Kevin's Watch

Vraith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I guess the things that come up in my mind first are that
1) Since individualism - the absolute authority of the individual to be ultimate arbiter of truth - rules in our society, the natural result is that most rejects any authority unless the authority says what they want to hear.

This is because authority is nothing but arbitrary heirarchy/power competition without respect...which is why I said respect is a necessary condition of authority [and again, I cannot emphasize enough that authority is knowledge based..authoritarian is power based, one is open, the other rigid.] And the REASON people disrespect authority is NOT individualism, it's because it's not authority, it's not explained, it's authoritarian. More importantly: every human has always been the absolute authority in matters of truth, and always will be...it's just that in some times and places it's acceptable to say so, in others it's not.

Short summary statement: Real authority is earned and temporary and meant to be challenged/engaged [even by the "authority" him/her/itself if they have any sense]. Real respect is from everyone to everyone as recognition of common humanity. [doesn't need to be earned, but can be lost...similar to rights under US constitution]. Everything else is power games.

Hi Vraith,
I have to disagree with your understanding of the role of respect in authority.
(I see you served, too, so you can get this:) There are TWO types of respect. The kind you earn, as you pointed out, and the kind that is unearned - that must be granted because of the position, rank, shoulderboards, etc, whether you like it or not. Otherwise, you can't have an effective organization.

Again, you are right that we decide what authority we accept. But you seem to miss the distinction between accepting authority (and thereby its pronouncements, teachings, or whatever) and the individual determination of truth. The latter, which you are emphasizing, cannot always work. There is too much that we don't know, and at some point we must decide what authority we accept - and before that point we accepted various authorities without being aware of it. When we accept that authority, we acknowledge it, in some way or other, to know more than we do, that it is something we must learn from.

So if you have not been married or had children, how can you be an authority on, say, divorce or child rearing? If you are only 20, how can you understand what it is like to be a grandparent? Sure, you can imagine, but you don't know. So the only way to really learn, rather than merely spout nonsense, is to learn from an authority that you accept. So I would say that your statement

every human has always been the absolute authority in matters of truth, and always will be

needs some revising to take into account what they don't know.

Vraith wrote:

Rusmeister wrote: 2) On things like the family, speaking from within a context of traditional Christianity, one big thought is that if wives are always usurping that authority, then the husbands are, generally speaking, left with the options of assuming the wife's role or abandoning the family (leaving out things like 'power struggles', which always ignore guidelines of Christian authority and miss the point of why the family is structured that way). It certainly explains the peculiar 20th century+ phenomenon of wide scale abandonment of responsibility by the man - if the wife doesn't let him lead (most often because she has been taught to see things in terms of that false concept of a 'power struggle'), he can hardly take responsibility for the state of things. To paraphrase Spiderman, "with no power comes no responsibility".

That last line is a cop out. No different than "I'll take my ball and go home." (in it's uselessness, and falseness, not as a parallel situation) For the rest...I'll just say it only works within the context you say, and as an ideal within that context. As others (as well as myself, indirectly) pointed out, it doesn't have to be one choice...either authority OR power struggle. That's just a variation of the myth that we're like wolves...one leads. (which, btw is a myth even when applied to wolves).

I agree that it is a cop-out. I do not justify men abandoning their families. I merely explain one of the factors that leads them to do it. On "I'll take my ball and go home" - marriage for life is not a game that you can quit after a few rounds - but modern thought does treat marriage that way, so they act accordingly (the resulting trivialization of marriage that happened over the 20th century).

Vraith wrote:

Rusmeister wrote:
The assumption that "I know best" is the child's/teenager's dream come true. Only the parent sees the holes in that daydream.

Another myth. This may be a soundbite of the teenage world, but adolescent development doesn't work this way. It has little to do with "I know best" and everything to do with "Who am I?"

Ah, but it DOES work that way. The "I know best" is part and parcel of "Who am I?", because the answer (for them) to that question is "I know best". Your own response

every human has always been the absolute authority in matters of truth

is sufficient evidence of that. It is what the former teenager carries with him into adult life, unless/until he realizes that it is really not true; that he doesn't know best. (I do apply this to myself in the first person, as well.)


