Patriarchy vs. egalitarianism

[karen freeinchristman]

Has Christianity traditionally been a patriarchal religion? Should it be egalitarian? How should this affect Christian marriage or Church matters?

I am not an expert on this topic by any stretch of the imagination! -Just an interested observer and learner. In another thread the question was raised about what I was referring to when I’ve commented on the historical patriarchal condition of society, which is still manifested to varying degrees in most places.

I thought for this discussion I might post some convenient Internet links, so that we won’t all have to purchase books (and for the simple reason that here at home I have not actually got any textbooks or theology books devoted to this topic -yet).

(For any of you who would like some very basic definitions of the terms, for patriarchy see this definition (http://www.answers.com/topic/patriarchy)and this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy)and for egalitarianism this definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/egalitarian)and this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism).)

My personal point of view is that our relationships should, as far as possible, identify with the model of the Trinity, which I would contend is one of co-equality.

People often defend patriarchy from Genesis.
Adam, before Eve was taken from his side, was humankind. Human society began when Eve was taken from Adam’s side – humankind became two. Eve was taken from Adam to be his helper, in a true partnership – equal, not subordinate. From Genesis 3.16, ‘…yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’ My study bible (Harper Collins NRSV) states in the footnotes for that verse “Woman’s historical subordination to man is a consequence of human events, not an ideal in its own right.” However, this condition no longer exists because Jesus Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law (Gal 3:13).

Many people use 1 Cor. 11:3 as an argument for patriarchy: Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. However, I agree with theologians that argue that ‘head’ does not denote superior power or superior authority. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 376-444) commenting on 1 Cor. 11:3 defines the head metaphor as ‘source’: ‘Thus we say that the kephaleo of every man is Christ, because he was excellently made through him. And the kephaleo of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh. Likewise the kephaleo of Christ is God, because he is from him according to nature’.

Here is an article (http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1992/v49-2-article8.htm)from the journal Theology Today. It was written as a response to Howard C. Kee’s argument on the early history of the patriarchalisation of Christianity. I think it is a good article, and not too long.

An article (http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9809&article=980941d) from the ecumenical Sojourners online magazine, about the subordination of women. You need to register (free) to read it.

So, what are the viewpoints here in STR? Please don’t expect me to debate in any formal sense of the word, because I’m not prepared for that. But I am interested in the ideas and opinions of my Anglican/Old Catholic brothers and sisters.

[gtsecc]

It is both.

It has a Patriarchal structure, at its extreme which looks like the Roman Magisterioum.
It has an egalitarian structure, at its extreme which looks like the non-denominationals.

In balance, the Bishops, declare teachings, and the laity respond by accepting or rejecting the teachings.

[Simon_Templar]

Your bringing up the trinity is an interesting thought, and probably very pertinant.

However, I would point out that there are two aspects of relationship within the trinity (at least). We are all familiar with the co-equality of the trinity, but the co-equality is specifically in terms of essense and character, not in role.

The Son is co-equal with the Father in essense/being. They are both God eternal, almighty, holy, and infinite etc. However, the Son and the Spirit take a subservient ROLE to the Father. They do only what the Father directs, the work only what the Father wills. The Son submits himself and everything that is his, to the Father. etc etc.

I'm not suggesting that any human owes such complete subservience to another human (other than Jesus). However, this is a very good example of how two beings can be completely equal in essense and being, yet one can be in submission to the other in role.

The idea of egalitarianism has some roots in christianity conceptually, but in practice it is usually foreign to christianity.

It has conceptual roots because Christianity recognizes the equality of all mankind in essense and being. Yet in practice it is usually foreign because egalitarianism teaches people to demand equality, while christianity teaches people to prefer others above themselves.

In the example of slavery, Christianity is egalitarian in that it teaches a slave owner to recognize his slave as a brother, and therefore to treat him accordingly and set him free. Yet Christianity is not egalitarian in that is likewise teaches a slave to serve well, and to have high regard for authorities that he may be a good testament to God.

Christianity is egalitarian in that it teaches a king to serve his people and treat them as brothers, yet it is not egalitarian in that it teaches subjects to respect their king's authority.

