Re: POLITICS: RELIGION - What is the correct translation of &#039;s use o...

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

March 15, 2004

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

http://www.victorshepherd.on.ca/Sermons/What%20Did%20%20Really%20Say%20A

----------------------------

> RE: POLITICS: RELIGION - What is the correct translation

>of 's use o...

>

>I don't see the necessity to choose one of the pair

>as final decision maker ahead of time. - Marty

>-------------

>

>I agree, Marty. Historically, and even contemporarily to some extent, the

>patriarchal system has reigned. It has been the model since civilization

>began, with few exceptions. However, to take a Bible verse or two and try

>to make it fit in our times, then we must go way back. We must become very

>reactionary. For women could not vote, be educated, have rights, etc. ad

>naseum, back in the days of St. . Thus, to even begin to talk about

>these arguments in proper context, we must consider the times we

>are dealing

>with. Does anyone really want to go back to they days where women were

>property? If not, then the arguments don't hold for modern relationships.

>Period.

>

>Deanna

>

March 15, 2004

> Re: POLITICS: RELIGION - What is the correct translation

>of 's use o...

>

>In a message dated 3/14/04 10:44:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>s.fisher22@... writes:

>

>> No,this is not clear at all. A husband and wife can come to a decision

>> *together* (as many often do), and decide that they will fight a certain

>> battle, and that the husband will be the first to leap in. No " obeying "

>> necessary.

>

>But everyone agrees it is ideal to come to a decision together. (Is there

>anyone who actually questions this?) I think the question is what

>happens when

>that doesn't happen...

My point was that couples can MAKE that happen, even when it seems they're

at an impasse.

>

>> Perhaps, His plan is for equality of the sexes and our rebelling against

>> Him

>> is what brought us inequality, as you mentioned above. My only question

>> about is why do women pay the price and not men, since both

>rebelled against

>> God?

>

>If it's descriptive rather than prescriptive, the point is moot. If it's

>prescriptive, it wouldn't be right to say that only women are

>punished, since the

>man, the woman, and the serpent are all given " punishments. "

Why is it moot if it's descriptive?

> MY example is based in

>> reality, as it is one that couples do all the time in their

>marriages, and

>> which I'm sure many of us on this list do rather routinely in our

>> relationships.

>

>The majority of marriages end in divorce, so obviously it doesn't work as

>ideally as you are proposing.

First, I'm not sure we can make the leap that most current US marriages end

in divorce due to lack of the husband's " headship " - that's a HUGE leap.

Secondly, let's qualify that properly to say the majority of marriages *in

the US* today end in divorce, unless it's a worldwide phenomenon and I'm not

aware of it. Nonetheless, I'm sure many of us are living examples or can

cite examples of successful marriages in which there is no headship (my

parents are the example that comes first to mind for me). The fact that they

exist negates the headship argument unless you have statistics that

concretely link lack of a husband's headship with the divorce rate. If I'm

not mistaken, a number of European countries have even less traditional

marriages than the US - what is *their* divorce rate? We'd best get some

more data points before jumping to the conclusion that marriages that don't

have a " headship " tend to end in divorce, which seems to be what you are

*implying*.

Thirdly, the divorce rate worldwide probably has very little reflection on

the *success* of marriages simply because divorce is not allowed or simply

not done in many cultures despite the fact that a marriage is a dismal

failure. So there are PLENTY of absolutely failed relationships in which the

partners remain married for whatever reason. Which means the divorce rate is

not a very good gauge of the success of the marriage, so may not even be

worth consideration in terms of the success of " headship " .

>

> >Why come up with a bunch of arbitrary options that for all

>> intents and purposes, no one's ever likely to use, rather than to speak

>> about the very real option that probably most couples engage in?

>

>My intent was to give an example of how the husband could have

>decision-making power and be serving the wife at the same time.

>That's what you asked for;

>that's what you gave. Now you're " moving the goalposts, " it seems

>to me, and

>debating whether this example shows that the husband *should* have

>decision-making power, when that wasn't what it was intended to do.

Ok, fair enough. I guess the " how " and " should " are becoming a bit merged in

my mind since you seem to be a proponent of " should " while simultaneously

explaining the " how " . I should've been more careful to separate what you

seem to be promoting from your explanations of " how " it could work.

