 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | I give examples of a husband asking his wife for the keys or cell phone if she is not in a normal mental or emotional state or asking for the cell phone if she's texting her old boyfriend, and from that you conclude the above, taking the keys so junior can't see grandma. |
Actually, no. I conclude that taking the keys so Junior can't see grandma is a scenario that might clarify your insistence that a wife must be subject to her husband IN EVERY THING and your insistence that a person who doesn't agree to that doesn't believe the Bible.
(You do underestimate my logic apparently.)
Last edited by bonnie knox on 3/14/16 10:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/14/16 10:26 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Link, my 'unreasonable scenario' happens. You are avoiding dealing with the practical outworkings of what you believe by calling this scenario unreasonable. The man in my scenario is behaving in an unreasonable manner, but I sincerely hope you are not suggesting this is an unreasonable example to use to clarify what you mean.
As to what you could LOGICALLY conclude from what I've written, I think one could conclude that I don't think Ephesians 5:24 demands that the wife in the scenario I mentioned must give over her keys and phone.
| Quote: | | I could just as easily conclude, based on what youv'e written, that you think the wife should say, "No, I'm not going to submit to you", then dropkick her husband in the head, take his keys and drive the truck he just waxed through the mud to grandma's house through the muddy path instead of on the highway with little Johnny in the car. (That last paragraph is tongue-in-cheek. I'm just pointing out the unreasonable scenario you presented me with.) |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/14/16 10:38 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Link, can I logically conclude from this that you are saying that the husband in the scenario I spelled out does have the authority to take the wife's keys and cell phone from her? And I did say that this was a pattern with that husband.
| Quote: | | Should a wife submit to her husband in this scenario? What does the Bible say? The Bible says for wives to submit in everything. If there weren't room for disagreement, there wouldn't be a need for submission. Husbands and wives would always make the same decision. The husband isn't asking his wife to sin. Maybe if he never let the poor kid see grandma, then it would become an issue of sin. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/14/16 10:44 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Which would be a better way to handle this, for the wife to say, "I'm not going to listen to you, you controlling blowhard", argue with him, grab the keys, and drive off, or let the guy feel guilty about it the next day when little Johnny is moping around talking about wanting to see his grandma. |
Feeling guilty? You know, I don't know if you read the link I posted earlier. You keep referring to all the many complementarians who believe in complete submission but not in wife beatings. The link I posted, 'Not all comps.' The guy wants to know if not all comps believe submission requires tolerating abuse, why do prominent spokesmen of the complementarian persuasion say the things they do. Interestingly enough, one of the examples is Dr. James Dobson suggesting that a woman might suffer a beating in order to appeal to a man's sense of guilt when he realizes what he has done.
A typical cycle for abusers is to show remorse after abuse. It would be terribly and dangerously naïve to assume that meant a change of ways. And I think it is naïve to assume the man in the scenario I mention would feel guilty. Perhaps he would or perhaps he would tell Junior if he whines one more time about going to Grandma's he is going to get a blistering from the belt.
Link, do you have any data on how many men would actually feel guilty in such a scenario?
Last edited by bonnie knox on 3/14/16 11:33 am; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/14/16 10:57 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
We are back to the OP.
Ruth Tucker said
'The relationship between domestic violence and male headship would not exist if all husbands loved their wives as Christ loves the Church. But sinful human nature as it is can easily transform headship into domination and from there to domestic violence. A husband committed to equality in marriage may also become violent with his wife, but he has absolutely no doctrine of headship to fall back on. She provoked me simply doesn’t wash.'
She also said
'During some twenty years of marriage his domineering demands, supported by the doctrine of male headship, spiraled into terrorizing threats and violent attacks.'
I do believe she is saying that the complementarian view of male headship excuses the 'domineering demands' which then led to abuse.
| Quote: | bonnie knox wrote:
| Quote: | Link, you keep saying that I have painted your view as leading to wife beating, but that is not what I have actually said, either!!!!
However, I do believe that you have the black and white view of Ephesians 5:24, and I believe that black and white view is what Tucker is talking about in her title. |
And you think that view is what lead Tucker to allegedly engage in spousal abuse? |
Last edited by bonnie knox on 3/14/16 11:13 am; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/14/16 10:58 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Patrick Harris |
| Link wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | Is your source scholarly, using legitimate methods of data collection?
