tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post6432073983901019028..comments2023-06-09T12:46:12.932-04:00Comments on The Voice Of One Crying Out In Suburbia: Biblical Patriarchy: New TestamentArthur Sidohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-235486195420241272012-02-16T14:12:21.851-05:002012-02-16T14:12:21.851-05:00Cont.
Please also reconsider your willingness to...Cont.<br /><br /><i> Please also reconsider your willingness to exegete half a thought from Paul's letter to Timothy. I agree that a confusing passage in Haggai shouldn't stop us from talking about Luke's Gospel (to randomly make an example), but if you can't explain the immediate context of a verse, you probably don't understand that verse. There's no shame in saying "This I don't understand." It's far less respectable to say "I don't know what's going on here but I know I'm right!"</i><br /><br />I don’t find that a fair or helpful statement at all. I am not guessing what Paul meant here but showing the consistency of his thoughts and how they tie together from his letter to Timothy to his first letter to the Cornthians and the church in Ephesus. Far from selectively picking a verse and misapplying it, my intent is to show that in multiple places Paul has the same message.<br /><br /><i> Paul's statement about a woman learning "in silence" can be equally well translated "in quietness," that is, without being argumentative. It's a very parallel thought to "without wrath or doubting" for men in v. 8 and fits the overall context. The gist is not that it is okay for a woman to be wrathful as long as she is quiet, and okay for a man to be disruptive or domineering as long as he is not angry; it's the same thought of peace in the church given a modulated expression based on gender norms but not absolutes; Paul is illustrating his thought, not exhaustively defining it.</i><br /><br />Again, if all Paul said was “learning in silence” that might be valid but when you look at the whole context of what Paul is saying, the interpretation becomes far clearer: quietly, with all submissiveness, silent, not permitted to speak to the point that Paul calls it shameful. It isn’t as if Paul is being subtle or evasive here. <br /><br /><i> As a consequence, we should not superstitiously forbid women speaking lest they magically trick us into sinning, but rather be mindful that if the men collectively are passively choosing not to test the teaching (of any teacher), but follow a woman uncritically, they will find themselves astray.</i><br /><br />Paul’s concern and mine has nothing to do with a woman “tricking us” but rather that because of the relationship between men and women, specifically husbands and wives, from the Fall until the culmination of time, women should submit to their husbands and not lead or teach in the church or the home.Arthur Sidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-20491556214645166802012-02-16T14:03:08.826-05:002012-02-16T14:03:08.826-05:00Arlan
But your head covering passage itself show...Arlan<br /><br /><i> But your head covering passage itself shows that women are expected to speak in the assembly. Head covering can't even come up as an issue if women are only speaking at home.</i><br /><br />I reject the idea that head covering is something restricted to the gathered assembly. Women clearly pray outside of “church” and Paul makes a transition in 1 Cor 11: 17 “But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.” I don’t think there is any evidence that Paul is talking about the gathered church when we speaks of headcovering and therefore there is no inherent contradiction in Paul calling on women to cover their heads when praying or prophesying and him calling on women to be silent in the gathered church.<br /><br /><i> The fact that men are mostly mentioned teaching and leading cannot obliterate the times when women are mentioned: Deborah, Priscilla, Lydia, probably Junia.</i><br /><br />Again, I would say you are making an assumption here that the women listed were teaching (not counting Deborah who is from the Old Testament) and leading. That is not at all apparent from the text. Even Priscilla who speaks with Apollos does so with her husband, so we don’t really know much about the conversation. <br /><br /><i> If we do not have positional leadership - that is, if we are not following a man just because he got elected Big Chief - what are we following? The Voice of the Shepherd, Jesus. So you must either say that Jesus does not speak through women (contradicted by OT and NT prophetesses) or say that we should not follow them when they speak of Christ.<br /><br />In short, I don't see the rules-based approach coming out ahead any way you play it. Making a rule against women leadership or for it either way misses the point: THIS is my beloved Son, hear HIM. If God can speak through a donkey he can certainly speak through a woman!