>> There are times that one partner will concede to the other and

>other times

>> it will be reversed. So I do not agree with you that the *hierarchy* is

>> necessary, and I believe this is disproven constantly in many

>marriages time

>> and time again.

>

>If you get married, by probability you are not likely to stay married. I

>don't really see a " hierarchy " that's being described here anyway.

Well, I've explained many times how, on a practical level, it IS a

hierarchy, but you seem to be looking at it just from a spiritual

perspective and not seeing any hierarchy therein. I see it as a hierarchy

both spiritually and practically, but my main point is that in the every day

life of married couples it does end up being a hierarchy since the husband

is making the final decisions FOR the wife and family. IOW, the wife's

decision making power, which, for most contemporary women in the US, is

something they would have had PRIOR to marriage, is taken from them. OR they

voluntarily give it up when marrying a Christian man who believes in

headship translating to his " governance " over marital decisions...or at

least translates to him having some final casting vote when they disagree.

You paint the best case scenario of a husband who always takes his wife's

and family's best interests to heart in his casting vote and I'm sure there

are husbands out there like that. But practically speaking, I'd guess there

are many others who don't, so the model of headship ends up not being

universally practiced as it was intended IF it was indeed intended to mean

the type of " governance " that you've been laying out.

>> >* A husband who is the HEAD but SERVES his wife, makes the final

>> >decision to

>> >take the job or reject the job, but his decision is not

>justified until he

>> >takes full input from his wife, considers the needs of the entire

>> >family as a

>> >unit, but puts his wife's desires above his own.

>>

>> Under your " governance " model, this would be the best case scenario. But

>> unfortunately, we see many men who believe in the governance

>model in which

>> the husbands don't put their wives needs above their own, nor

>even on parity

>> with their own.

>

>So what? Your question was how can a husband be a decision-maker and a

>servant of his wife at the same time, and that's an example.

>Furthermore, your

>objection that some couples will arbitrarily accept part of the

>passage and

>arbitrarily reject another part of the passage is obviously--

>well, arbitrary.

No my objection is not arbitrary - it's well documented that some Christian

husbands arbitrarily adopt the decision-making aspect of headship without

adopting the SERVING their wives aspect, as Dr. Shepard, Professor of

Historical Theology and Chair of Wesley Studies at Tyndale Seminary, wrote

in the first article I posted on this subject.

>

>> Does it say somewhere in the Bible that Christ is the " kephale " of the

>> universe? Or the " arche " of the universe?

>

>The kephale, not the archos. The order of the universe is upheld through

>Christ-- he is the cornerstone that holds the arch of the universe

>together.

So, in this instance " kephale " is used as " cornerstone " not physical head?

We were discussing how he's the physical head of things and how that

represents the husband's " headship " but this doesn't seem to fit that

analogy if kephale here means " cornerstone. "

>> >That doesn't matter though. The leader still leads the battle,

>> >and therefore

>> >has some decision-making power as to what battles they enter

>and how they

>> >enter them that the followers don't have.

>>

>> But that doesn't speak to the translation we were discussing, which is

>> *first* into battle, with no leadership necessarily implied.

>

>I suppose if you were to erase the meanings of " first " and " lead "

>and invent

>new ones there might be some way in which this sentence works; otherwise,

>someone who goes first into the battle is leading the other(s)

>into the battle.

I'm not sure why you insist that " first " into battle MUST imply leadership

as in " governance " . It's simply not true. Were the grunts on the front lines

in Vietnam " leading " the battle, as in the ones deciding how and where the

battle would be fought? No, they were sent to the front by higher ups behind

the front lines. " First " does not necessarily denote " leader " as in

" governance " , which is the translation we've been discussing.

>

>> >That's roughly analogous to what I was saying before about power

>> >differentials. In the spiritual ideal, the husbands decisions

>> >don't come from his own

>> >will, but from his following the will of God, and when the husband

>> >and wife are

>> >both submitting wholly to God, there are no distinct opposing

>> >wills and ther

>> >efore no power differential-- much like a " kephale " of a platoon

>> >who is taking

>> >orders from a general to enter a given battle as you say above.