In the sense you use the word authoritarian, I would say that it is not applicable to the worldview taught by the Orthodox, and many other Christian Churches, as they hinge on voluntary acceptance of the authority. The same applies to the view of those authorities on the family. Speaking from within that tradition, the woman chooses one man out of all the world, for life, to honor, and yes, to obey. (I can see automatic programmed reactions calling for reflexive cringing here, instilled by authority accepted by most here, usually without being aware of it.) Her acceptance, and even obedience, spring from choice and trust. The man, in turn, has a special responsibility to LOVE the woman, not in the sense of "have good feelings about", but specifically: "as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it". That's a self-sacrificial love, when, taken in context, is not authoritarian at all; indeed, Christ teaches that he would be great must become least - the washing of the disciples feet at the "Last Supper" (we don't call it that in Orthodoxy - it's 'the Mystical Supper', but speaking your language of necessity...) and other examples of where the one who leads must be the servant of all. And that sacrifice is life-long, with no expiration date. That is the recipe for the ideal marriage and family, and even if one refuses the particular "cross" that they must carry, God blesses the efforts of the other, if even only one 'carries out their end of the bargain', so to speak. But sticking to the ideal, the best illustration I ever saw was in a photograph of my (then much smaller) family on a CA beach, with my arms around my wife, and her arms around our son. My loving and protecting her enables her to love and protect our children without also having to 'watch her back'.

Summary statement: Real authority can be both earned and granted. We salute the officer, not because he has "earned" it, but because we have, either by voluntarily enlisting or by acceptance of our government's authority to do so, accepted being drafted and thereby accept the authority without any of it having been earned - merely because he is wearing the shoulderboards. It is on this basis that we exercise authority over children. We don't wait for them to start respecting us before we tell them what to do. The truly intelligent adult realizes the limitations of his knowledge and if/when he finds an authority that does 'know more than he does', he submits to it, accepts it, and learns from it.

Good explanation, Rus.
2 Problems: is the same person ALWAYS the final arbiter? For family situations, according to the rules, yes...according to real life...well...things are going to be uncomfortable. [or a bloodbath divorce]
In society as a whole...war, decimation, burnings, chaos, the anarchy that seems to worry you [soft jab...anarchy comes up a lot ]...eventually, tyranny.

Soulbiter and Aliantha...not sure if what you said was relating to what I said about kids and authority, but to be clear: I'm not saying kids shouldn't have firm, and (especially when young...later perhaps issue-specific) rules and consequences...I'm saying they should know WHY those rules are in place.
[personal specific example: Rule, do NOT go down to the stream to get your ball. Punishment, no ball games in the back yard without an adult. Reason: the bank is clay and shale, and you could break your fucking leg!] *first time I dropped the f-bomb on somebody who hadn't reached puberty*

Vraith wrote:Good explanation, Rus.
2 Problems: is the same person ALWAYS the final arbiter? For family situations, according to the rules, yes...according to real life...well...things are going to be uncomfortable. [or a bloodbath divorce]
In society as a whole...war, decimation, burnings, chaos, the anarchy that seems to worry you [soft jab...anarchy comes up a lot ]...eventually, tyranny.

Soulbiter and Aliantha...not sure if what you said was relating to what I said about kids and authority, but to be clear: I'm not saying kids shouldn't have firm, and (especially when young...later perhaps issue-specific) rules and consequences...I'm saying they should know WHY those rules are in place.
[personal specific example: Rule, do NOT go down to the stream to get your ball. Punishment, no ball games in the back yard without an adult. Reason: the bank is clay and shale, and you could break your fucking leg!] *first time I dropped the f-bomb on somebody who hadn't reached puberty*

Well, it depends on who is your final authority for the true nature of humanity and the universe. I hold that it is sufficiently complex that no individual could be reasonably trusted to do so accurately on their own authority - to obtain more than a few scattered pieces. IOW, revelation from something/someOne higher than any human on their own is necessary for one to make any such claims.

My faith tradition says that in general, the husband should be the final arbiter in the family (note: 'should', and that this is limited to the family - it is not to be taken as a necessary model for social structures beyond the family.)