[norbie]

I like to thank you for lot of work and research first. It will take a little time to "chew" through this, but it is a very interesting and actuel Thread.
It will even extend to the role of both sexes.
Norbie

[Colabomb]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:bDHtGoiwssK4WM:http://www.pacifichighlander.postkiwi.com/images/Can-of-worms.jpg
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:bDHtGoiwssK4WM:http://www.pacifichighlander.postkiwi.com/images/Can-of-worms.jpg)

[higgs2]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:bDHtGoiwssK4WM:http://www.pacifichighlander.postkiwi.com/images/Can-of-worms.jpg
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:bDHtGoiwssK4WM:http://www.pacifichighlander.postkiwi.com/images/Can-of-worms.jpg)

My thoughts, exactamente. :thumbsup:

[gtsecc]

Should it be egalitarian?
I am not sure we can take the approach of how it should be.
I believe we have to take the approach, how was it given to us.

[erin74]

Has Christianity traditionally been a patriarchal religion? Should it be egalitarian? How should this affect Christian marriage or Church matters?

I am not an expert on this topic by any stretch of the imagination! -Just an interested observer and learner. In another thread the question was raised about what I was referring to when I’ve commented on the historical patriarchal condition of society, which is still manifested to varying degrees in most places.

I thought for this discussion I might post some convenient Internet links, so that we won’t all have to purchase books (and for the simple reason that here at home I have not actually got any textbooks or theology books devoted to this topic -yet).

(For any of you who would like some very basic definitions of the terms, for patriarchy see this definition (http://www.answers.com/topic/patriarchy)and this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy)and for egalitarianism this definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/egalitarian)and this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism).)

My personal point of view is that our relationships should, as far as possible, identify with the model of the Trinity, which I would contend is one of co-equality.

People often defend patriarchy from Genesis.
Adam, before Eve was taken from his side, was humankind. Human society began when Eve was taken from Adam’s side – humankind became two. Eve was taken from Adam to be his helper, in a true partnership – equal, not subordinate. From Genesis 3.16, ‘…yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’ My study bible (Harper Collins NRSV) states in the footnotes for that verse “Woman’s historical subordination to man is a consequence of human events, not an ideal in its own right.” However, this condition no longer exists because Jesus Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law (Gal 3:13).

Many people use 1 Cor. 11:3 as an argument for patriarchy: Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. However, I agree with theologians that argue that ‘head’ does not denote superior power or superior authority. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 376-444) commenting on 1 Cor. 11:3 defines the head metaphor as ‘source’: ‘Thus we say that the kephaleo of every man is Christ, because he was excellently made through him. And the kephaleo of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh. Likewise the kephaleo of Christ is God, because he is from him according to nature’.

Here is an article (http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1992/v49-2-article8.htm)from the journal Theology Today. It was written as a response to Howard C. Kee’s argument on the early history of the patriarchalisation of Christianity. I think it is a good article, and not too long.

An article (http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9809&article=980941d) from the ecumenical Sojourners online magazine, about the subordination of women. You need to register (free) to read it.

So, what are the viewpoints here in STR? Please don’t expect me to debate in any formal sense of the word, because I’m not prepared for that. But I am interested in the ideas and opinions of my Anglican/Old Catholic brothers and sisters.
I don't think that man ruling over woman is the curse on woman. I think the curse on woman is that she will desire to rule over him - the term used there is the same one that is used of sin desiring Cain - it desired to rule him. I think it rings true personally.

We are made in God's image. In the trinity we see order and roles. Jesus does not have authority over the Father, but the Father has authority over Jesus. Jesus submits to the Fathers will. Yet Christ sends the Spirit - who in turn points to Jesus. Not visa versa. There are roles in the Godhead, and so to he has created us with roles.

Yes men and women are equal before God, just as all three members of the trinity are equally God. But we have roles, just as they have roles. That is not a bad thing.

I embrace the role I have been given, and believe that it the right thing to do, and that through my marriage others may see God - if I can get it right! Eph 5 is helpful here.

As to whether that means we have a patriarchal society. Hmmm. Difficult one. I certainly believe this practice is true for the church, as I have discussed in other threads.

But does it also apply to the world. I'm not sure there. I really have delayed following that one through to be honest. The bible speaks of marriage and of the church, but it doesn't have a whole lot to say about male/female relationships in a work context. I just haven't found the time to follow through that train of thought, and research.

