 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
Link |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | | Paul uses the relationship of Christ to the church and the most penetrating example of submission is Christ dying and "giving Himself up" for her. |
Jesus did not submit to the church by dying on the cross. He submitted to the Father.
Tom,
You caught my typo. I meant does. I've been getting does and doesn't mixed up. Maybe I need to slow the typin' down a bit.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/15 6:47 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
| Link wrote: | | Nature Boy Florida wrote: | I totally agree with Tom's texts on relationships. In fact, I have already lifted some of it and used in a situation I am trying to help folks work through. Thanks Tom.
However, I must say I am intrigued by Aaron's question. A pastor has an unsubmissive wife - and through whomever's fault - the situation needs to be corrected. It looks bad. There is a Jezebel spirit that has taken root in the wife. How is that corrected?
|
I've got a question. What do you mean by 'Jezebel spirit'? |
Actually, I was only quoting the fellows I grew up with that always used that phrase when saying the problem with most families is the wife doesn't submit properly - usually said by the guy whose wife wears no makeup and a tent dress - while he dresses in a nice suit and tie. That is purely what it means to me - I was hoping you could shed some light on it for me since it obviously doesn't mean anything from scripture.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16619
11/1/15 7:53 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: bonnie, nah... |
Nature Boy Florida |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | You first.
After all, you have apparently gathered that I am something of a Neanderthal who believes women are to be belittled and enslaved. So that right there proves you didn't give my posts too much time did you? You know, moral outrage and all (SMILE)
Anyway, I prefer to wax eloquent.
Love ya, sis. We'll just have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid. |
Aaron, I think you have stated your case eloquently. You are not a neanderthal - I just don't agree with it. Your outlook has plenty of company in North Florida.
I have seen that attitude in the COG my whole life. I have not seen it make for happy marriages. Perhaps that is why those churches remained small. All those young couples looking at the unsmiling pastor wives became something they knew they didn't want and, thus, rejected and went elsewhere - that is why the churches never grew over 100 folks.(for long anyway).
I know I rejected it.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16619
11/1/15 8:03 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Forget the research and get out into the real world. Marriages in which the man doesn't have his manhood tied up with being the one in control are happier and stronger marriages.
| Quote: | | As far as research goes, I read something from a Dallas seminary grad who was trying to argue that egalitarian marriages were happier than traditional marriages. But the problem was, 'traditional marriage' was a factor in a factor analysis that included the couple having communication problems. Marital problems were built into the research's definition of 'traditional.' I suspect that couples with communication problems could experience some unhappiness. That's not the same definition of 'traditional' that we use in discussions of interpretations of scripture in relation to marital roles. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
11/1/15 8:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
You are showing your heart in this statement.
| Quote: | | When it comes to this topic, use of the word 'equality' is rather meaningless. |
Does the fact that the male "ruling" the woman was a result of the Fall mean nothing to you? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
11/1/15 8:57 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Forgiveness for child molestation but not divorce, right?
| Quote: | | Something else we need to consider is that there is forgiveness for sin, even stigmatized sins like abusing wives and children, child molestation, homosexual behavior, etc. Just thinking of people as monsters who deserve to die isn't the right way to approach it. We have to be able to minister to people and love people who have sinned. I'd rather see churches helping restore marriages that previously were violent than breaking them up. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
11/1/15 9:01 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| (L) |
bonnie knox |
Driscoll is more overt with what he says, but fundamentally his angle is the same--wifely submission means she concerns herself with pleasing him in every way (regardless of whether that denigrates her). And keep your eyes open; if he can make a come back, he will (regardless of whether he's made amends for the damage he caused).
Here's the quote from Piper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OkUPc2NLrM
| Quote: | | I would think that Mark Driscoll is very much not typical of Reformed and Baptist type preachers when it comes to the topic of sex. He's lost his position not too long ago, too. I haven't read the quotes from Piper you are talking about. I've listened to a few sermons from him online, a very likeable guy, especially for a Calvinist. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
11/1/15 9:30 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
I noticed you used the word "wus." I'm not sure about the derivation of that word, but it seems to me to be a combination of "wimp" and the word (considered vulgar) which is slang for female parts. I find it very interesting that men like to refer to other men as female genitalia to describe "weakness" and lack of dominance. In other words, again the notion of manhood and masculinity is tied up in the idea of being able to dominate another.