If I read your concern right, I would say that, yes, the man will sin. He will make wrong and stupid decisions. However, the wife who submits regardless will be happier and more blessed than the one who wants to force a better or more intelligent decision. Consider how the sin of pride would play into that - the elevation of oneself above others; specifically, above your spouse. When taken in the context given, where the husband is also to love the wife in the sense I described (and answer before God if he fails to do so), then the wife who is right and insists on taking charge is actually flirting with sins far greater than the bumblings of her stupid husband. Pride is the first and greatest of sins. It is also the subtlest. I imagine that a more extensive discussion of the Christian view of pride might be required to clarify that, though. The virtues of submission and humility (which the Christian husband must practice to a much greater degree if the wife will not) are salvific. The sin of pride is destructive, and is very elusive and difficult to detect. The whole point is dying to yourself so that your true self may be restored to you. Dying to yourself ultimately means abandoning what you want.

On your other comment - yes, we should explain to children as best we can 'why this' and 'why that'. But often the lesson doesn't really sink in - and more often they are not really equipped to understand our explanations - just as we are often not equipped to understand, say, theological explanations, and then words are not enough. Other action must be taken to instruct the child (be it spankings, time-outs, restrictions or denial of privileges, etc.) Then you must refer to the authority vested in you (note:passive voice, implying 'by whom') to enforce your will on the child, most especially when the child's health, welfare or life are on the line. Thus, deprivation, pain and suffering become instructive tools where words do not work, just as we see God instructing us - for our own benefit. (There goes another lengthy discussion...)

PS - who the heck is that in your avatar? He looks like a friend of mine at church, a member of the choir...

rusmeister wrote: PS - who the heck is that in your avatar? He looks like a friend of mine at church, a member of the choir...

It's me doing Shakespeare. I can't be your friend though..I haven't been in a choir in years.

SoulBiter wrote:My wife respects that biblically I am the leader but I respect the fact that I dont know everything and the best way forward is for us to agree on which direction that is.

I think that sums up what I first started this thread with. However, I used different terms, like submit and authority. Yet, ali, you vehemently disagreed w/me, and sb rocks. I'm confused. I can only imagine b/c you take authority to mean one makes decisions regardless of other input. Because if you read my post, you would know that's not what I'm talking about.

You have hit upon the difference precisely, Andy. Or maybe it's just the way I read your two posts. To me, SB is saying that regardless of the biblical injunction, he and his wife, as a practical matter, make decisions together. While your phrasing here:

But when you look at the husband's authority over his wife, he is to be like Christ. Jesus said He came to serve, and if He is your master, how much more should you be a servant. So the husband has the authority to make decisions, which he does in serving his wife, and children. In this environment, its not hard for a wife to submit to her husband (he will make mistakes, but just remember, she's not perfect either )

seemed to be a nicey-nice way of telling the wife to just shut up already and let her husband run things as he sees fit.

Which brings me to the problem I have with what Rus said:

(W)here the husband is also to love the wife in the sense I described (and answer before God if he fails to do so), then the wife who is right and insists on taking charge is actually flirting with sins far greater than the bumblings of her stupid husband. Pride is the first and greatest of sins.

So let's say the husband decides -- oh, gee, I dunno -- let's say he decides to set himself up as a pimp, with his wife as the first hooker of his stable. From what you guys are saying, I'm getting that if the wife refused to do what her husband wanted her to do, she would be guilty of the sin of pride?

Let's take a slightly less egregious example. Let's say that a few years back, the husband decided to invest the couple's life savings, including some money that his wife had inherited from her parents, with Bernie Madoff. And let's say that the wife had a feeling that Madoff's returns were simply too good to be true, and refused to let her husband invest her inheritance. She feels she must do this in order to protect herself financially. But according to the Bible, she would be committing the sin of pride. Is that what you're saying?

Look, I am sorry to break this to you guys, but sometimes women are smarter than men. And sometimes women have to protect themselves from men, even if they happen to be married to the guy. To claim that they are guilty, in that instance, of some sin that will get them sent to Hell when they die is absurd. Perhaps this will give you guys a clue about why so many women prefer *not* to be associated with a paternalistic religion like Christianity.

rusmeister wrote:However, the wife who submits regardless will be happier and more blessed than the one who wants to force a better or more intelligent decision.