ETA - what Simon said - I should have read the entire thread first before posting. But he always says it better than I.

[erin74]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:bDHtGoiwssK4WM:http://www.pacifichighlander.postkiwi.com/images/Can-of-worms.jpg
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:bDHtGoiwssK4WM:http://www.pacifichighlander.postkiwi.com/images/Can-of-worms.jpg)
I'm guessing that isn't spaghetti!

[Simon_Templar]

ETA - what Simon said - I should have read the entire thread first before posting. But he always says it better than I.

Well.. I usually say it longer, but I don't know about better :)... I inherited the art of preaching... which is the art of saying something in 5 times the space/time which would normally be required to say it.

[ContraMundum]

Thanks Karen....I'll look into this and get back to you. Good effort.

[Iosias]

Has Christianity traditionally been a patriarchal religion?

Yes and rightly so. Male headship is part of the natural order as ordained by God and taught clearly in Scripture. Whilst men are the head of women in authority this is not to say women are doormats or slaves but the key is that men are to rule and women to obey but all is to be done in love. One can look at the relationship between Christ and God...equal in deity but the former is servatn of the latter.

1 Corinthians 11:7-11 "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."


Ephesians 5:21-33 "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."

see also:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/chapter3.html
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/men-and-women-in-ministry-male-headship-before-or-after-the-fall

[Iosias]

Proverbs 31:10-31 "Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates."

[pmcleanj]

We do need to be clear on what we mean by Patriarchy, before we purport that it is consistent with a Christian paradigm.

"Patriarchy" refers to a social system structured around family units in which male "heads of families" (in Latin, paterfamilia) are solely responsible for the administration of family unit: exercising judicial power to regulate the family members' performance of the family responsibilities, and determining how and by whom the corresponding family rights will be enjoyed. In the west, this philosophy is epitomized by the social structures of Republican Rome, and to a lesser degree by the democratic Greek city-states. In Rome, the "paterfamilias" had absolute judicial authority, including the right of unquestioned capital justice, over his wife and children; and was also the sole vessel of all property rights.

During the middle ages and renaissance, the classical cultures of Greece and Rome were held up as the highest model of cultural development, so their norms of patriarchy were further entrenched in western culture. But despite Margaret Mead's pronunciation that "men everywhere have been in charge of running the show. ... men have been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home"*; pure patriarchy, with male priomgenitur, male authority in domestic governance, male authority in matters of state, and male authority over the home, was NOT the ubiquitous norm in history. In particular, the Scotti, the Iceni, and the Danes can be argued to have practiced a more balanced wielding of social authority, as can the ancient Hebrews of whom Abraham and Sarah were examples; and here among the nations I am most familiar with, the Haida, Cree, Tsu-tina and Tsitsika peoples.

Mead speaks accurately when she states that we have no known counter-examples of societies where women wield sole authority, but in all of the societies I have just named, women hold (or in the case of the extinct societies, "probably held") specific property rights, carried out specific forms of international negotiations, and had a defined role in identifying who the war-leader or nominal king would be. For example, some social anthropologist speculate that among the Iceni (remember Boudicca? these are her people) the heir to the kingship was the husband of the crown princess, and the queen was the "executive branch" of the government, with the king holding the authority for implementing policy. Such a social arrangement is credible in that similar arrangements have been observed among South Pacific islanders, and it helps explain Britons' historic willingness (relative to the continent) to accept the idea of a woman's holding the throne (something that was never possible in France, Hanover or Spain, for example); and also explains the current status quo in the Anglican church to which Naomi has several times alluded, that regardless of the sex of the manse's incumbant it is the women of the parish who actually run the parish.

The Proverbs 31 woman, for example, owned, bought and sold property, administered staff, and made business investments apparently under her own authority. This is a counter-example to the argument that Patriarchy per se is a biblical norm.

Similarly, Sarah is shown to have owned her own slaves independent of Abraham's property rights, and to have administered justice over them independently (if, in the case of Hagar, not particularly justly).

And Paul's advice to the Ephesians starts with the advice to "submit yourselves one unto the other". It is advice given in the vocative case, and therefore directed to be a personal action of the person doing the submitting -- a choice and an attitude, if you will, not a social norm. This, too, is a counter-example to a Patriarchal norm where submission is imposed from the outside by civil law, rather than being a call to a submissive attitude of mind (a submissive attitude which is first framed in the general context of mutual submission).