We might ask the same of the broken link you posted on p. 2 which you claimed said that the number of cases of domestic violence involving women toward men was 40%. Also, do you agree with the way they defined domestic violence in this study? In other words, if in your way of saying it, 'a one-off time' a woman calls her husband a black-hearted buzzard--did the study count that 'name calling' as domestic violence?
(The reason I ask is because once before you cited such a study, and it did indeed have questions such as, "In the last 6 months, have you called your intimate partner a name?") |
Fair enough, but I'm not sitting in a counseling session telling a couple to break up for some incident two weeks ago, either. |
I have zero tolerance for any form of domestic abuse. I've seen first-hand the results and devastation it caused in my family.
If my advice to someone who is a victim of that abuse violates the "traditional, historical, straightforward view" of scripture then so be it. I won't apologize for erring of the side of caution when someones health and well-being is in jeopardy.
In addition, I also won't give the abuser the benefit of the doubt, which seems to follow your thinking. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1323
3/14/16 11:08 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: |
Actually, no. I conclude that taking the keys so Junior can't see grandma is a scenario that might clarify your insistence that a wife must be subject to her husband IN EVERY THING and your insistence that a person who doesn't agree to that doesn't believe the Bible.
(You do underestimate my logic apparently.) |
Here is the wording of the passage from Ephesians 5:24 in the NIV,
24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Can we agree on that? Do you have any reason to think this and many other translations that say basically the same thing are in error?
Can we agree on the wording of the translation before going on to how to interpret it?
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/14/16 1:13 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Link, my 'unreasonable scenario' happens. You are avoiding dealing with the practical outworkings of what you believe by calling this scenario unreasonable. The man in my scenario is behaving in an unreasonable manner, but I sincerely hope you are not suggesting this is an unreasonable example to use to clarify what you mean.
As to what you could LOGICALLY conclude from what I've written, I think one could conclude that I don't think Ephesians 5:24 demands that the wife in the scenario I mentioned must give over her keys and phone.
|
You jumped from my example of a man taking his wife's keys when she is mentally ill or emotionally unstable to a man taking his wife's keys because supper was 5 minutes late and not letting their boy see grandma.
But Bonnie, you shouldn't have left out the rest of the story in the scenario, that Grandma is horribly mentally ill and burns cigarette butts on poor Johnny every time he goes over there. The wife refuses to believe this, and gets very emotional whenever the topic comes up, but does accept the idea of submitting by giving over her keys for other reasons. The husband's approach may have been a bit sneaky, maybe cowardly, but he was taking the keys to protect little Johnny from the cigarette butts.
How could you have left that out of our hypothetical scenario?
But let's consider the issue of submission here. Whether the husband should take the wife's keys or not is a different issue from whether or not the wife should give them up. The husband could be oppressive and domineering, and he'll have to be accountable to God over that issue. The wife is told to submit to her husband, and she'll have to be accountable to God over that.
Do you think the wife does not have to obey the scripture to submit to her husband in this scenario? If you don't like the wording of the question, explain why, and if she doesn't give up the keys, please explain how that is not, not submitting.
Or if you think the verses don't apply because we live in a different culture, explain your thoughts on that explain how that's different from the homosexual advocate's approach to interpreting scriptures like Romans 1.
_________________
Link
Last edited by Link on 3/14/16 1:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/14/16 1:20 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
dup deleted
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/14/16 1:20 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Prominent spokesmen of complementarianism? Historically, Christians have been 'complementarian' even if they haven't used the term. Plenty of Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc. have views along these lines from reading what the text actually says, without forming some kind of cohesive movement over the subject. Many Christians, including preachers, interpret the Bible that way in a straightforward manner without writing books on it. The little niche of churches participating in a 'revival' of Calvinist doctrine who have made use of online media are just a little niche. It's not like the represent everyone who holds to those views.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/14/16 1:24 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | You jumped from my example of a man taking his wife's keys when she is mentally ill or emotionally unstable to a man taking his wife's keys because supper was 5 minutes late and not letting their boy see grandma. |
Jumped? I have no idea what your point is by saying I jumped from one scenario to another. Is there something wrong with using a second example?