To each their own, and I respect that this is your opinion. However, I have never dreamed of a relationship/marriage in these terms. To me, this potentially gives licence to a bad husband/partner to use religious beliefs to justify dominance/aggression. Anyway, it's certainly different to my belief of marriage. (PS. Congrats on the new arrival, Rus! )

Aliantha wrote:seemed to be a nicey-nice way of telling the wife to just shut up already and let her husband run things as he sees fit.

It's also the impression I get.

aliantha wrote:You have hit upon the difference precisely, Andy. Or maybe it's just the way I read your two posts. To me, SB is saying that regardless of the biblical injunction, he and his wife, as a practical matter, make decisions together. While your phrasing here:

But when you look at the husband's authority over his wife, he is to be like Christ. Jesus said He came to serve, and if He is your master, how much more should you be a servant. So the husband has the authority to make decisions, which he does in serving his wife, and children. In this environment, its not hard for a wife to submit to her husband (he will make mistakes, but just remember, she's not perfect either )

seemed to be a nicey-nice way of telling the wife to just shut up already and let her husband run things as he sees fit.

Which brings me to the problem I have with what Rus said:

(W)here the husband is also to love the wife in the sense I described (and answer before God if he fails to do so), then the wife who is right and insists on taking charge is actually flirting with sins far greater than the bumblings of her stupid husband. Pride is the first and greatest of sins.

So let's say the husband decides -- oh, gee, I dunno -- let's say he decides to set himself up as a pimp, with his wife as the first hooker of his stable. From what you guys are saying, I'm getting that if the wife refused to do what her husband wanted her to do, she would be guilty of the sin of pride?

Let's take a slightly less egregious example. Let's say that a few years back, the husband decided to invest the couple's life savings, including some money that his wife had inherited from her parents, with Bernie Madoff. And let's say that the wife had a feeling that Madoff's returns were simply too good to be true, and refused to let her husband invest her inheritance. She feels she must do this in order to protect herself financially. But according to the Bible, she would be committing the sin of pride. Is that what you're saying?

Look, I am sorry to break this to you guys, but sometimes women are smarter than men. And sometimes women have to protect themselves from men, even if they happen to be married to the guy. To claim that they are guilty, in that instance, of some sin that will get them sent to Hell when they die is absurd. Perhaps this will give you guys a clue about why so many women prefer *not* to be associated with a paternalistic religion like Christianity.

Hi, Ali,
I'd want to second Andy in underlining that we are speaking of final decisions on important matters, after all opinions, thoughts, discussions, etc have been thrown around.

And yes, we do fully acknowledge that women are often smarter than men. Just as in the army enlisted men are often smarter than their officers - and so the officers are well advised to listen to them. But the army, like a family, is only effective if it is not in strife against itself.

Also, we are talking from within a faith tradition which forbids sin, so examples that call for a person to sin are already out of court. In addition, the whole point of marriage is to marry for life and is based on trust and love, the antithesis of "protecting yourself" from that person. None of that would forbid either spouse having their own money and possessions, but it is very likely over the course of a lifetime (the length of the marriage, which in this tradition would nearly always be the same thing) that the needs of the family would require drawing on "personal" resources of both of the spouses. And yes, at that point for either of the spouses to say "I need to protect myself from you" when your house is about to be repossessed certainly displays a lack of love - and I do mean "agape", and am not speaking of "feelings of love" which come and go.

It should also be kept clearly in mind that we see this life as quite temporary, so personal gain in this world is a trivial thing that is often spiritually harmful when it causes you to miss the point about eternity. And again, my tradition denies the picture you keep drawing about "getting sent to hell", as if it was something God did to an unlucky you.

If your understandings of Christianity were really true, would it not be a religion patronized primarily by men? How then explain that a majority of Christians are actually female, and many as well or better educated than you or I?

aliantha wrote:While your phrasing here:

But when you look at the husband's authority over his wife, he is to be like Christ. Jesus said He came to serve, and if He is your master, how much more should you be a servant. So the husband has the authority to make decisions, which he does in serving his wife, and children. In this environment, its not hard for a wife to submit to her husband (he will make mistakes, but just remember, she's not perfect either )

seemed to be a nicey-nice way of telling the wife to just shut up already and let her husband run things as he sees fit.

