 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
bonnie knox |
Sorry, Dave, I'm having a lot of difficulty posting. I keep losing my comments. That is why that sentence is not complete. It was at one point!
The original sentence was something to the effect of not looking down on homeschool girls but hating the system that some (not all, of course--I know a lot of different homeschoolers) homeschoolers are a part of which teaches the girls to be subservient to fathers and then husbands. Like I said, research Doug Phillips if you want to know what I'm talking about.
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | Hating the system? What does that even mean? |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/29/15 11:44 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | What I tried to say was that they criticized the guy as not being masculine because they tied giving their last name to their wives as a masculine thing. |
False. I do think taking your wife's name is emasculating, but I do not make a correlating connection that giving your name to your wife is masculine. It's what we do in this culture unless there's a reason not to (and again, I provided reasons earlier in the thread). There's nothing particularly masculine about it.
Taking your wife's name to be different and special? Yeah, that's a little emasculating. But that doesn't mean that the opposite is automatically true and that a husband giving a wife his name is automatically masculine. It's not. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/29/15 11:44 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | The original sentence was something to the effect of not looking down on homeschool girls but hating the system that some (not all, of course--I know a lot of different homeschoolers) homeschoolers are a part of which teaches the girls to be subservient to fathers and then husbands. Like I said, research Doug Phillips if you want to know what I'm talking about. |
There are abusive weirdos everywhere. I don't know that it's fair to say that represents some "system" of homeschooling. The abusive weirdos are surely the substantial minority of homeschoolers, wouldn't you agree? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/29/15 11:46 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Dave, I'm not talking about the system of homeschooling. I'm talking about a system of patriarchy promoted by the likes of Doug Wilson, Doug Phillips, Scott Brown, et. al., who have at times been quite influential in the homeschool world.
I homeschooled my son. I like homeschooling. The comment I made about gittin one a them homeschool girls was done in parody, I hope you know.
Last edited by bonnie knox on 12/29/15 11:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/29/15 11:50 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Dave, I'm not talking about the system of homeschooling. I'm talking about a system of patriarchy promoted by the likes of Doug Wilson, Doug Phillips, Scott Brown, et. al. who have at times been quite influential in the homeschool world.
I homeschooled my son. I like homeschooling. The comment I made about gittin one a them homeschool girls was done in parody, I hope you know. |
All right, I understand, then, and agree with you about those systems. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/29/15 11:54 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| ~sigh~ |
bonnie knox |
| Link wrote: |
| bonnie wrote: | Yes, I saw what you did; my question was why?
Why is a woman dominating a man seen as the only alternative to a man dominating a woman?
|
You are making some unjustifiable assumptions in your questions here that go beyond what I said. If a man is the leader in the relationship, has the 'power', if you want to call it that, the wife submits to him, etc. That doesn't have to mean he has to be domineering toward her. |
Link, the word "dominate" means to have the power. I did not use the word "domineering." That was your word.
So what exactly are my unjustifiable assumptions?
The way this conversation went down is this:
c6th suggested that if a woman wanted to retain her maiden name that she should pay her own way. He linked her wanting to retain her name to egotism (but presumably her taking the husband's name is not egotism on the part of the husband even though Link said the woman should be honored to have his name)
Aaron compared a wife's submission to her husband to an employee's submission to an employer (help us, Lord!).
My response to the above sentiments was this:
| bonnie wrote: | | No, it's probably not a good idea for a woman who intends to keep her last name to marry a guy who thinks he is the "manager" of the relationship or who thinks that if he makes more money that he should have more power in the relationship. |
Then you flipped it to say that a man shouldn't marry a woman who thinks she should have the power in the relationship if she is the one who makes more money.
I don't think it is a Christian view to connect making income with having power in a relationship, so I would agree that a man shouldn't marry a woman who thinks she should have the power in the relationship because she makes more money.