I brought up a scenario in which the husband is controlling and domineering to see how you would answer that.
If I'm not mistaken you believe that wifely submission would mean that the woman in the scenario would have to hand over the keys,* and my belief is that all of scripture taken as a whole would not require her to do that.
I really have no interest in developing lots of qualifications to the scenarios; I'm simply trying to address how, as Ruth Tucker puts it, one's position 'plays out in practical terms.'
As to the prominent voices, I could add the modifier 'contemporary' prominent voices if that would appease you because I do believe those were the ones being addressed in the blog post I was referring to.
As a sidenote, you might be underestimating the influence of the neo-Calvinist on the Southern Baptists, but that's just a thought.
A couple of final points and then I'm done completely with posting on this thread. Rebecca Merrill Groothius points out that historically, people have read the Bible and still held to Aristotle's belief that men should rule women because women were inferior to men. Only in recent times, have evangelical patriarchalists tried to divorce themselves from this premise that women are inferior (while still holding to the conclusion that men are supposed to rule women). The straightforward manner you speak of is no more that a hermeneutical lens colored with the culturally driven idea that men should rule women because men are superior.
* If that is not your position, a clarification would be appreciated. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/14/16 6:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
I started looking at this thread last night that I had not previously read.
I noticed today that the KJV of Ephesians 5:24 says, " Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." Maybe one of our Biblical scholars could tell us if that lends that makes a difference. ("everything"-NIV vs "every thing"-KJV).
It's interesting that you are debating abuse as a church issue when it is, in fact, a legal issue. Not that she probably called the authorities, but it should have been dealt with as a legal issue not as a church issue.
The other thing that seems to be left out of this conversation is that when a minister's/pastor's wife is abused, she risks her whole life in reporting it. If she doesn't work outside the home - and sometimes if she does - she risks losing her family/children, her home, her livelihood, her ministry. This is something huge to consider.
Not only that, if her husband is charming and well liked in public, I can see her wondering "What if they believe him instead of me?" Not to mention the fact that abuse breaks down a person's confidence. If she has insecurity issues already, it only magnifies them. And if she does report him and then winds up back in the home with him...it will only be worse.
I have always advised women to leave if they are in physical danger. God can restore your marriage, but He can't do anything if you're dead.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
3/14/16 8:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: |
If I'm not mistaken you believe that wifely submission would mean that the woman in the scenario would have to hand over the keys,* and my belief is that all of scripture taken as a whole would not require her to do that.
|
Why don't you show some specifics of the 'whole' here that support your idea that he wife is free from her obligation to submit to her husband in this particular case?
The whole 'cultural context' or 'scripture as a whole' thing seems can be a smoke screen, or an excuse to do away with having to follow a teaching one does not like.. You throw out the phrase 'scripture as a whole' to argue that a specific scripture doesn't apply. Why not point out some of those pieces of the whole that make you think the commands to wives to submit to their husbands don't apply in this case?
In practical outworking, it doesn't really seem like you believe wives should submit to their husbands. In another thread, you had a problem with the idea husband being 'in charge'. What does a wife submitting to her husband mean at all if she doesn't submit when there is a difference of opinion?
| Quote: | | Rebecca Merrill Groothius points out that historically, people have read the Bible and still held to Aristotle's belief that men should rule women because women were inferior to men. Only in recent times, have evangelical patriarchalists tried to divorce themselves from this premise that women are inferior (while still holding to the conclusion that men are supposed to rule women). The straightforward manner you speak of is no more that a hermeneutical lens colored with the culturally driven idea that men should rule women because men are superior. |
Jewish men in the first century believed that wives were supposed to submit to their husbands. The authors of the Talmud did. Were they heavily influenced by Aristotle? Probably not if we are talking about the Judean type Jews who wrote these documents. Do you think Paul and Peter wrote what they did because they were influenced by Aristotle?
'Superior' has different meanings as well, even in English. "I'll talk with your superiors" doesn't imply anything about moral superiority or superiority in terms of skill, value or a wide variety of other dimensions.
Aristotle was very influential on the thinking of philosophers, including theologians. But we should focus on what God wants and consider what the Bible actually says.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/15/16 8:26 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
