« When (and Why) Feminism Is Anti-Feminine | Main | How Are Tactics Used with Someone Who Is Very Aggressive? »

April 30, 2016

Comments

>> If sameness (what they call “equality”) is the ideal, ...

Odd, this reminds me of Madeline L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time and the argument Meg had with IT. Sameness = equality was the curse which afflicted the dark planet Kamazotz.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has observed, marriage as it now exists is egalitarian: The spouses have become equal under law…. This is indeed a revolution in the law, and a recent one at that: Full spousal equality was achieved as a matter of law only in the 1970s. As a matter of fact, it is still a work in progress.

What does the word This refer to?

What does Macedo think is 'a revolution in the law, and a recent one at that'?

Amy's ellipsis removes the antecedent of the word This.

As a consequence, it muddies the meaning of the paragraph.

Take a look at Macedo's original:

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has observed, marriage as it now exists is egalitarian: The spouses have become equal under law. Coverture, the old doctrine that a wife’s legal personality was merged with that of the husband, who was recognized as head of the household, has been consigned to history. This is indeed a revolution in the law, and a recent one at that: Full spousal equality was achieved as a matter of law only in the 1970s. As a matter of fact, it is still a work in progress.
I include the link the the Wikipedia article on coverture because I think it explains Macedo's reference to 'the 1970s' and helps identify the antecedent of This.

As recently as 1972, two US states allowed a wife accused in criminal court to offer as a legal defense that she was obeying her husband's orders.


Coverture has been consigned to history. This is indeed a revolution in the law.


What is it that's reminding me of Ephesians 5?

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Egalitarianism actually is a double-edged sword. For if I grant that men and women are interchangeable in all situations so as to produce total equality in role, then what is all this fuss about gender distribution in employment? Why hire women if they don't bring a different and unique perspective? But if they do bring a different and unique perspective, then why is that difference unimportant for marriage and child rearing?

You can't have it both ways!

RonH, it doesn't muddy it at all. The sentence "The spouses have become equal under law" is the summary of the details I removed for sake of brevity. The revolution Macedo is referring to is that spouses have become equal under the law.

What you removed was not lengthy so brevity goes unserved.

What you removed is not 'details' but Macedo's definition of "The spouses have become equal under law".

Only by looking at the original was I able to find out what Macedo meant by

Full spousal equality was achieved as a matter of law only in the 1970s.

Law is finally catching up to Christianity's statement on husbands and wives -- it's a nice thing to see. Husbands being compelled within the framework of love's reciprocity to submit to their wives, to sacrifice their own Self for their wife's Self to the extent which Christ did -- which is unto death, and, the wives also being guided into the same framework.

As usual this all seems "new" to those unfamiliar with scripture.

STR took a peak at the firm scriptural reality of Male/Female equality in the “Challenge: The Bible Says Men Are Superior to Women” not too long ago.

Well, actually, STR took a "peek" not too long ago ~~~

Wait, so you actually agree with what Ruth Bader Ginsburg is saying, i.e. that the real revolution in the legal definition of marriage came not with Obergefell, but with the Married Women's Property Acts, the recognition of marital rape, no-fault divorce, etc.? And that same-sex marriage is just logic catching up to the ideals of 20th-century feminism?

>> What is it that's reminding me of Ephesians 5?

Why does all this quoting of the wife's role in Ephesians 5 always begin at verse 22 and meander for three verses out of a total of the thirty-three that make up the chapter?

Why not begin this discussion one verse earlier, at verse twenty-one?

subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.

Thus a mutual subjection, each seeking the others interests.

RonH, the matter of wifely subjection is the matter of who would be holding the ultimate responsibility of the success of the family. Who stands before God to answer for a botched dysfunctional family. No blame-shifting on the woman, for the husband is to love dynamically wife and family. How can this "subjecting" be of a master-slave relationship if both parties are to yield to each other in love and the respect for Christ.

This is one failure of modern feminism, the perception of the specter of paternalism. As a father, I live to support, to protect, to defend. Only the perceived bogey-man that the feminist loved to demonize. Thus the decline in the father-ideal. Today, he is perceived as a buffoon, a blowhard, an ineffectual twit. With the skewed vision of feminism, what young man would desire to be part of that system.

The derision of the state of fatherhood is feminism's greatest deficit.

A good parody of the abuse of interpreting the "wives" portion of Ephesians 5 (v. 22-24) can be found here:

http://adam4d.com/anti-women/

Phillip,

Take a "peek" at the linked challenge if you're confused about women committing crimes and using as a legal defense "I had to murder because my husband told me to..." as it offers useful context......


What you removed was not lengthy so brevity goes unserved. What you removed is not 'details' but Macedo's definition of "The spouses have become equal under law".

Ron, I always take out whatever I can to keep quotes absolutely as short as possible. But you make my point in your comment! It was his definition of "equal under law," which is why I left the overview statement of "equal under law" to summarize it. The point for him is that now the law treats spouses equally. That's what matters to the quote and to my post. I'll be honest, I don't understand why this is a problem.