>>

>> You are assuming that all decisions will be black and white -

>either against

>> God's will, or in alignment with it.

>

>No, I'm not, I'm assuming that to the extent they've submitted

>themselves to

>God they don't have disagreements. It's not really a practical issue, and

>it's necessarily an impractical assumption.

I disagree. I gave the example of deciding on a curriculum to homeschool

their children. OK, so they've submitted themselves to God. Yet they

disagree on which curriculum to select. How do you think submission to God

automatically makes them agree on which curriculum to use?

>

> So it's not a matter of " aligning " with God's will and a power flow

>> and all that nice stuff. It's a matter of making a practical

>decision as to

>> which curriculum to implement. In your " governance " model, the

>husband will

>> make the final decision even though there is no correct " in

>alignment with

>> God " decision. The husband's position in this instance is one of

>shear power

>> in the relationship since God is not making the decision with he and his

>> wife merely following it. I suppose you could say he should put his kids'

>> and wife's need above his and make a decision based on that, but

>in the end,

>> HE makes the decision. I don't see how that's any different than

>rulership,

>> technically or otherwise.

>

>That's possible, or the child-rearing might be delegated to the

>woman,

Who has *delegation* power?

or the

>man and the woman might both be in charge of different aspects of

>raising the

>children. Who's doing the teaching? If the woman's doing the teaching,

>obviously she should have some sort of disproportionate control

>over what's being

>taught, since the teaching is essentially just an interaction between the

>woman and the children, and it wouldn't make much sense for the

>man to have

>control the specific interactions between the woman and her

>children, or anyone

>else. That would seem more of a " ruler " than a " leader. " In the

> " leader " or

> " first into battle " model that I'm trying to convey, you might say

>the husband is

>in charge of the " foreign policy " or something maybe.

LOL! " ...or something maybe " ?? You seem as unclear about this whole thing as

I am. <g>

OK, I understand you're trying to lay forth a model based on your

understanding of the scripture in which husbands have *some* sort of casting

vote, but are not in a position of power such as a " ruler " would be,

especially if he truly *serves* his wife with all his casting votes. And

after all this I will say I DO understand your model and think it's a

*possible* model based on what limited understanding I have of the

Scriptures so far, but ONLY if the husband truly understands that his

primary role as " leader " is as *servant* to wife and family, NOT " governor " .

>>

>> " There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor

>free, there is

>> neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. "

>>

>> Where in here is there any conformance to the notion that one group shall

>> " govern " another?

>

>You might want to read the rest of 's letters before you jump to

>conclusions about the interpretation of certain passages.

>makes distinctions

>between the roles of men and women and slaves and masters, etc.

Fair enough, but here's a passage from Dr. Shepard that supports my view.

And since he teaches historical theology, I'd guess he's pretty well read on

the subject and not " jumping to conclusions " about interpretations of the

quoted passage. This is not to say his interpretation is correct, but to say

that some who are well versed in biblical scripture interpret that passage

same as I did.

" In his letter to the church in Galatia (which letter is traditionally known

as the charter of Christian liberty) states without qualification that

in Jesus Christ there is neither male nor female. Regardless of how any

society or any subgroup in a society treats women, in Christ

men and women stand on level ground. In Christ there is neither male

domination nor female subservience. When the apostle exclaims, " In Christ

there is neither male nor female " he is not saying that sexual

differentiation has been blurred (men are still men, women still women, and

vivez la difference!); he is insisting that in Christ any notion of gender

superiority is groundless, false, iniquitous. "

bout%20Women.htm

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

March 15, 2004

> RE: POLITICS: RELIGION - What is the correct translation

>of 's use o...

>

>I don't see the necessity to choose one of the pair

>as final decision maker ahead of time. - Marty

>-------------

>

>I agree, Marty. Historically, and even contemporarily to some extent, the

>patriarchal system has reigned. It has been the model since civilization

>began, with few exceptions. However, to take a Bible verse or two and try

>to make it fit in our times, then we must go way back. We must become very

>reactionary. For women could not vote, be educated, have rights, etc. ad

>naseum, back in the days of St. . Thus, to even begin to talk about

>these arguments in proper context, we must consider the times we

>are dealing

>with. Does anyone really want to go back to they days where women were

>property? If not, then the arguments don't hold for modern relationships.