</i><br /><br />I am not saying that at all and the either-or is not warranted. God certainly speaks through women, in the way of His choosing. Women are specifically called to mentor younger women. It is not an inferior form of God working, it is just a different form. He also speaks through the Scriptures. If someone claims that God is speaking in a way that contradicts the Scripture, I have to question the veracity of their claim. <br /><br /><i> I tend to think that a healthy gathering of believers will recognize (or appreciate) men as its leaders because it is natural (a la your remark about child bearing); but this is not the same as a blanket rule to shut women up. Anyone's teaching, male or female, can be evaluated in light of Christ, and need not be evaluated by the gender of the speaker.</i><br /><br />If it were true that we would just naturally function as we should, most of what Paul wrote is irrelevant. Obviously there were issues that Paul was addressing and many of those very same issues are applicable today. I have no interest in “making” a woman submit to her husband or be silent in church or cover her head. If a sister chooses to not cover her head, the shame is hers not the church. If a wife does not submit to her husband, it is Christ she is disobeying, not her husband and not the elders.Arthur Sidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-58669954383522634192012-02-15T23:49:32.035-05:002012-02-15T23:49:32.035-05:00Please also reconsider your willingness to exegete...Please also reconsider your willingness to exegete half a thought from Paul's letter to Timothy. I agree that a confusing passage in Haggai shouldn't stop us from talking about Luke's Gospel (to randomly make an example), but if you can't explain the immediate context of a verse, you probably don't understand that verse. There's no shame in saying "This I don't understand." It's far less respectable to say "I don't know what's going on here but I know I'm right!"<br /><br />Paul's statement about a woman learning "in silence" can be equally well translated "in quietness," that is, without being argumentative. It's a very parallel thought to "without wrath or doubting" for men in v. 8 and fits the overall context. The gist is not that it is okay for a woman to be wrathful as long as she is quiet, and okay for a man to be disruptive or domineering as long as he is not angry; it's the same thought of peace in the church given a modulated expression based on gender norms but not absolutes; Paul is illustrating his thought, not exhaustively defining it.<br /><br />Likewise Paul does not mean "saved through childbearing" in the sense of eternal salvation. Having brought to mind the curses in Eden, he also mentions grace -- to physically survive childbirth. Again, I don't see Paul making an absolute guarantee, but a general remark on the grace of God toward those (he says "they," man and wife, not "she," the woman) who trust God for freedom from the curse.<br /><br />I don't think any solid exegesis can avoid the fact that Paul uses the sequence of events in Genesis to make a point, and following from that, he is making a point about headship. But his whole argument must be considered; that is, when he mentions Eve being deceived, he has indicated his concern with women teaching. As a consequence, we should not superstitiously forbid women speaking lest they magically trick us into sinning, but rather be mindful that if the men collectively are passively choosing not to test the teaching (of any teacher), but follow a woman uncritically, they will find themselves astray.<br /><br />The distinction I am trying to draw is between disallowing a woman ever to speak or every to do <b>some</b>thing which we have carefully and legalistically defined as teaching is not Paul's point. Adam's sin was not listening to Eve per se; it is not as though eating the fruit would have been okay if only Eve hadn't told him to do it. His sin was abdicating what he knew to be true because he liked Eve and didn't want to argue with her.Arlanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01463694761795698095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-29475173048896382922012-02-15T23:21:13.196-05:002012-02-15T23:21:13.196-05:00I feel you have not fully addressed the difference...I feel you have not fully addressed the difference between "woman" and "wife." I agree that a wife should submit (defer) to her husband AS witness of the relationship between Christ and the Church and ALSO as an example of Christ, and this CAN involve suffering. And on the other side of the fence, Hosea was called to keep loving a whore, who is an example of the church -- that is, you and me. We are whores that Christ keeps loving.<br /><br />Men and women fall short of the sacrificial, service-love that Christ shows us, so I don't chase anyone down to make them feel guilty about a damaging relationship they left. Perhaps if I know the person God will give me something to say; but perhaps not. They are his servants, not mine. But principally, I agree with the main line you are stating about wives.