*That Mead made this statement as hyperbole is evidenced by its conflict with her own findings in "Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies"

[Iosias]

I think that patriarchy is Scriptural and is well defended by Sir Robert Filmer in Patriarcha (http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm).

[pmcleanj]

I think that patriarchy is Scriptural and is well defended by Sir Robert Filmer in Patriarcha (http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm).

Patriarchia does deserve a careful read, but I doubt many would conclude from such an exercise that it's a defense of patriarchy. What it is is, an argument for absolute monarchy against the option of authority wielded by parliament or broad franchise, sith an appeal to patriarchy as the type or model for absolute monarchy.

[erin74]

Well.. I usually say it longer, but I don't know about better :)... I inherited the art of preaching... which is the art of saying something in 5 times the space/time which would normally be required to say it.
sounds like engineering. The ability to do something 5 times more expensive, more complicated, and with more parts to break down. Oh and it takes 5 times longer to build too!

I like your posts.

[norbie]

For me the word comes from Patri, (remember in nomre patri at .....) which means In the name of the Father. And this is for me the Main explanation for this Thread. The roll of the Father in the Church.
We have some very good Posts which mainly adress the Patriachy, the man 'Leadership' and the equality of the Sexes and Family.
I believe that the Bible gives us the perfect answer in the Relationship from: Wife - Husband - Church - Jesus.
We had a new Deacon in our Parish and I was discussing this with him, and he gave me a great answer I wont forget: my Magie obeys me - but I would die for her.
So I believe the answer in this Thread is full equality of both Sexes in their God intented Rolles.
I am not to good in English and explaining, but I have to follow Dear Erin's Post, 'it hits the Nail on the Head' I think.
In the meantime we have real good new Thread out of this one.
Norbie

[erin74]

The submit yourself to one another verse in Ephesians is in reference to the following situations. It is not about mutual submission in marriage - it is in reference to submitting to those in authority over you as appropriate - the examples given that follow are wives to husbands, children to parents and slaves to masters. If we overturn it to say that it is mutual submission we must also then consider if it is appropriate for partents to submit to children and masters to slaves.

What this verse does show is that there are roles in relationships and among them is the one of husbands and wives, in which case wives are to submit to husbands.

[erin74]

I like your example.

A friend of ours uses the example of the husbands role being to love the wife and the wife to submit - it would look like this. "Please let me do the washing up tonight", to which she should respond "yes dear"! Simplistic, but it works to illustrate.

[Iosias]

Patriarchia does deserve a careful read, but I doubt many would conclude from such an exercise that it's a defense of patriarchy.

You are correct in that it is not a defence of patriarchy as against egalitarianism per see however it is a defence of absolute monarchy (a principle I hold to BTW) from the principle of patriarchy which he defends through utilising both OT and NT examples, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses &c.

[norbie]

I like your example.

A friend of ours uses the example of the husbands role being to love the wife and the wife to submit - it would look like this. "Please let me do the washing up tonight", to which she should respond "yes dear"! Simplistic, but it works to illustrate.
LOL. But I don't mind washing up and I DID change lots of Nappies.
Now we getting closer, I nearly get to understand it more. I still have this Problem with submitting and roles. Like your example, Dear Erin I believe that the chores in daily life are not in this "submission" to the other Partner, I think that 'Submission', which is not the best expression, and 'leading' is what the Bible mean. That the man makes the best decision for his Family in matter of roof over head, which car to buy and so on. Or if the Children ask somethink important like 'Mum, can we join the scouts?' wouldn't a Woman answer 'let's talk it over with Father when he comes home'. And that the Woman trust him and lean on him. Isn't this what the Bible telling us?
Maybe need more explaining in this.
And this is what I believe TRUE Womans Liberation: the Woman be able to lean on their Partner, have no other Worries like money problems and so on, and can be free and happy in their Gods given role.
Norbie

[higgs2]

You are correct in that it is not a defence of patriarchy as against egalitarianism per see however it is a defence of absolute monarchy (a principle I hold to BTW) from the principle of patriarchy which he defends through utilising both OT and NT examples, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses &c.