>Period.

Deanna,

I have very limited knowledge on this subject, but my understanding is that

BEFORE 's time at the very beginnings of Christianity, women had much

more power and freedom and were even deaconnesses in the Church. Those

freedoms and power, as I understand it were eventually taken from them,

although I'm not sure the timeline. , I think wrote at a time when

Greece saw women as inferior to men and the Greek philosophers taught that

men should be *rulers* in their marriage with women under their command.

That is the context i which wrote about the husband/wife relationship.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

March 15, 2004

In a message dated 3/15/04 8:46:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> >If it's descriptive rather than prescriptive, the point is moot. If it's

> >prescriptive, it wouldn't be right to say that only women are

> >punished, since the

> >man, the woman, and the serpent are all given " punishments. "

>

> Why is it moot if it's descriptive?

Because if God isn't prescribing it, what is there to question? The obvious

answer to me seems to be that men are bigger and stronger than women, and tend

to play a larger role in the supply of food, especially in animal-food based

societies, which puts them at a material advantage.

By the way, here's what St. Palamas has to say about descriptivism

versus prescriptivism:

" [God] did not say to Adam: return to whence you were taken; but He said to

him: Earth you are and unto the earth you shall return . . . He did not say:

'in whatsoever day ye shall eat of it, die!' but, 'in whatsoever day ye shall

eat of it, ye shall surely die.' Nor did He afterwards say: 'return now unto

the earth,' but He said, 'you shall return,' in this manner forewarning, justly

permitting, and not obstructing what shall come to pass. "

> >MY example is based in

> >>reality, as it is one that couples do all the time in their

> >marriages, and

> >>which I'm sure many of us on this list do rather routinely in our

> >>relationships.

> >

> >The majority of marriages end in divorce, so obviously it doesn't work as

> >ideally as you are proposing.

>

> First, I'm not sure we can make the leap that most current US marriages end

> in divorce due to lack of the husband's " headship " - that's a HUGE leap.

I agree. But it isn't a leap to say that simply " working it out " in every

scenario is vastly more easily said than done.

>

> Secondly, let's qualify that properly to say the majority of marriages *in

> the US* today end in divorce, unless it's a worldwide phenomenon and I'm not

> aware of it.

I think it's typical in Europe too. I think historically it's more or less

been true whenever it's been made relatively easy to get divorces.

Nonetheless, I'm sure many of us are living examples or can

> cite examples of successful marriages in which there is no headship (my

> parents are the example that comes first to mind for me). The fact that they

> exist negates the headship argument unless you have statistics that

> concretely link lack of a husband's headship with the divorce rate. If I'm

> not mistaken, a number of European countries have even less traditional

> marriages than the US - what is *their* divorce rate? We'd best get some

> more data points before jumping to the conclusion that marriages that don't

> have a " headship " tend to end in divorce, which seems to be what you are

> *implying*.

Another important factor would be the religiosity of the family. I've read

that Bible Belt fundamentalist families have much higher rates of divorce and

abuse than marriages from other groups in the US.

>

> Thirdly, the divorce rate worldwide probably has very little reflection on

> the *success* of marriages simply because divorce is not allowed or simply

> not done in many cultures despite the fact that a marriage is a dismal

> failure. So there are PLENTY of absolutely failed relationships in which the

> partners remain married for whatever reason. Which means the divorce rate is

> not a very good gauge of the success of the marriage, so may not even be

> worth consideration in terms of the success of " headship " .

But it means the marriages aren't sucessful when the divorce is present.

That was my main point, and I guess it isn't really a full response to your

argument.

> Ok, fair enough. I guess the " how " and " should " are becoming a bit merged

> in

> my mind since you seem to be a proponent of " should " while simultaneously

> explaining the " how " . I should've been more careful to separate what you

> seem to be promoting from your explanations of " how " it could work.

For that reason, I'm unlikely to response point-by-point to your next email,

which I haven't yet read, and think we should probably start over again, since

our multiple discussions have become far to merged to make any sense out of,

and since I'm finding myself defending hypotheticals as if their were solid

beliefs of mine, which is confusing.