But I don't understand why you felt it necessary to make that point in isolation, given the context of the discussion, unless you were just being contrary. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/29/15 12:10 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Link wrote: |
| bonnie wrote: | | Given the high rate of divorce amongst women who take their husbands' last names, I think this reasoning doesn't hold water. |
There are a lot of aspects of marriage tradition that fall apart in a culture which has a high tolerance for divorce and unrealistic expectations of marriage. Women have been taking their husband's last name in certain European and American cultures for centuries. The high divorce rates are a relatively recent phenomenon. |
If the rate of divorce is not related to whether or not a woman has taken her husband's last name, your suggestion that a woman not wanting to take her husband's last name might be an indication of lack of commitment is basically a non-sequitur. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/29/15 12:17 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Link wrote: | | bonnie wrote: | | You objected that I suggested that some think they did their wife a favor by marrying her, but the above statement indicates that. |
Here is what I wrote,
"Honestly, I think my wife and I did each other a favor by marrying each other. We were both very appreciative, especially to the Lord for bringing us together, when we got married."
|
First of all, my initial comment was directed at more than just one person. Partly it came from what I inferred c6th to be suggesting, i.e., that a husband was providing a means of support, so she should not be so hoity toity as to think she could keep her name (of course, those are my words, my inference, not his direct statement). Partly it also came from the statement that you said to the effect that you felt good about giving your wife your name and that a wife ought to feel honored to get her husband's name.
So when I pointed out this statement, you followed with saying you were each doing each other a favor.
If the favoring is mutual, why would the naming be one way? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/29/15 12:27 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Since 'meet' means something like 'suitable', that seems to be a reasonable translation. Also, it's a word that has been used historically for the concept since it is from the KJV. |
No, the word "helpmeet" is not in the KJV. The words in the KJV are "help" and "meet" which are a NOUN and an ADJECTIVE. Making one word out of it obfuscates the meaning!! Which some like because it suits their agenda. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/29/15 12:30 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Link wrote: |
| bonnie wrote: |
To make the nebulous charge that a refusal to take his last name "could show some problems with accepting some Biblical principles about marriage" is an emotional appeal to fear. |
No, it's a practical and realistic approach to the issue. There are many reasons why a woman would want to keep her maiden name. Some of them have been mentioned on the thread, like career reasons or cultural reasons. If two Chinese people get married and follow Chinese naming traditions after marriage, I don't see that as strange. My wife's culture is patriarchal, and women don't legally change their last names. They do go by their husband's last name, the equivalent of 'Mrs.', in some situations.
But in the US, a woman might refuse to take her husbands last name based on some type of feminist ideology. That's what a man may need to look out for. |
What is practical and reasonable is getting to know a person and her values before you marry. Why this fear that she may want free agency as an equal adult?
You seem to be warning men to be afraid of a woman who expects free agency as an equal adult. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/29/15 12:38 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Link wrote: | | God also gave laws regarding Israeli land inheritance being passed through the male line and we read patriarchal geneologies in scripture. Israeli children's lineage was counted based on their father's tribe in Biblical times. A Benjamite male who married a woman from the tribe of Ephraim would have Benjamite children. These are similar to our custom of passing down the last name through the male lineage. |
The society described in the OT is quite patriarchal. There are lots of things described in the OT (even with respect to God-given laws) that are not binding on us today. Just because something is described somewhere in the Bible doesn't make the continued practice of it Biblical.
David collected a bunch of Philistine foreskins as a dowry. Shall we say that's the Biblical way to go about marriage? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/29/15 12:46 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Bonnie wrote,
| Quote: | | So what exactly are my unjustifiable assumptions |
Here is what you asked,
| Quote: | | Why is a woman dominating a man seen as the only alternative to a man dominating a woman? |
Nothing I said indicated that these were the only two alternatives.
You made a comment about a man thinking that because he had more money, he should have more power in the relationship. Maybe that was in response to the post about the man not supporting his wife who took his name. I didn't see one making more money than the other has the point of his post. Your comment seemed to be out of left field.
If a wife makes more money than her husband, she should submit to him because the Bible says for wives to submit to their husbands. A woman who does earn more and is submissive to her husband, even on financial matters... well, that's a good situation. A wife thinking she should have power over her husband because she makes more money... that's a real life problem that happens in some marriages. That's why I mentioned it. I don't see where your comment came from. Men who think they should have more power because they earn more money aren't thinking Biblically about marriage.
| Quote: |
Link said the woman should be honored to have his name |
I'm not going to spend the time to look up the exact quote. I was happy that my wife felt honored to have my last name. It is good if a young woman feels that way. My wife felt very honored and blessed that the Lord brought me into her life. She shed tears of joy talking about it to me when we were engaged. I felt the same way. I felt honored that the Lord brought this woman into my life to be my wife. We were both very happy about it and thankful to the Lord for it. I wanted to marry her so I could tell people she was my wife, so we could be family.