<br /><br />But your head covering passage itself shows that women are expected to speak in the assembly. Head covering can't even come up as an issue if women are only speaking at home.<br /><br />The fact that men are <b>mostly</b> mentioned teaching and leading cannot obliterate the times when women <b>are</b> mentioned: Deborah, Priscilla, Lydia, probably Junia.<br /><br />Men (mankind generally) are told to submit to their masters even if the masters are not fair. So the question of the fairness of the husband doesn't put me out much; unfairness is par for the Christian. But Paul's instruction on headcovering assumes women both pray and prophesy in the church.<br /><br />If we do <b>not</b> have positional leadership - that is, if we are not following a man just because he got elected Big Chief - what are we following? The Voice of the Shepherd, Jesus. So you must either say that Jesus does not speak through women (contradicted by OT and NT prophetesses) or say that we should not follow them when they speak of Christ.<br /><br />In short, I don't see the rules-based approach coming out ahead any way you play it. Making a rule against women leadership or for it either way misses the point: THIS is my beloved Son, hear HIM. If God can speak through a donkey he can certainly speak through a woman!<br /><br />I tend to think that a healthy gathering of believers will recognize (or appreciate) men as its leaders because it is natural (a la your remark about child bearing); but this is not the same as a blanket rule to shut women up. Anyone's teaching, male or female, can be evaluated in light of Christ, and need not be evaluated by the gender of the speaker.<br /><br />I think we have Biblical ground to say that a wife is not to argue with (question) her husband in public. She defers to him as any person would to their boss--not because he is a better person, but, as you say, positionally. But where she is not contesting with her own husband there is nothing to keep her silent.Arlanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01463694761795698095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-57032133746815545392011-06-13T13:59:42.543-04:002011-06-13T13:59:42.543-04:00Actually Rhonda I don't get your point. I am n...Actually Rhonda I don't get your point. I am not sure you made one. You said I was wrong but very little else. If you can tell me where I am wrong (or perhaps where the Scriptures are wrong in your opinion) it would be helpful. <br /><br />The issue of submission is about submitting to yoru husband out as a sign of submission to Christ. If you submit to your husband and he mistreats you, the unfaithfulness is his, not yours. I don't see that we are given permission to rewrite the Scriptures based on our situation. I am truly sorry for the hurt caused you by your ex-husband. I am also truly sorry that your experience has caused you to question or reject the Scriptures. I would ask you to take a deep breath, reread what I wrote and tell me where I have misinterpreted the Word.Arthur Sidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-45305286588396408662011-06-13T13:23:46.195-04:002011-06-13T13:23:46.195-04:00Arthur, if men would be the kind of men you descri...Arthur, if men would be the kind of men you describe here, I would only have a SMALL problem with this article. You don't address in this patriarchy business what we (women)are supposed to do when our (former) husbands are unfaithful and don't have our best interests at heart. Also, about that scripture in Timothy, "women will be saved with childbearing," do you really think that all women who have not given birth are going to hell? Seriously? I think not. Patriarchy is NONSENSE. These are minor, petty doctrines that had more meaning when they were written than they do today. Your article seems to give the attitude that you are proud of yourself for being male and being superior to all women, in your own opinion. Women are gifted people, too, not just brood mares. You assume here that all husbands are the same, all relationships are the same and that everything should be uniform. I disagree. I could go on and on, but will stop at this. You get my point.Rhondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694022900170942587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-25782130858123070732011-05-06T08:35:49.232-04:002011-05-06T08:35:49.232-04:00Eric
In fairness, while the word "patriarchy...Eric<br /><br />In fairness, while the word "patriarchy" doesn't appear in the Bible, two men are referred to as "patriarchs" (Acts 2:29 and Hebrews 7:4) in the ESV, NIV, NASB and KJV as well as several other places where it is used the in the plural. So it is a perfectly acceptable word.<br /><br />In part I chose to use that word because it has been hijacked by some on the extremes of the "patriarchy" movement as well as those who use it as a pejorative. Just as "homeschool" doesn't appear in the Scriptures but the principle does, I feel comfortable using the word, I likewise feel comfortable using the word "patriarchy" to describe male servant headship in the family and the home.Arthur Sidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-72024448802662402682011-05-05T12:42:02.050-04:002011-05-05T12:42:02.050-04:00Arthur,
