Comments on: Another diocese leaves the Episcopal Church

By: Xion

Xion — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:15:58 +0000

#55 Arcadia

And watching you supposedly celebrate and derive justification from the natural world

FALSE

when 90% of your faith is devoted to preventing people from doing things naturally

FALSE

The male leadership and dominance you celebrate

FALSE

You may wish that this were still a world where might makes right

FALSE

The supposed mutual selflessness you scrabble

FALSE

the terrible destructive influence of the rest of your book’s pathological and desperate obsession with keeping women in their place becomes evident.

FALSE

Arcadia, your reality exists only in your own mind. It seems like a very sad place. Are you happy in there?

Report comment to moderator

By: Cameron

Cameron — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:47:41 +0000

Anlir,
No complementarian marriage I know is one-sided. 99% of the time we agree or compromise. The rare, rare times we can’t, I know I’m going to submit, so I don’t resent him or the outcome. Neither this marriage nor or decision to live our marriage this way was forced on me; we entered into it willingly. I can think of only one time in our eight-year marriage that I submitted–he would prefer I not get a tattoo, so I haven’t.

Report comment to moderator

By: buddyglass

buddyglass — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 04:13:02 +0000

Anlir, the view you’re arguing against is not the only interpretation of the relevant passages. Eph. 5:21, which precedes the instructions to wives and husbands, enjoins the church to “submit to one another”. The next verse is literally, “Wives, to your husbands, as to the Lord.” But then, husbands are told to love their wives “as Christ loved the church” and “as their own bodies”. What husband, possessing that sort of love, would lord his position over his wife? I’d maintain that such love actually obligates a husband to defer *to his wife* on decisions unless there a significant reason not to. Since the wife is also operating from a posture of submission, what you have is, in a sense, mutual submission, which is what’s described in Eph. 5:21 to begin with.

Another possibility is that the author is addressing particular areas in which wives and husbands are prone to err. Husbands in being indifferent to their wives, and wives in dominating the relationship. Obviously this isn’t the case in every marriage, but if it is true in a general sense, then it would make sense for Paul to address it that way.

These instructions could also be seen as a concession to the circumstances of the day, much like the passage instructing slaves to obey their masters. Titus 2:5 offers some small support for this views: “be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.” In other words, Paul may have been instructing Christian wives to be subject to their husbands partly for the benefit of those outside the church, for whom an egalitarian marriage may have seemed scandalous.

Report comment to moderator

By: Anlir

Anlir — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:40:04 +0000

Re: #63

How do any two adults work out a disagreement? Telling one side that they always have to “submit” is a surefire way to breed resentment on the part of the person who has to submit. Mature adults work out their disagreements, usually by compromise. Sometimes one side or the other gives in. But a mature, responsible relationship is not one-sided.

Report comment to moderator

By: TJ

TJ — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:31:50 +0000

There’s a whole lot of emotionalism and confusion above. Here’s some clarification for some of the ahistorical understanding:

http://www.gracegems.org/20/female_piety2.htm

http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw/church_history.pdf

Report comment to moderator

By: Sawgunner

Sawgunner — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:26:46 +0000

#10 No mention of any name derived from Cher? As in huge contingent of fans (some of whom dress up like her!)
For such an omission all I can say is:
YOU BRUTE YOU!

Report comment to moderator

By: Cameron

Cameron — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:41:40 +0000

Anlir,
How does “full equality” work when two people disagree on an issue where there can be no compromise? Somebody is going to “win” that argument, right? Someone will not get their way, right? Resentment ultimately breeds from that kind of discourse.

Report comment to moderator

By: Anlir

Anlir — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:21:34 +0000

I suppose women are to be thankful that Christians have upgraded their status from the “property” of men to “submissive” to men. I’ll grant that it’s progress. But many women (and men) have moved on to full equality. I suppose there will always be some people “bring up the rear”.

Report comment to moderator

By: NJLawyer

NJLawyer — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:34:44 +0000

Arcadia, I have not demeaned my gender. Your saying I have sinned doesn’t mean much to me, because you’re inventing sins just as you wish to ignore others.

I gave you a reason as to why a woman should not run a church: obedience. I have no need to defy my God in this manner. (I have no doubt that I defy him in other ways, and I always suffer for that.) We are taught to surrender our will to Christ. Moreover, Christ is the head of the Church. His ministers are men because they illustrate the role of the Father in a family. As others have pointed out to you, you don’t understand the different roles of men and women.

(I’m sorry you don’t understand the “weaker vessel” reference, but perhaps you can open your own pickle jars.)

Report comment to moderator

By: John Denney

John Denney — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:33:47 +0000

Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to beget a child, then, after Sarah had Isaac, commanded Abraham to send Hagar and her son away.

Abraham, the Father of three major world religions deemed by some to exemplify the evil of male dominance over women, caved to her wishes in both cases, even though it grieved him to send Hagar and her son away.

You’d think he would have sold them if they were property.

In Genesis 24:58, Rebekah was asked, and she gave her consent to go with Abraham’s servant, to be a wife for Isaac.

Linda is my wife. “My” is possessive. I am her husband. “Her” is possessive. Yet we hardly think of each other as property.

Report comment to moderator