Now do you personally know marriages that are egalitarian? Where leadership is shared? How are those marriages? Disrespect and manipulation aren't markers of egalitarian marriages. Your contention that these marriages (that I wonder if you've really actually witnessed) are dysfunctional because the wife is "not designed to lead" is begging the question. Your interpretation of scripture is that an egalitarian marriage would be wrong. So, you assume that this hypothetical marriage will break up because it is not functioning as designed.
Testimonies of egalitarian marriages emphasize sharing of leadership responsibilities and mutual submission.
| Quote: |
I do think there are cases where wives not submitting to their husbands and respecting them, and the husbands going along with that way of thinking, leads to divorce. In some marriages the wife is more dominant and insists on getting her way. She pushes or manipulates, and he gives in. She likes it in the moment. But because he's a wus about it, and because she isn't designed to be the leader in the marriage, she loses respect for him (or even more respect.) If he'd have exercised some leadership, she might have respected him more. But she gets bored and apathetic toward her nice husband, and divorces him and leaves him for someone more exciting. Wives not submitting seems to go hand in hand with men not leading. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
11/1/15 1:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Do you know these women personally? The reason I ask is that the evangelical church in the US has traditionally not done a very good job of protecting the abused. In fact, they traditionally have told the abused wife that she should try being more submissive. (That doesn't stop abuse!) I've heard that this kind of testimony is told in seminary causing pastors to get the wrong idea about whether a woman should stay in an abusive situation.
I'll tell you about someone I know personally who was abused. She does have the testimony that she relied on God for protection even through her abuse. Her husband ended up killing himself. She still tries to tell other women to be submissive. I think she is a bit misguided if she is encouraging them to stay in an abusive situation. I think some of her adult children (one of whom tried to kill himself) are still suffering from the dysfunction they witnessed.
| Quote: | | I've heard testimonies about women whose husbands were abusive who endured, prayed for their husbands, and their husbands got saved. A couple of these testimonies were about husbands who became preachers, too. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
11/1/15 2:13 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
What is the opposite of equality? It is the one who is stronger (by whatever means where socially, physically, economically, whatever) oppressing the weaker. If you don't see that spoken against in the Bible, I can't help you.
| Quote: | | You can say we are all of equal value in the sight of God. I don't know how any of us can know that unless the Spirit speaks it to someone. The Bible doesn't teach that. 'Equality' is important to the modern western world view, but it is not a Biblical emphasis. The word shows up once in the New Testament in the KJV where Paul is trying to convince a church to share it's belongings with another church in another city, so that there might be an equality. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
11/1/15 2:24 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | I noticed you used the word "wus." I'm not sure about the derivation of that word, but it seems to me to be a combination of "wimp" and the word (considered vulgar) which is slang for female parts. I find it very interesting that men like to refer to other men as female genitalia to describe "weakness" and lack of dominance. |
The idea of 'wus' being crude or having anything to do with female body parts never crossed my mind. I suspect if you interviewed a thousand people who knew of the word, they wouldn't have made the connection. If the word were 'wussy', I might think that way. Without the 'y' the other word doesn't refer to private parts.
This comment of yours seems like a bit of rhetorical posturing to make me look bad.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/15 2:42 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | This comment of yours seems like a bit of rhetorical posturing to make me look bad. |
Actually, the word "wus" is just a shortened form of "wussy," which has been used on the forum before (by someone besides you), which both Eddie and I objected to. So, you don't need to take that part personally. However, I do think it's part and parcel of the whole mindset that there is a hierarchy with men above women, which it certainly seems you subscribe to.