I seriously doubt that, however well crafted that defense may be, it will pull any weight with me and my fellow citizens here in the united states of America. :cool:

It does not appear to be a defense of patriarchy so much as a defense of monarchy :confused: Perhaps this would be more useful in a different discussion. :idea:

[Iosias]

I seriously doubt that, however well crafted that defense may be, it will pull any weight with me and my fellow citizens here in the united states of America. :cool:

Unfortunately I think you are correct :(

[higgs2]

Unfortunately I think you are correct :(

Don't be sad. You could always come over here and work on form the new "Absolute Monarchy" political party ^_^ The next general election is a couple of years away so you have some time. ;)

[Iosias]

Don't be sad. You could always come over here and work on form the new "Absolute Monarchy" political party ^_^ The next general election is a couple of years away so you have some time. ;)

Don't tempt me :P

[ContraMundum]

Don't be sad. You could always come over here and work on form the new "Absolute Monarchy" political party ^_^ The next general election is a couple of years away so you have some time. ;)

Anything would be better than the poor excuse for "democracy" you've got now. :P

[ContraMundum]

Don't tempt me :P

All you need is lots and lots and lots of money and a campaign based on hype-generating slogans and you're a certainty!

[norbie]

Anything would be better than the poor excuse for "democracy" you've got now. :P
Exactly the same here in Australia. Mr.Howard does what he wants,
Norbie

[Simon_Templar]

For various reasons, democracy has become the dogma of america. Ironically this isn't even what the nation was founded upon.

I would guess probably 90% or more of americans would think that democracy is what the US was originally all about.

In actual fact, it was not democracy, but individual rights. The idea that individual people have inalienable rights which can not rightly be infringed by others, or by the state.
People always think its such a contradiction that the US didn't have universal voting rights from the beginning, but that was never the point. The point was never that everyone has a right to be involved in the government. It was that everyone has a right for the government not to be involved with them.

this is most evident if you read Montesque, who together with Locke was probably THE seminal political theorist leading to the american political ideal.

Montesque defines two forms of 'republic'. The ancient and the theoretical 'modern' republic. In the ancient republic, freedom was defined as the right to be involved in politics. This was so because the state (or city) was central to everything. The people existed for the glory of the republic. The republic was the people, but it was the people in the sense of the collective. In otherwords, each individual existed for the collective good. An individual's rights mattered little compared to the glory and prosperity of the republic as a whole.

In the modern republic, which would become the basis of the american system, it was exactly the opposite. The individual was paramount and the collective republic existed to protect the individual and his rights. Thus freedom is not defined as the right to be involved in government, but rather the right to live as you see fit without interference from others, and most importantly, from government.

This whole theory was uniquely founded in biblical christian belief as well, because the primary reason that the rights of the individual were originally elevated was because it was held that each individual person owed duty to God and no other person, not even a ruler had the right to interfere with an individual's duties to God. Thus every right evolved from a corresponding responsability, or duty to God.

Democracy has no particular moral high ground, or bonus... Contrary to popular opinion, democracy does not make people good. The advantage of democracy, or more properly "representative government" is that it makes it more difficult for evil rulers to oppress the people. It doesn't make it impossible, it just makes it a little harder to accomplish.

As an interesting note. The original founders of the Us didn't actually like 'democracy' and deliberately avoided using the term or its trappings. This is because democracy has philosophical under-pinnings which they recognized and knew were problematic.

what they wanted, and eventually founded was a representative republic.

Democracy is by nature egalitarian. But it tends to go beyond the simple idea that all men are created equal and endewed by the creator with inalienable rights. It also tends to push the equality of all ideas, and beliefs, and lifestyles, and actions, and abilities, etc etc. Things which are, in fact, not all equal.

It was clearly recognized that some ideas, some philosophies, some beliefs are much better and much more necessary to freedom than others are. While they believed that people should be free to believe what they wanted, they also recognized that if enough people believe the wrong things.. everyone would lose their freedom.

A recent example would be, in the US a university professor could be a communist and teach communism to his students. In Russia, or China, or Cuba, or pretty much any communist nation, no university professor could openly be anything other than communist, or teach anything other than communism. Ironically, they wouldn't even be free to be their own form of communist.