> Well, I've explained many times how, on a practical level, it IS a

> hierarchy, but you seem to be looking at it just from a spiritual

> perspective and not seeing any hierarchy therein.

That's because the passage is meant spiritually. I'm not saying there isn't

supposed to be any practical application of it-- I haven't thought it through

enough-- but it's clear that calling it " a profound mystery " that he's

talking about a spiritual phenomenon.

Also, you are looking at it completely divorced from Christian spirituality,

which I see as a pointless endeavor.

> >So what? Your question was how can a husband be a decision-maker and a

> >servant of his wife at the same time, and that's an example.

> >Furthermore, your

> >objection that some couples will arbitrarily accept part of the

> >passage and

> >arbitrarily reject another part of the passage is obviously--

> >well, arbitrary.

>

> No my objection is not arbitrary - it's well documented that some Christian

> husbands arbitrarily adopt the decision-making aspect of headship without

> adopting the SERVING their wives aspect, as Dr. Shepard, Professor of

> Historical Theology and Chair of Wesley Studies at Tyndale Seminary, wrote

> in the first article I posted on this subject.

It's arbitrary in terms of your questioning the model lined out in the

passage (or one theoretical model depending on interpretation). If most

Christians

obey part of it and not the other, that indicts the Christians who aren't

following the passage, not the passage itself.

> >>Does it say somewhere in the Bible that Christ is the " kephale " of the

> >>universe? Or the " arche " of the universe?

> >

> >The kephale, not the archos. The order of the universe is upheld through

> >Christ-- he is the cornerstone that holds the arch of the universe

> >together.

>

> So, in this instance " kephale " is used as " cornerstone " not physical head?

> We were discussing how he's the physical head of things and how that

> represents the husband's " headship " but this doesn't seem to fit that

> analogy if kephale here means " cornerstone. "

If it said Christ is the " kephale " and the universe is the " soma " I'd say

that kephale seems to mean the physical head as of a body, like it says in

relation to Christ and the Church or the husband and the wife. In the latter

two,

the Church and the wife are both called the " soma, " that is, " the body, " and I

really can't see any possible rational objection to saying that the " kephale "

here is that of a physical, bodily head. If you aren't going to admit that

this is beyond obviousness, I'm not going to bother talking about it anymore.

I shouldn't have said " cornerstone. " I think I should have said " keystone "

as in the peak of an arch. Essentially it means that Christ in his divinity is

the fundamental support of the universe and its order, and the order of the

universe proceeds from Christ. That also seems to imply some sort of

governance as well-- not the kind of governance engaged in by a ruler, but the

kind

engaged in by a mechanical part, or, say, a keystone.

> I'm not sure why you insist that " first " into battle MUST imply leadership

> as in " governance " . It's simply not true.

If someone else is making the decision for them to lead the battle, and they

have no authority over making any changes to the course they take, then that's

probably true.

> Were the grunts on the front lines

> in Vietnam " leading " the battle, as in the ones deciding how and where the

> battle would be fought? No, they were sent to the front by higher ups behind

> the front lines.

They're still " leading " the others into the battle, since they are in front

and others are following. You disagree that this is a valid usage of the word

" lead " ?

> " First " does not necessarily denote " leader " as in

> " governance " , which is the translation we've been discussing.

But in your example, there's generals in the back line. In a marriage, who

is analagous to these generals?

> I disagree. I gave the example of deciding on a curriculum to homeschool

> their children. OK, so they've submitted themselves to God. Yet they

> disagree on which curriculum to select. How do you think submission to God

> automatically makes them agree on which curriculum to use?

I can't even begin to address this if you think " submission to God " is

something that can be done with a snap of the finger or the words " I submit to

God "

or something of the sort implied by your sentence, " Ok, so they've submitted

themselves to God. "

That said, isn't teaching something that parents naturally do with their

kids, and something that naturally proceeds from parenting? I think that

compulsory schooling's effect of institutionalizing learning has affected how we

perceive the role of parent-child teaching. It seems to me that the

" curriculum "

should be decided by whoever is teaching the curriculum, and that both parents

should be involved in teaching the children in some way or another, and how

and what they teach them should be determined by the one teaching the particular

thing.