John is expressing the same thing I was t...Arthur,<br /><br />John is expressing the same thing I was trying to get across at Alan's. The word "Patriarchy" simply does not occur in the scriptures (neither do egalitarian or complimentarian or John the Baptist). Because that term doesn't mean the same thing to different people, it isn't actually used in the scriptures, and therefore you have to expend effort to show (2 or 3 posts later) that you don't mean what they heard, I wouldn't have used it so as not to offend. Plus, you are then in the position of competing doctrines with all those other "patriarchy" teachings you don't agree with. <br /><br />I've asked you in the past about which "law" Paul is referring to in 1 Cor. 14.<br /><br />You were all over it in the Old Testament post. It's the book of the Law (not a specific command), including Genesis. I believe that 1 Timothy 2 reinforces that. I've only met one other person that holds to the women must be silent teaching that could explain that.Eric Holcombenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-40669199601896220002011-05-02T10:32:42.830-04:002011-05-02T10:32:42.830-04:00John M
I pray the same thing for myself! I am not...John M<br /><br />I pray the same thing for myself! I am not an easy man to submit to, it is a credit to my wife's obedience to Christ and her faith that she does so in spite of my failings.Arthur Sidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-9002960516258510612011-05-02T10:31:51.775-04:002011-05-02T10:31:51.775-04:00Aussie John
As I mentioned in the initial posts, ...Aussie John<br /><br />As I mentioned in the initial posts, I don't think the modern dictionary definition of patrirachy is terribly useful because it is based on our cultural use of the word. What I am trying to get at is that patriarchy is not a "bad" word and attempting to define it in the proper context from Scripture. I think what I am describing, what you astutley describe as "Christ-like servant-leadership in the New Testament" in the church and home IS patriarchy.Arthur Sidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-28382162136770372532011-04-30T08:59:19.617-04:002011-04-30T08:59:19.617-04:00Wow brother! What an excellent treatment of some r...Wow brother! What an excellent treatment of some really difficult stuff. I love your forthrightness and willingness to speak exactly what the Bible says. All I can pray is that with my wife, I will become a more Christlike loving man. That kind of man is at least a little easier to submit to. ;)John Mureikohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08340161134508966287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-14449358027607327852011-04-29T17:38:57.151-04:002011-04-29T17:38:57.151-04:00Arthur,
Fifty years ago I began my marriage belie...Arthur,<br /><br />Fifty years ago I began my marriage believing what the common, and true, understanding of "patriarchy" was. <br /><br />It is only by the grace of God that I leaned what it does not mean for those who are under new ownership, as disciples of Christ.<br /><br />You said, "Patriarchy in the New Testament is not about control<br /><br />It is not about power<br /><br />It is not about authority over women".<br /><br />It seems to me that you are speaking of Biblical family leadership rather than patriarchy, which DOES imply "control", "power" and "authority over" others.<br /><br />The Oxford Dictionary says<br /><br />"patriarchy<br /><br />Pronunciation:/ˈpeɪtrɪɑːki/<br />noun (plural patriarchies)<br />[mass noun]<br /><br /> a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line.<br /> a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.<br /> [count noun] a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.<br /><br />Merriam-Webster says:<br /><br />PATRIARCHY<br />1 : social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power<br /><br />2: a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy<br /><br />The Macmillan Dictionary similarly describes patriarchy:<br /><br />a society, system, or organization in which men have all or most of the power and influence<br /><br />"Power" or "control" are the common denominator.<br /><br />May I suggest your definition of leadership of the family be slightly altered to read:<br /><br />Christ-like servant-leadership in the New Testament is not about control<br /><br />It is not about power<br /><br />It is not about authority over women.Aussie Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16199918171163666399noreply@blogger.com