[norbie]

So going back to our Headline, it looks like the Bible teaches us the Partriachical Family, but the 21st Century don't accept this???
So what can the Church do about it? Maybe more influence on Governments?
And how can we protect our Woman who work all day, come home cook and bath Children and fall exhausted asleep?
So many question need answers, I think.
Norbie

[SirTimothy]

So going back to our Headline, it looks like the Bible teaches us the Partriachical Family, but the 21st Century don't accept this???

Well, one literalist interpretation of scripture teaches that. Whether scripture actually teaches that depends on interpretation... And everyone interprets scripture. Even those who claim they are just looking at scripture on it's own are in fact interpreting far more than other ways. ;)

[karen freeinchristman]

Well, one literalist interpretation of scripture teaches that. Whether scripture actually teaches that depends on interpretation... And everyone interprets scripture. Even those who claim they are just looking at scripture on it's own are in fact interpreting far more than other ways. ;)
Yes, I agree, Timothy. The Bible gives us a picture of patriarchal society, we cannot deny it. But whether that equates to the Bible 'teaching' patriarchy is another matter. And then whether an interpretation of the Bible 'teaching' patriarchy equates to God 'teaching' or ordaining patriarchy is another thing again.

[SirTimothy]

Yes, I agree, Timothy. The Bible gives us a picture of patriarchal society, we cannot deny it. But whether that equates to the Bible 'teaching' patriarchy is another matter. And then whether an interpretation of the Bible 'teaching' patriarchy equates to God 'teaching' or ordaining patriarchy is another thing again.
Right. Or setting rules for patriarchy within a patriarchal society like setting rules for master/slave relationships within a society that had slavery...

[erin74]

LOL. But I don't mind washing up and I DID change lots of Nappies.
Now we getting closer, I nearly get to understand it more. I still have this Problem with submitting and roles. Like your example, Dear Erin I believe that the chores in daily life are not in this "submission" to the other Partner, I think that 'Submission', which is not the best expression, and 'leading' is what the Bible mean. That the man makes the best decision for his Family in matter of roof over head, which car to buy and so on. Or if the Children ask somethink important like 'Mum, can we join the scouts?' wouldn't a Woman answer 'let's talk it over with Father when he comes home'. And that the Woman trust him and lean on him. Isn't this what the Bible telling us?
Maybe need more explaining in this.
And this is what I believe TRUE Womans Liberation: the Woman be able to lean on their Partner, have no other Worries like money problems and so on, and can be free and happy in their Gods given role.
Norbie
Yes my example was overly simplistic - I would hope that it didn't have to come down to daily chores. That would get tiresome. I think that stuff generally works itself out.

I guess the point I am making is that submission to a husband who is loving you should work pretty nicely. That does not mean you don't submit where the husband is not putting you before themselves, or that you don't love where the wife is not submitting, but that there is something good to aim at!

[ContraMundum]

Exactly the same here in Australia. Mr.Howard does what he wants,
Norbie

Does he? I don't think so. Parliament has blocked dozens of his proposals over the years. It's a good system in Australia- easily the best on the planet. Not only that, where else in the world does a Prime Minister get grilled face to face almost daily by radio DJ's or TV journos? Ever heard Neil Mitchell or Alan Jones tear him apart? Ever watch him get slammed in the hot seat on Lateline? Point being made- doesn't happen overseas nearly as often. ;)

[Simon_Templar]

Does he? I don't think so. Parliament has blocked dozens of his proposals over the years. It's a good system in Australia- easily the best on the planet. Not only that, where else in the world does a Prime Minister get grilled face to face almost daily by radio DJ's or TV journos? Ever heard Neil Mitchell or Alan Jones tear him apart? Ever watch him get slammed in the hot seat on Lateline? Point being made- doesn't happen overseas nearly as often. ;)
even the best system of government will produce evil, if the people are evil. That is the problem we face

[Aymn27]

even the best system of government will produce evil, if the people are evil. That is the problem we face
why did Hillary Clinton's face just pop into my mind? :P

[norbie]