Why does all this quoting of the wife's role in Ephesians 5 always begin at verse 22 and meander for three verses out of a total of the thirty-three that make up the chapter?


Meander?

I quoted 3 verses in a row, because they are the sum total of Paul's instructions to wives in that chapter and because there are no instructions there for the husband that balance them in a relevant way.

Why not begin this discussion one verse earlier, at verse twenty-one?

subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.

Because, if you read the text, Paul has one idea of what it is for a wife to 'submit/subject' herself to her husband and another idea of what it is for a husband to 'submit/subject' himself to his wife.

I guess what Paul asks of husbands is fine, but it is not submission.

The wife does all the submitting here notwithstanding the introductory "one another".

Paul does not mean to make husbands and wives equal.

If he did he would not make the husband the head of the wife 'even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior'. (Verse 23)


Paul does not mean to make husbands and wives equal.

AHA! Perfect! You have just succeeded in making my point of the last two posts (yesterday and today) by confusing equality with sameness. You're perfectly illustrating this move our society is making due to its rejection of God and intrinsic human value.

Are Christ and his Church equal?

You can capitalize the 'His' if you want.

I meant nothing by it.

>> I guess what Paul asks of husbands is fine, but it is not submission.

Nor is it overlordship.

If what the husband does is serve wife in love, where is the tyranny?

Power struggles between male and female are part of the curse. Christians can escape through New Testament instruction but others cannot.

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Genesis 3:16)

The NLT puts it; “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”

DGFischer,

Overlordship and tyranny are your words.

Do you mean for me to defend them?

Shall I put words in your mouth and ask you to defend them?

I asked Amy if the Church and Jesus were equals.

I think she has to say no.

I will ask you the same thing another way.

I quoted Paul above (Eph 5:23) Christ:Church::Husband:Wife.

Does Paul not say that?

I think ether Paul is putting the husband squarely in charge or he needs a (different?) writing coach.

So, do you disagree with Paul?

See what Andreas J. Köstenberger, editor of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, says.


Submit one to another.

Submit.

Pretty big word.

Very "spooky" and "mysterious" to our Non-Theist friends who also ignore Genesis' definitions of curse/lording-over.

The concept of "meta-narrative" and all that...

Sacrificing myself for my wife to the point of the death of my own Self is pretty radical though, hence it's understandable why Non-Theists leave it out of their pretend bible-meta-narrative.


Submit one to another.

According to some Non-Theists Paul means to state that Christ must submit to the Church.

Oh dear....where does one even begin.

>> I asked Amy if the Church and Jesus were equals.

Of course not. Nothing makes the Church equal to its Savior.

Jesus dies. We live. Nothing equal about that.

Jesus on the night He was betrayed, took water ... and washed His disciples feet. We marvel about this idea of the Suffering Servant, and mess up in our meager imitations of Christ. Nothing equal about that.

Jesus forgives. We offer more rationale that forgiveness is important ... and needed. Nothing equal about that.

RonH, you must realize by now that this false equivocation of "sameness" and "equality" can never carry the day. It is flawed thinking to begin with. Amy, I believe, has done a laudable job in gently pointing this out.

>> So, do you disagree with Paul?

No.

Do you understand every concept and inter-connection that Paul expresses in the whole 33 verses of Ephesians 5, or do you unfairly fixate on only those three verses which can only be misunderstood if you disregard the rest?

Paul states that Christ must submit to the Church.

Well, not really.... but....per some Non-Theists....

Do you understand every concept and inter-connection that Paul expresses in the whole 33 verses of Ephesians 5, or do you unfairly fixate on only those three verses which can only be misunderstood if you disregard the rest?

Go on: explain how you think the meaning of the 3 is changed by the 30.

Send a copy to Köstenberger.


I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. -- I Timothy 2:12

Gender equality in the NT seems pretty strange to me.

"Power struggles between male and female are part of the curse. Christians can escape through New Testament instruction but others cannot."

So you're arguing that a woman's need to submit to man is the result of the Fall? Or are you saying that Christian women will happily submit to their husbands?

Are Christ and his Church equal?

You're asking if a human being has the same value as God? Of course not. But not because of their roles! It's because God is ontologically superior to man.

If you want to see if different roles mean different value, then you have to compare like to like, so let's do that by looking at the Trinity. The Father is the head of the Son. The Son submits to the Father. The Son and Father have different roles. The Son and the Father have equal value. They are absolutely co-equal.

I'm still confused about why you're asking if Christians believe husbands and wives have different roles. Of course we do. That's been one of the points of the last two posts. But also according to the last two posts, Christians also maintain that men and woman have equal value, though different, because our value comes from our being made in the image of God, not from our roles. Christ doesn't have less value than the Father (though He submits to Him), and a wife doesn't have less value than a husband (though she submits to Him). If humble submission is good enough for Christ, it's good enough for me.

If you want to know how Christianity defines greatness, read the second half of this.

I'm still confused about why you're asking if Christians believe husbands and wives have different roles. Of course we do.

