how we grow. So, a submissive wife will never grow, at least not if her master will not allow it. I know it could be a relief, not having to make any decisions, having your "head" make them all. At least you would never be responsible for the wrong choices. Even if your master/head is nice to you, you still are not free. Your only freedom is what he gives you. If this is how you want to live, that is your choice. Kind of like a perpetual child, I guess it would make life easier-just do as your told, and shut up. It's kind of funny how men think they know what is in the best interest of women. I can't agree with you on the submissive thing-but if you are happy, who am I to say anything against your lifestyle-for you at least.
Sara
I just cannot believe any relationship between two people can work if one person has all the power. A submissive wife is kind of like a favorite pet( if the"head"is nice, that is). An equal relationship -between equals-with shared decision making, and responsibilities and privledges based on talent, not reproductive organs.
MzEllen
Post author@Sara
The language you use seems to indicate that you haven't taken much time to actually talk to women who enjoy being submissive to their husbands.
that's unfortunate, because the language you use "feels" as though you believe you are superior to submissive women and you sound quite condescending.