Does he? I don't think so. Parliament has blocked dozens of his proposals over the years. It's a good system in Australia- easily the best on the planet. Not only that, where else in the world does a Prime Minister get grilled face to face almost daily by radio DJ's or TV journos? Ever heard Neil Mitchell or Alan Jones tear him apart? Ever watch him get slammed in the hot seat on Lateline? Point being made- doesn't happen overseas nearly as often. ;)
You haven't been for a long time in Australia I think. There is no more 'Bill blocking' thank to our last Election. Mr.Howard, or better the Liberals got both Houses and he does what he wants - nobody CAN stop him.
But I do agree with you our System would be very good if we had more 'mature thinking' Voters. You never vote the same in both houses, you loose control.
Also you maybe don't know that Mr. Howard declared War on Iraq on his own, withour Parliament.
And now he got all the People and everything ready for his Nuclear Power - you guess it without Parliament.
Norbie

[ContraMundum]

You haven't been for a long time in Australia I think. There is no more 'Bill blocking' thank to our last Election.

I'm in Australia right now and at least three bills have been done under since the election, some before they even get on the floor, so perhaps I'm just more up to scratch than others. I actually watch Parliament Question Time. :)

Mr.Howard, or better the Liberals got both Houses and he does what he wants - nobody CAN stop him.That's democracy for ya! We voted and we got what we voted for.

But I do agree with you our System would be very good if we had more 'mature thinking' Voters. You never vote the same in both houses, you loose control.Right. Interesting that none of the states are currently coalition, which strikes a kind of balance in many matters. Imagine if Rudd wins the next election- how much do you think they'll raise the GST when the federal and state governments are all Labor?! Look out!

Also you maybe don't know that Mr. Howard declared War on Iraq on his own, withour Parliament.
And now he got all the People and everything ready for his Nuclear Power - you guess it without Parliament.
NorbieI don't think that's exactly true- Parliament was consulted and he had the (some rather qualified) support of the Labor party for the Iraq conflict and parliament will be consulted on any upcoming nuclear matters too, he's said this dozens of times. However, the whole Iraq saga is a confused mess, legally speaking anyway. The problem some folks have is that the people have voted for the coalition and now they don't like their policies getting through so easily. We made our bed, we have to lie in it.

[norbie]

"I actually watch Parliament Question Time. :)"

Oh, I always call it "Playschool". They realy behave like Kindergarten Kids in Question Time
Norbie

[norbie]

Could you Dear Karen and Sir Timothy go a little deeper in this, please?
It does come back were we have been in the 'Woman Pastors Thread'
Do we take the Bible in full contend or change things around for the 21st Century??
Norbie

[SirTimothy]

Do we take the Bible in full contend or change things around for the 21st Century??

No. In actuality, what it comes down to is:

"Do we look at the Bible as if it is a 21st Century Secondary School textbook which was designed to mean every word, or do we actually look deeper into the Bible, attempt to investigate the meaning and the content, and attempt to try and recreate who Paul was writing to, and why he was writing in order that we can interpret it as Paul was intending to."

Intruigingly, I read an hyper-fundamentalist argument recently that Paul could've been neither Bishop, Priest, nor Deacon, because he was never married (the whole 'husband of one wife' thing) he was just a teacher...

[ContraMundum]

"I actually watch Parliament Question Time. :)"

Oh, I always call it "Playschool". They realy behave like Kindergarten Kids in Question Time
Norbie

Ah yes, memories of Keating spring to mind. :)

[karen freeinchristman]

Could you Dear Karen and Sir Timothy go a little deeper in this, please?
It does come back were we have been in the 'Woman Pastors Thread'
Do we take the Bible in full contend or change things around for the 21st Century??
Norbie
Sorry, norbie, I haven't been able to contribute much to this thread that I started due to lack of time...

[erin74]

Could you Dear Karen and Sir Timothy go a little deeper in this, please?
It does come back were we have been in the 'Woman Pastors Thread'
Do we take the Bible in full contend or change things around for the 21st Century??
Norbie
What a great question.

I think we have to be very cautious about playing the culture card. There are times when it is necessary, but I don't think they are as frequent as what is popular, particularly with regard to Paul's writings.

Peter tells us that Paul's writings are hard to digest - so they obviously weren't all that easy to take in the century they were written in either. Yet it appears that Peter saw Paul's writings as scripture - both from this passage, and the rest of the book.


15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.
18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.