The guy who took his wife's last name and said he was doing so out of love, maybe that was his motivation, but I don't agree with his understanding. His thinking is probably the result of egalitarian theology on the subject of marriage. I appreciate and embrace the fact that the husband is the head of the wife and that the wife is supposed to submit to her husband. I see the English tradition of the wife taking her husband's last name as in line with that, in the context of US, English, and other European traditions. If I had no appreciation for my role as head in the marriage and her duty to submit to me as her husband, and if I accepted modern liberal American or European concepts of gender equality as on par with scripture, I might have a problem with the tradition. But I don't. Much of this emphasis on equality and the way it is understood seems to come from political philosphy rather than revelation from God. The wife being in submissive to her husband is Biblical teaching, even if it does not fit well with certain modern ideas of equality.
| Quote: |
The society described in the OT is quite patriarchal. There are lots of things described in the OT (even with respect to God-given laws) that are not binding on us today. Just because something is described somewhere in the Bible doesn't make the continued practice of it Biblical. |
God gave certain laws that were patriarchal in nature. Laws regarding land inheritance, bride prices for brides and no groom prices, and the right of husbands to cancel a wife or daughter's vows are all patriarchal laws. God is right, so we shouldn't accuse Him of wrongdoing for being patriarchal. And we shouldn't equate patriarchy with sin if God is patriarchal. God has revealed Himself as the Father, and He is over all. The creation is, therefore, patriarchal.
| Quote: | | David collected a bunch of Philistine foreskins as a dowry. Shall we say that's the Biblical way to go about marriage? |
Saul asked for this. God did not command it.
Honestly, the recent posts recounting who said what are kind of tedious and boring to me. I don't think we are making much headway in a real conversation, but rather focusing on unimportant minutia of who said what.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
12/29/15 2:04 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Nothing I said indicated that these were the only two alternatives. |
Other than the fact that you felt compelled to point out that a man shouldn't marry a woman who thought that making more money gave her power in the relationship in direct response to my saying a woman shouldn't marry a man who thought that making more money gave him power in the relationship.
My comment was in response to previous posts, not "out of left field" as you called it.
| Quote: | | A wife thinking she should have power over her husband because she makes more money... that's a real life problem that happens in some marriages. |
Would you care to take a look at history and see how often men have wielded power over women by controlling finances?! |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/29/15 6:25 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: |
Would you care to take a look at history and see how often men have wielded power over women by controlling finances?! |
That's different from what you said before. You were talking about a man thinking he had more power in the relationship because he made more money.
Your quote above reminds me of two things. One is that God ordained that the land be passed from father to son through the male line. In the case of men with no heirs, land could pass to daughters if they married within their father's clan, which kept the land in the father's clan.
It also reminds me of the fact that God allowed men to cancel vows of wives and daughters. It is interesting that the law does not say that a man can do so for his minor sons, who are heirs of the property.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
12/29/15 6:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | That's different from what you said before. You were talking about a man thinking he had more power in the relationship because he made more money. |
Link, it is possible that the one who makes more money will not control the finances, but traditionally men have both made more AND controlled the finances. And quite frequently people will connect making more money with having the ability to control the financial decisions. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/29/15 6:59 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
God revealed himself as Father but also used imagery of motherhood to describe himself.
What you don't seem to recognize in the laws that God gave the Israelites was that the condition of women was improved from some of the pagan cultures surrounding Israel. That did not mean that the laws He gave them created a perfectly just society. For example, the law God gave for divorce was because of the hardness of their heart. So, it is possible for Christians to live in way that is even better than the law God gave in the Old Testament. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/29/15 7:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Honestly, the recent posts recounting who said what are kind of tedious and boring to me. I don't think we are making much headway in a real conversation, but rather focusing on unimportant minutia of who said what. |
I agree with those posts being tedious, but when you challenge what I said as having no basis for being said because you don't happen to remember the context, be prepared for me to bring up the context.
I also agree that we don't make much headway in conversation, but I think that is because you have your spiel which you repeat.