> >That's possible, or the child-rearing might be delegated to the

> >woman,

>

> Who has *delegation* power?

That's an interesting question if you see the family as a political unit, but

I'm not sure it's useful to look at the family that way. Christ is the

" head " of the church and those in it, but there isn't any sort of political de

legation of certain tasks to the church and the individuals in it in some sort

of

charter or anything. For example, I control most of my day to day tasks, but

that naturally proceeds from the fact that I'm here on earth and faced with

those tasks, not from some sort of political delegation on the part of Christ.

> LOL! " ...or something maybe " ?? You seem as unclear about this whole thing

> as

> I am. <g>

There's good reason for that. I'm involved in this discussion way deeper

than I've thought it out. Being unmarried and having no plans to marry any time

soon, this is not something I've given much consideration to.

> OK, I understand you're trying to lay forth a model based on your

> understanding of the scripture in which husbands have *some* sort of casting

> vote,

Actually, I'm mostly defending the idea that 1) that is a *possible*

interpretation of the Scripture (as opposed to the argument of the articles

which

seemed, to suggest it was not a possible interpretation) and 2) according this

interpretation, that would not conflict with the role as " servant " for the

husband. I'm arguing lots of other little things in between, but that's mostly

thinking out loud rather than an actual argument.

but are not in a position of power such as a " ruler " would be,

> especially if he truly *serves* his wife with all his casting votes. And

> after all this I will say I DO understand your model and think it's a

> *possible* model based on what limited understanding I have of the

> Scriptures so far, but ONLY if the husband truly understands that his

> primary role as " leader " is as *servant* to wife and family, NOT " governor " .

Well, yes, of course.

> Fair enough, but here's a passage from Dr. Shepard that supports my view.

> And since he teaches historical theology, I'd guess he's pretty well read on

> the subject and not " jumping to conclusions " about interpretations of the

> quoted passage.

I think that might be " jumping to conclusions " itself ;-) However, I agree

entirely with the quote. Slaves are not superior or inferior to their masters,

nor women to men, nor Jews to Greeks. But the differences are not blurred,

thus there is not necessarily a conflict when says that slaves should be

submissive to their masters. isn't endorsing slavery or condemning it, as

an institution, but is giving spiritual instructions for the advancement of

the salvation of those listening to it. He urges a master to free his slave

since his slave became a Christian and is therefore equal to him in Christ, but

does not command it. Had he expounded at length on the institutional

injustice of slavery, it would have been counter-productive to his purpose of

advancing the salvation of slaves, and thus he commanded slaves to be submissive

and

loyal to masters, and masters to be loving and not abusive to slaves, and

suggested personally to one, or, implied, that he might consider freeing his

slave.

In this way love and humility is cultivated in both master and slave.

Anyway, my point is that it's undoubtedly clear saw men and women as

equal in value, but you can't really argue against any particular role

differentiation from that.

Chris

March 15, 2004

In a message dated 3/15/04 8:49:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> I have very limited knowledge on this subject, but my understanding is that

> BEFORE 's time at the very beginnings of Christianity, women had much

> more power and freedom and were even deaconnesses in the Church. Those

> freedoms and power, as I understand it were eventually taken from them,

> although I'm not sure the timeline. , I think wrote at a time when

> Greece saw women as inferior to men and the Greek philosophers taught that

> men should be *rulers* in their marriage with women under their command.

> That is the context i which wrote about the husband/wife relationship.

Yes, and in the Roman Empire, men and women were punished financially for not

marrying. Remember that taught chastity as preferable, so with

Christianity there was a massive movement to not marry, which elevated the

status of

women in very extreme ways.

Some of the stories of Christian martyrdom are probably exaggerated by

legend-- it's hard to tell-- but many of them from the early period are about

women,

for example, who were tortured by their parents for their refusal to marry.

Women took leadership roles. Many of them were little-a apostles. Many

saints, including women are titled " Equal to the Apostles " for their apostolic

roles. St. Thekla preached with St. , Magdalene, and others in later

periods, like St. Nina who converted the nation of Georgia. Apostolic-period

women saints were unmercenary healers-- doctor's who worked free of charge in

the name of Christ.