Well ali, we all read things w/our own biases, and your bias against Christianity, and husband in authority, is biasing your reading of my post. I mean, how does a husband make decisions in serving his wife, if he's telling her to shut up already and let me run things? It just doesn't make sense. I also wrote he is to love her like Christ loved the church, in that He died for her. So I'm not sure how that translates into, shut up and do what I say. Can you explain how you come to that conclusion?

And to echo rus, it seems in American Christianity, the men are severly lacking in our wisdom. Altho I bet that can be extrapolated to society at large. There was a masculinity thread started in 'Tank, but never really got off the ground, probably b/c men are too dumb to talk about our issues.

I have to agree with Aliantha about the implication. Perhaps, as 'Weez has suggested, more equalitarian minded people have found ways that incorprorate the idea without it's negative implications, but Christianity, and Christian-dominated society, has always been male-dominated and patriarchal in the extreme.

Obviously they're not alone in downplaying the female role and responsibility, certainly there have been patriarchal societies which either predate Christianity, or developed in paralell both connected, (such as other semitic religions), and unconnected...tribal systems and the like.

But certainly from Genesis onward the doctrinal Christian viewpoint has relegated women to, if not second-class citizenship, certainly an inferior position. Starting with the "original sin" and progressing up through "uncleanliness" and a male-only clergy (which we've only recently started to get over).

Women were until comparitively recently considered chattels...first the possessions of their fathers, and then of their husbands. I've heard a few plausible theories why this was so, but it doesn't change the fact that it was so, regardless of whether a more modern perception (or attitude) is that of an equal partnership (as 'Weez seems to suggest) or not.

--A

What Av said.

Believe it or not, y'all, I am quite an optimistic person, tend to think the best of others, and have been known to fall for a sob story or two in my time. But I'm also a realist. I came of age in the '60s and '70s, when women were just starting to be treated as equals at home and in the workplace. Heck, *I* faced discrimination at work because I was female. Even today, women don't make as much as men for equal work, and the ratio of men's pay to women's pay has changed very little over the past 40 years.

Rus in particular is talking about a perfect world, where men and women live together in perfect trust, and where the man only casts his vote as a tie-breaker. I'm all for striving for perfection, and if marriage worked like that all the time, I wouldn't have a problem with your game plan (altho I think I'd rather have the parties take turns casting the tie-breaker, just to keep things fair ). But the reality is that we do not live in that world. We have *never* lived in that world. Men *do* use the Bible -- among other justifications -- to force their wives to do stuff they would otherwise refuse to do. And of course I'm not just talking about financial security, as in my Madoff example, but any sort of moral dilemma. You're correct, Rus, that in my examples the husband is clearly on shaky moral ground himself -- but that doesn't change the fact that the wife is literally damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. And that holds true regardless of whether you believe in the fire-and-brimstone Hell, or the Orthodox Hell that you create yourself.

Av, quite a few misunderstandings are relevant in your post. The most blatant is assigning the blame of original sin to women? Have you read the Bible? Its pretty clear sin came through one man. You could say part of Adam's failure, as the leader, was in not teaching/encouraging Eve not to eat of the tree. But regardless, its clear the buck stops w/Adam. I think quite a few people buy the lie the Bible blames women. That mindset biases many other accounts, as I'm learning w/ali.

I think equating authority to ownership must be a stumbling block. And, looking at how people actually act. We see Jesus talk to the woman at the well, and she's shocked, b/c men don't talk to women in public. I think the problem w/looking at how people act is we forget they're people. Can we look at communist (atheist) regimes and see a greater percentage of women in charge? No. So, what's their excuse? Of course, the Bible does speak about the why this is, in Genesis, God said b/c Eve ate, men would have dominion over women.

So, if someone claims to believe the Bible and attempts to dominate others, like their wife, you can know they are not following it. At least in that regard. And Jesus did say you would know them by their fruits.

Cybrweez wrote:Av, quite a few misunderstandings are relevant in your post. The most blatant is assigning the blame of original sin to women? Have you read the Bible? Its pretty clear sin came through one man. You could say part of Adam's failure, as the leader, was in not teaching/encouraging Eve not to eat of the tree. But regardless, its clear the buck stops w/Adam. I think quite a few people buy the lie the Bible blames women. That mindset biases many other accounts, as I'm learning w/ali.