And the whole point of the article, and of what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, is that these distinctions between the rights and responsibilities of husbands versus those of wives have long been abolished in the law. If the law does not recognize differences in gender vis-a-vis marriage, it loses its rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Apply some Due Process Clause magic and voila, Obergefell.

So essentially you are admitting Obergefell was a correct judicial decision, given the current legal context. I wasn't sure that's something you would be willing to admit.

@ Aaron Ginn; > "So you're arguing that a woman's need to submit to man is the result of the Fall? Or are you saying that Christian women will happily submit to their husbands?"

>> Neither, I'm saying that the curse made women want to rule over Men; “You (Eve) will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you (Genesis 3:16).” NLT.

It doesn't say how Adam will rule over Eve, possibly by force or as an abuser? Either way it is depraved and part of the curse.

The only remedy for this tension is in New Testament teaching. SSM or other laws do not solve it, they only try to hedge against it, even at times bringing greater judgement.

Women are to be silent? Odd.... and yet women prophets are in the NT and women teachers and pastors today, and Amy speaks up too, teaching men such as us, and so on. The curse in Genesis is definitional.

Reading "whole" books and interacting with "whole" metanarratives.......

Of course Christ too sends women out to spread the Good News.....

That pesky word "metanarrative"......


"Christ:Church:::Husband:Wife"

Submit one to another.

Asserting that Christ is to submit to the Church isn't interacting with "whole" narratives.

Whole narratives prevent us from observing an "A" and then, without embracing the rest of reality, using a wide paint brush to splash "A" across the entire narrative.


I'm still confused about why you're asking if Christians believe husbands and wives have different roles.

Huh? Perhaps you are confused about something. I don't know.

But I am not asking that.

If you want to see if different roles mean different value..

No, I don't want to see about that and I don't think Macedo does either.

Knock yourself out, though. On your own time.


Christians believe all humans have equal intrinsic value?

Fine. I'm happy for for you.

But having equal intrinsic value does not free the slave from his master or the wife from here husband's "headship".

Equality under the law, Amy.


Yes, and Christ must submit to the Church.

Children share the roles of prophet in Scripture.

With adults.

Then: if husbands and wives submitting one to another is realized today, as per Scripture.....

"Therefore" (according to the Non-Theist) -- Children prophesy.... Perhaps the Non-Theist means to assert that adults and children, since they share roles, ought to undergo those wide paint brushes ignoring reality's entire narrative, and that Scripture ought to affirm that line of logic.

Wow.

So essentially you are admitting Obergefell was a correct judicial decision, given the current legal context.


Come on, Phillip. I've done nothing of the kind.

The Non-Theist's line of reasoning equates equal roles in Scripture as the end of reality's narrative such that equal roles between children and adults, recognized in scripture in, say, Prophet, are "evidence" that Christians ought to claim (therefore) that children and adults ought to be such within all of love's interfaces vis-a-vis realitiy's entire narrative.

Wow.

And the whole point of the article, and of what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, is that these distinctions between the rights and responsibilities of husbands versus those of wives have long been abolished in the law. If the law does not recognize differences in gender vis-a-vis marriage, it loses its rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

If that was Ruth Bader Ginsburg reasoning then it was clearly based on a logical fallacy: non-sequitur. The fact that the law doesn't recognize certain gender roles doesn't logically entail that it can't recognize gender per se.

I guess the whole point of your comment though was to show how illogical the Supreme Court decision was?

Make Fascism Great Again, 2016,

Maybe you are right and it doesn't follow but..

If 'the law does not recognize differences in gender vis-a-vis marriage', then please explain how the law can limit marriage to opposite genders.

Women are to be silent? Odd.... and yet women prophets are in the NT and women teachers and pastors today, and Amy speaks up too, teaching men such as us, and so on. The curse in Genesis is definitional.

Don't take it up with me. Take it up with Paul. Paul would tell Amy to sit down and shut up. It's people like me who don't take the Bible seriously as a model for gender roles that would encourage Amy to speak up about what she believes, even if I fundamentally disagree with her.

Christ sent women out to declare the Good News.

Reading "whole" books is hard..... granted.

And, also hard, is that pesky term "metanarrative"......

Yes, and we know that's backwards. Men were made to rule over women.

The only remedy for this tension is in New Testament teaching.

Yes, women are to know their place, submit to male authority, cover their hair, keep silent and not exert authority over men. Heck, John Piper thinks women shouldn't be police officers or supervise men. People who think along those lines should be repudiated.

There's that "whole" book and that "whole" metanarrative problem again.......

Reading "whole" books is hard..... granted.

No. Reading whole books is quite simple. Making sense of books that contradict themselves in so many places is quite difficult though.

There's no contradiction if you interface with the whole metanarrative.

God's definitions of equal and inherent value, of preaching the Gospel, of teaching, of prophesying, of submitting one to another, of.... of... are all there in black and white.

In fact, Scripture actually defines the enmity between male and female as a product of evil, evil being "Good-Minus-Some-Thing".

Clean.

Easy.

Seamless.

Metanarrative.

The comments to this entry are closed.