Last edited by bonnie knox on 11/1/15 4:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
11/1/15 2:48 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
I don't think the passage in 1 Corinthians is speaking to a "position in marriage." Paul does mention woman being of the man and made for the man, but then he goes on to say this:
1 Corinthians 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
| Quote: | | For Paul in I Corinthians and I Timothy, man's position in marriage doesn't derive from the curse. Man was made first. Woman came from man. The man is the head of the woman (or the husband of the wife.) |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
11/1/15 3:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | What is the opposite of equality? It is the one who is stronger (by whatever means where socially, physically, economically, whatever) oppressing the weaker. If you don't see that spoken against in the Bible, I can't help you. |
Sorry Bonny. That's not the opposite of 'equality'. You are making that up. 'Equality' is a meaningless buzzword that makes Americans happy when it comes to topics like this.
And some of the more 'egalitarian' folks when it comes to marriage have let feminism do a number on their thinking. They think that anyone that doesn't agree with their views of marriage must be in favor of men being selfish and domineering women. Of course, not all egalitarians think that way, but I've seen it. I even saw a YouTube video arguing for junk interpretations of Greek and against traditional straightforward interpretations of passages on marriage that showed background photos of women who had been beat up and abused, as if believing that wives really are supposed to submit to their husbands leads to women getting black eyes and broken bones. It's a nasty piece of rhetoric and propaganda.
I've explained what I meant about equality. 'Equality' is not the issue in discussion of husbands and wives roles. Equality makes sense when we are talking about justice under the law. If I were to murder someone, or a woman were to murder someone, we should face justice equally under the law. (Men are more likely to get the death penalty, btw.)
'Equality' is no the right rubric to interpret the latter part of the passage about children submitting to parents. If you teach kids that they are 'equal partners' with their parents, what might that lead to? A verse about children obeying their parents isn't a verse about 'equality.' You can argue that children are of 'equal value' to their parents if you want to, but it is irrelevant to the conversation. They aren't 'equal' in terms of their hierarchical relationship. They aren't equal in hierarchy and authority.
Your boss and yourself aren't 'equal' in regard to the hierarchy at work. If you have an employee, your employee and yourself aren't equal in this regard.
Equality is not the right rubric through which to interpret these verses on submission. It's interjecting some alien concept there that doesn't have anything to do with the passage. Again, equal in what regard? In terms of hierarchical relationship, authority, etc.? No. And that is the relevant topic.
If a relationship is hierarchical, that doesn't mean that the person in the leadership, headship, rulership, etc. role has to demean, oppress, belittle, domineer over, or in any way harm the person in the subordinant or follower role. Jesus is Lord, but He doesn't mistreat us.
_________________
Link
Last edited by Link on 11/1/15 10:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/15 10:19 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | I don't think the passage in 1 Corinthians is speaking to a "position in marriage." Paul does mention woman being of the man and made for the man, but then he goes on to say this:
1 Corinthians 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. |
I Corinthians 11 says that the man is the head of the woman.
I had never heard that 'wus' had anything to do with profanity. If I'd known some people consider it to be profanity, or a reference to female body parts, I wouldn't have used it.
I didn't find the quote from John Piper particularly incriminating. He was somewhat vague. 'Verbal abuse' gets counted as abuse. So does quoting scripture about wives submitting to their husbands if you look at some of the models developed by feminists. If a man calls his wife names, does that mean she should leave him? This is one of his qualifiers in his post. I don't think pastors should tell every one who has been verbally abused to leave their spouse. My guess is that the married individual who has not, at some time, said something to their spouse that could be considered 'verbal abuse' is probably few and far between.
Driscoll thinks certain passages in the Song of Solomon refer to oral... well, certain sex acts. So I can see why he would interpret the Bible that way. But I think some of his views were rather shocking to some of the other ew Calvinists. When it comes to regular sex, married couples are supposed to take care of one another's needs. We are to treat one another with honor, also.
As for making a comeback, maybe. I hope he does reconcile with whoever he needs to and get rid of some of the bombast, and learn to be more of a team player, because I believe he has a gift. It's strange that he lost or stepped down from his position over this, without a real sex or financial scandal. Improperly footnoting and being a bit of an autocrat doesn't seem enough to get a Pentecostal or Charismatic ousted from a position of influence and leadership. Some Charismatic preachers survive sex scandals, it seems. If Driscoll isn't a Charismatic, he's some kind of continuationist, because he's talked about seeing visions of people's pasts when ministering to them.