Just to refresh my memory, I just looked up Genesis online here. Seems more accurate to me to say that all three -- Adam, Eve *and* the serpent -- were punished for the original sin. Adam was sentenced to a life of ceaseless toil, it's true; but Eve was sentenced to major pain in childbirth (don't pooh-pooh it 'til you've tried it ) and being ruled by man; and the serpent was sentenced to slithering instead of walking upright.

And all because Eve wanted to know more. Bad woman! She shoulda just done what she was told and stayed stupid, I guess, huh? But there I go again, interpreting the Bible on my own, without any help from learned church fathers....

Cybrweez wrote:Av, quite a few misunderstandings are relevant in your post. The most blatant is assigning the blame of original sin to women? Have you read the Bible? Its pretty clear sin came through one man. You could say part of Adam's failure, as the leader, was in not teaching/encouraging Eve not to eat of the tree. But regardless, its clear the buck stops w/Adam. I think quite a few people buy the lie the Bible blames women. That mindset biases many other accounts, as I'm learning w/ali.

I think equating authority to ownership must be a stumbling block. And, looking at how people actually act. We see Jesus talk to the woman at the well, and she's shocked, b/c men don't talk to women in public. I think the problem w/looking at how people act is we forget they're people. Can we look at communist (atheist) regimes and see a greater percentage of women in charge? No. So, what's their excuse? Of course, the Bible does speak about the why this is, in Genesis, God said b/c Eve ate, men would have dominion over women.

So, if someone claims to believe the Bible and attempts to dominate others, like their wife, you can know they are not following it. At least in that regard. And Jesus did say you would know them by their fruits.

Please explain to me where communism and atheism are related in any way before linking them in this manner. Communism is about social structure, not about religious beliefs or lack thereof.

If you are going to call atheists Communists (and vice versa), then I should probably start compiling a list of less-than-savory Catholics?

Cybrweez wrote:Av, quite a few misunderstandings are relevant in your post. The most blatant is assigning the blame of original sin to women? Have you read the Bible? Its pretty clear sin came through one man. You could say part of Adam's failure, as the leader, was in not teaching/encouraging Eve not to eat of the tree. But regardless, its clear the buck stops w/Adam. I think quite a few people buy the lie the Bible blames women. That mindset biases many other accounts, as I'm learning w/ali.

Well, I've been doing a bit of reading about this, and it seems that although it remains a controversial issue, and is interpreted in a variety of ways, technically you're right. Genesis itself does not literally blame the women. Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames the snake. "The devil made me do it." And God punished them all.

However, I don't think it can be disputed that over the centuries religious authority has often interpreted it as a justification for the "subservience" of women.

…Jews and Christians, throughout their history, have used the story of Adam and Eve to justify second-class status for women. Paul and other early Christians looked to the Adam and Eve story to put the blame for the Fall on Eve and derived from that the conclusion that women should not be allowed to hold positions of authority or to teach. - Prof. of Theology Steven Weitzman, PhD

Commenting on 1 Timothy 2:11-15, John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople at the beginning of the fifth century, said that "the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority…. He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way." Of women he said that "The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively."

Equally, there have been opposing views. Thomas Aquinas was one of them...

By arguing that women were created simply to allow continuation of the human race, he attempted to shut down the argument that God made a mistake in creating women. However, according to Aquinas, the female sex cannot represent Christ because women are incomplete human beings.

It was only with the establishment of Christian Monasiticism that women began to gain roles of influence within the church...until the Reformation.

The Protestant Reformation, by shutting down female convents within the movement, effectively closed off the option of a full-time religious role for Protestant women.[19] Martin Luther himself taught that "the wife should stay at home and look after the affairs of the household as one who has been deprived of the ability of administering those affairs that are outside and concern the state…." John Calvin agreed that "the woman's place is in the home."