Countless times, posters have objected to the way you frame the debate as either believing the Bible or being influenced by secular influences, as if there is no possible way to interpret the Bible other than the way you interpret it. Countless times scripture is provided to show that your interpretation is not the only possible one. Yet you continue as before, just within the last few posts, to say, "If I had no appreciation for my role as head in the marriage and her duty to submit to me as her husband, and if I accepted modern liberal American or European concepts of gender equality as on par with scripture, I might have a problem with the tradition. But I don't. Much of this emphasis on equality and the way it is understood seems to come from political philosphy rather than revelation from God. The wife being in submissive to her husband is Biblical teaching, even if it does not fit well with certain modern ideas of equality." |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/29/15 7:16 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: |
I agree with those posts being tedious, but when you challenge what I said as having no basis for being said because you don't happen to remember the context, be prepared for me to bring up the context. |
I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Your comment about money still seems out of left field to me. Men thinking they are in charge because they make more money doesn't really seem to be a Christian idea, and it that type of thinking presents problems in marriages where the man doesn't.
| Quote: |
I also agree that we don't make much headway in conversation, but I think that is because you have your spiel which you repeat.
Countless times, posters have objected to the way you frame the debate as either believing the Bible or being influenced by secular influences, as if there is no possible way to interpret the Bible other than the way you interpret it. Countless times scripture is provided to show that your interpretation is not the only possible one. |
Show me some real solid evidence, and maybe I'll change my tone. The egalitarian case for redefining Greek words is still rather weak. Really, it's a conspiracy theory. The Greek-speaking churches and other churches must have redefined words. Theologians all had an agenda to redefine words. Either that, or Greeks weren't clever enough to understand their own language, and later theologians weren't too clever either. I'm not a fan of revisionist history when it comes to scripture.
John Chrysostom preached in Greek. He was a few hundred years removed from the text. But we understand John Wesley's writings pretty well from over 300 years ago.
Here are some excerpts from John Chrysostom's homily on marriage from <http://www.roca.org/OA/121/121b.htm>,
[quote]Their wives have far more than I do." Let no wife say any such thing; she is her husband's body, and it is not for her to dictate to her head, but to submit and obey.[.quote]
It seems the golden-mouthed preacher saw a hierarchical association with the word 'head.' That's not the only connotation he brought out, of course. But its there. He also associated submission with obedience like Peter did when he wrote I Peter 3.
He commented further on headship,
| Quote: |
Notice that after saying the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, he immediately says that the Church is His Body, and He is Himself its Saviour. It is the head that upholds the well-being of the body. In his other epistles Paul has already laid the foundations of marital love, and has assigned to husband and wife each his proper place: to the husband one of leader and provider, and to the wife one of submission. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ--and the Church, remember, consists of both husbands and wives---so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands, as to God. |
Where are the Greek-speaking marital egalitarian voices from the first centuries of Christianity? Why did this theological approach emerge after certain political concepts regarding equality emerged? Is it totally unrelated to feminist thought that has so influenced our culture? Wouldn't it seem like an odd coincidence if there were no connection? But it is obvious that there is a connection.
We do have to consider culture at times when applying scripture in our day and age. But if our culture changes, that doesn't mean that what the apostles meant when they wrote the texts about 2000 years ago has changed.
| Quote: |
Yet you continue as before, just within the last few posts, to say, "If I had no appreciation for my role as head in the marriage and her duty to submit to me as her husband, and if I accepted modern liberal American or European concepts of gender equality as on par with scripture, I might have a problem with the tradition. But I don't. Much of this emphasis on equality and the way it is understood seems to come from political philosphy rather than revelation from God. The wife being in submissive to her husband is Biblical teaching, even if it does not fit well with certain modern ideas of equality." |
That's a pretty good quote. I stand by it.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
12/29/15 8:49 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: |
Link, it is possible that the one who makes more money will not control the finances, but traditionally men have both made more AND controlled the finances. And quite frequently people will connect making more money with having the ability to control the financial decisions. |
Btw, just to make it a bit clearer, I don't have a problem with living in a society where men make more money and husbands and fathers control the finances. I don't see this as inherently unjust. If it were, why would God give laws that give men the means of production in the family?
Back when 90+% of the population were in agriculture or animal husbandry, you didn't hear a lot of complaints from the women-folk about equal rights in the work place. They were content to milk the cows, gather the eggs, clean the house, and cook the food. Standing behind the plough and shoveling ox manure probably wasn't any more appealing.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
12/29/15 8:53 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Let no wife say any such thing; she is her husband's body |
The wife is not the husband's body. The husband has his own body and the wife has her own body. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
1/3/16 2:47 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