_________________
Link
Last edited by Link on 11/1/15 10:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/15 10:26 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Forgiveness for child molestation but not divorce, right?
| Quote: | | Something else we need to consider is that there is forgiveness for sin, even stigmatized sins like abusing wives and children, child molestation, homosexual behavior, etc. Just thinking of people as monsters who deserve to die isn't the right way to approach it. We have to be able to minister to people and love people who have sinned. I'd rather see churches helping restore marriages that previously were violent than breaking them up. |
|
Forgiveness for adultery, wrongful divorce, molestation, murder--- but that doesn't mean there would be no legal penalties in this life.
But not continuing to live in children, to commit adultery, molesting kids, abusing people, ec.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/15 10:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Forget the research and get out into the real world. Marriages in which the man doesn't have his manhood tied up with being the one in control are happier and stronger marriages. |
I just read that second sentence, and I thought, she got on my case for using the word 'wus.'
It seems to me that marriages where the wife chooses to submit to her husband and treats him with respect and the husband loves his wife are much better marriages than the ones where the wife tries to be in control.
Wives where the wife tries to be in control don't seem that happy to me, in my experience. The man just take it quietly while she bosses him around, but he isn't happy. I've got a relative in mind. That marriage ended in divorce for a number of reasons. If he doesn't accept her being controlling, sure, there is going to be conflict, at least for a while. Conflict in marriage isn't usually happy.
The best case scenario is a marriage where the husband really embraces loving his wife as Christ loves the church, and the wife really embraces submitting to her husband and respecting him. And they both do their part.
I know there are plenty of men who do not love their wives as Christ loved the church. But I don't see men in church saying, "We don't really have to love our wives as Christ loves the church. That was a scribal error. It was supposed to say, love your wife when she's nice to you."
But I do see people trying to argue the wife out of having to submit to her husband. It just goes so much against modern cultural trends in the past 50 years or so.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/15 10:39 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Tom Sterbens,
I've read a number of comments on the forum over the years when, from time to time, myself, Aaron, Chris, or someone else mentions wives submitting to husbands. Now, you have posted about your philosophy when it comes to a conflict between husband and wife as it relates to submission.
But I just want an answer on your views on wives submitting to husbands. Do you believe the wife is supposed to submit to her husband? Do you teach that? What should it look like? Can you think of an example of it?
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/15 10:43 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Carolyn and NBF |
Aaron Scott |
Sorry, I did not see that one.
Carolyn, in your last post, that is pretty much exactly what I've seen all my life: That is, husbands and wives discussing, talking it out, giving each other counsel...BUT HE MAKES THE DECISION.
With some, they cannot get beyond thinking that if a man is the head, it means the woman is demeaned, limited, etc. Now, to be fair, I've only been exposed to a few marriages that were bummers. Most that I knew of seemed to have wonderful homes and marriages...and they functioned almost exactly like you mentioned.
A good CEO would not dare fail to avail himself to the wisdom and counsel of his board. Nor would a good pastor. And when it comes to husbands, most that I know believe their wives to be enormously effective, thoughtful, and wise--I know that I do. My wife probably makes most of the decisions for the home. But in those decisions where I DO wish to make the decision, then, typically after we talk, I make the decision.
Here's the deal, if a man and wife disagree on an important topic, but they are truly equal in terms of headship, then they are paralyzed...unless one submits. And that seems to be largely the intentions of scripture, and NOT some under-his-thumb scenario.
Now, if a woman is in absolute rebellion to her husband, well, like I've said, I'm not sure exactly what to do, but giving in isn't a good option, is it?
NBF, my bro, I totally believe you, but in my experience, the couples I knew growing up seemed to have deep affection for each other, there was limited conflict, if any, the wives did not look dour or repressed, but were vibrant and joyful. I think that was probably a function of both the husband and the wife believing they were called to work together in the ministry, but that's MY experience.
Very simply, a man's headship should NOT mean that they woman is treated poorly, held back, etc. It simply means that there are decision HE makes, and that the wife is counseled to submit to (so far as it is not breaking a principle). If me abuse that, that's on them. The Bible holds the standard; if people twist it to their own ends, that's on them (about like justifying slavery as some did in the old South). |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
11/2/15 5:25 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