Unfortunately, the Bible contains support for both an equalitarian viewpoint, and a subordinate one. Often within a few verses of each other.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

– Genesis 1:26-27

...But for Adam (or the man) no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs (or "took part of the man's side") and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib (or "took part of the man's side") he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

– Genesis 2:20b-24

That first quote is believed to argue for equality...the second is used as support for subservience, taken in conjunction with Gen 3:16.

In fact, there are two distinct schools of thought, both supporting their claim through the bible:

Egalitarian View. Men, Women and Biblical Equality was prepared in 1989 by several evangelical leaders to become the official statement of Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE). The statement lays out their biblical rationale for equality as well as its application in the community of believers and the family.

Complementary View. The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood[33] was prepared by several evangelical leaders at a Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) meeting in Danvers, Massachusetts, in December of 1987. The statement lays out their biblical rationale for male priority and female submission in the community of believers and the family.

So, while it may appear to be a misunderstanding on my part, I think that in fact it appears that it's simply an internal difference of opinion. My understanding is actually a reasonably accurate portrayal of one christian viewpoint. Although obviously not the viewpoint you share.

And having done this reading, and examining the way that the Bible "treats" women, I agree that Biblically, there is comparitively little support for subservient women, (although there is some), and that the subsequent interpretations probably originate from pre-christian patriarchy and male-dominance, carried through into this new religion. Because, regardless of possible interpretations which support equality, the church in practice did not consider or treat men and women as equals.

--A

Well, certainly all were punished, which is different than saying the Bible blames women for sin. Romans 5:12 is pretty clear: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". This is where I think its sort of silly to read the Bible, and look at people twisting it, and say, well, its hard to tell, b/c that's how you interpret it. Well, the statement by Paul, is it that hard to interpret? Do you find anywhere, throughout whole Bible, that sin entered through one woman?

Also, I would agree that the man is the stronger vessel, but its silly when some take that to mean more valuable. I like the example of a wine glass and a beer stein. The stein is stronger, but not more valuable. They're different.

And in the home, I do think the Bible teaches man has "priority", if that means authority, and the wife is submissive, that's what started this thread. However, again, we place importance on one and think one is more valuable than the other. The Bible also teaches that those in authority are held to a higher standard, so those who claim to follow the Bible and abuse authority, are playing w/fire.

I think where some are having the problem with the way authority is being defined here is the crux.

Authority to some means "my way or the highway". Basically the wife has a say so but only when there is agreement. Other than that, the husbands decision is the one that counts. The problem with that is you arent 'one'. You are two separate entities with one being submissive to the wishes of the other.

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united (the word 'cleave' is used in the KJV) to his wife, and they will become one flesh"

It doesnt say here that the wife loses her identity to become 'one' with the man. It says they are united and become one flesh. I have read that the word that was used in Hebrew for rib was 'tsela' meaning 'half'. Looking at the translation from that viewpoint its more of God taking half of Adam and creating Eve, and thus the creation "bone of my bones, and flesh of
my flesh" makes more sense.

Now all that being said, if the Husband wants to have harmony in his household he will respect his wifes opinions and treat them as if they were his own. How otherwise are you 'one flesh' in a marriage.

And of course the opposite is true.. a wife should treat her husbands opinions as if they were her own.

I heard a good quote once, about how the rib was really "half", not an actual rib. So when someone says to men, get in touch w/your feminine side, you can say, I don't have one, God took it out.

I think another issue w/authority is the thought, well, if I submit, I can be taken advantage of. Well, that's true. Then again, if the one in authority makes decisions thinking of others, he can be taken advantage of. They might think, when do I get to think about me first?

Avatar wrote:I have to agree with Aliantha about the implication. Perhaps, as 'Weez has suggested, more equalitarian minded people have found ways that incorprorate the idea without it's negative implications, but Christianity, and Christian-dominated society, has always been male-dominated and patriarchal in the extreme.

Obviously they're not alone in downplaying the female role and responsibility, certainly there have been patriarchal societies which either predate Christianity, or developed in paralell both connected, (such as other semitic religions), and unconnected...tribal systems and the like.

But certainly from Genesis onward the doctrinal Christian viewpoint has relegated women to, if not second-class citizenship, certainly an inferior position. Starting with the "original sin" and progressing up through "uncleanliness" and a male-only clergy (which we've only recently started to get over).

Women were until comparitively recently considered chattels...first the possessions of their fathers, and then of their husbands. I've heard a few plausible theories why this was so, but it doesn't change the fact that it was so, regardless of whether a more modern perception (or attitude) is that of an equal partnership (as 'Weez seems to suggest) or not.

--A

Avatar, your views on the position of women in history is really...modernist. I think it is primarily a projection of modern views on traditional/ancient understandings which fail to grasp how our ancestors understood the relationships of the sexes, combined with real examples (that are really exceptions) of unfair treatment and oppression, most especially in 19th century England and America - IOW, a lot of what you are going on is based exclusively on specific developments in English culture.

If this feminist-driven view of history were actually the rule rather than simply the unreasonable highlighting of exceptions, then mythology, legends and folklore would not contain the egalitarian views that they actually do.

Your understanding of why traditional clergy is male-only is more evidence of a lack of knowledge of theology and traditional views. You are placing it in terms and a framework entirely unrelated to how anyone viewed it even as recently as 60 years ago, let alone 2,000. The assumption that it is denigration of women is a false and unwarranted one.

I mentioned Chesterton's book, "What's Wrong With the World", which deals extensively with the views you bring up and take for granted as true. www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/whats_wrong.html

PS - your later post has some good stuff I'd like to respond to, but it'll take me a couple of days. I'm overextended now.

aliantha wrote:What Av said.

Believe it or not, y'all, I am quite an optimistic person, tend to think the best of others, and have been known to fall for a sob story or two in my time. But I'm also a realist. I came of age in the '60s and '70s, when women were just starting to be treated as equals at home and in the workplace. Heck, *I* faced discrimination at work because I was female. Even today, women don't make as much as men for equal work, and the ratio of men's pay to women's pay has changed very little over the past 40 years.

Rus in particular is talking about a perfect world, where men and women live together in perfect trust, and where the man only casts his vote as a tie-breaker. I'm all for striving for perfection, and if marriage worked like that all the time, I wouldn't have a problem with your game plan (altho I think I'd rather have the parties take turns casting the tie-breaker, just to keep things fair ). But the reality is that we do not live in that world. We have *never* lived in that world. Men *do* use the Bible -- among other justifications -- to force their wives to do stuff they would otherwise refuse to do. And of course I'm not just talking about financial security, as in my Madoff example, but any sort of moral dilemma. You're correct, Rus, that in my examples the husband is clearly on shaky moral ground himself -- but that doesn't change the fact that the wife is literally damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. And that holds true regardless of whether you believe in the fire-and-brimstone Hell, or the Orthodox Hell that you create yourself.

I really recommend you check out Frederica Mathewes-Green, a former radical feminist-come-Orthodox 'matushka' - it is really hard to argue with someone who was feminist heart and soul, because as both a woman and someone who thoroughly understands the issues from the inside, she accurately deconstructs the conventional wisdom guiding feminists. www.frederica.com/
www.frederica.com/writings/category/marriage-and-family
www.frederica.com/writings/category/gender
Her style is folksy, not intellectual, making it engaging for the average reader.

On 'the perfect world', the whole point of Christianity is that it does offer a recipe and user manual for perfection - that it describes the correct usage and understanding of the human organism, and if followed as perfectly as possible will produce the nearest thing to perfection that we can obtain - although it ultimately brings us to a realization of how little we can accomplish on our own.

Christianity teaches us to do many things that the world sees as foolishness - such as turning the other cheek. This may sometimes be required of the Christian wife (or husband) whose spouse falls into sin and does abuse the trust of the other. Even if sticking to the Christian line leads to our deaths (and usually it doesn't go nearly that far - most often it just forces us to deal with discomfort), we believe that this life is not 'all there is', but only the beginning. So your concerns of 'being taken advantage of' do not reach the serious Christian, who sees in their own obedience to what God requires of us - to become holy, to become as He is - all that is necessary, for our own good as well as the good of others. So the wife in your example is not at all 'damned if she does' - on the contrary, she (or he, if a husband) is saved because she does. God basically says, "You put up with that cr%# for My sake. Enter into the joy of your Lord." (Forgive the crudity of the image - I'm not sure how else to effectively communicate it.