Women were deaconesses, but it's controversial whether these were the same as

male deacons or not. There's some convincing evidence that they were, but it

appears that they weren't an office in all churches, and that the precise

nature of the office may have varied from place to place, so during the period

of

ecumenical synods the bishops used the evidence available to them to

determine the role. There was an office of widows, where widows were enrolled

in a

church-run payment system in return for teaching women and keeping order in the

church, etc.

On the other hand, I've never seen any significant evidence that women have

ever been part of the *liturgical* priesthood.

Chris

March 16, 2004

>Another important factor would be the religiosity of the family. I've read

>that Bible Belt fundamentalist families have much higher rates of divorce and

>abuse than marriages from other groups in the US.

Interestingly, there are some statistics that seem to show that *arranged*

marriages

actually have a higher success rate. Possibly because the expectations are

lower ... if you expect to hate the guy your folks picked out, you may be

pleasantly surprised when he is only mildly irritating and leaves the toilet

seat up. And maybe the folks make better choices, they are unlikely to

pick a loser because " their daughter can change him " . Gads, I've met so many

women who married a guy they thought they could change (I'm sure the reverse

happens, but I talk mainly to women).

-- Heidi Jean

March 16, 2004

> And maybe the folks make better choices, they are unlikely to

> pick a loser because " their daughter can change him " . Gads, I've met so

many

> women who married a guy they thought they could change (I'm sure the

reverse

> happens, but I talk mainly to women).

>

> -- Heidi Jean

Most important thing learned from my first marriage is if there's anything

you'd like changed or think they'll come around on once they're married....

don't do it. Selflessness along with a tad of selfishness (because a good

spouse is special) is the marrying balance...not the reverse....me me me.

Arranged marriages, could be they're not losers if they come from good

parent to parent to children relationship. Bride's parents would know

groom's parents. On the outside even though my ex's family looked loving and

kind even with parents divorce it was a facade. Not saying children from

broken homes don't make good spouses. Everyone has the ability to reflect on

their upbringing, parent's relationship and refine it to their family's

life.

Wanita

March 17, 2004

@@@@@@@@@

> Interestingly, there are some statistics that seem to show that

*arranged* marriages

> actually have a higher success rate. Possibly because the

expectations are

> lower ... if you expect to hate the guy your folks picked out, you

may be

> pleasantly surprised when he is only mildly irritating and leaves

the toilet

> seat up. And maybe the folks make better choices, they are unlikely

to

> pick a loser because " their daughter can change him " . Gads, I've

met so many

> women who married a guy they thought they could change (I'm sure

the reverse

> happens, but I talk mainly to women).

>

> -- Heidi Jean

@@@@@@@@@@

It's probably neither interesting nor related to expectations or

choices, but just the characteristic value systems and lifestyle

orientations of that narrow demographic...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

March 19, 2004

In a message dated 3/19/04 8:19:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> Maybe not, but that is the crux of the matter to ME, and perhaps to many

> Christian women. I agree that role differentiation *per se* does not denote

> inequality. BUT in a situation where one partner is granted decision-making

> power *de facto* without *earning* this position by being the wiser,

> smarter, etc.- well, it is VERY, VERY difficult to understand WHY God would

> request such a thing. Especially as it means the *other* partner - the wife,

> who in many instances may be more *qualified* for the position, is de facto

> denied this position, even if her " headship " would result in a more

> successful marriage.

I don't view that as even being the case, and again, it seems to me like you

are reading this like a political charter. One of the fundamental tenets of

Christianity is that rules are made to benefit people, people are not made to

benefit rules. is not laying out a precise legal code that forms the

basis for some kind of adjudication of disputes. Were there some sort of

" church

court " where a disobedient wife could be brought, the " judge " would require

more to be said of the situation than " my wife didn't obey me. " And indeed,

spiritual guides commonly do give marital advice, and I've read more than once

advice given for a husband to obey his wife.

The idea as I see it is that the husband is in part a figure head, who

represents the family, in part a facilitator, and in part a backup arbitrator

for

when consensus fails. The primary mode of decision-making is to form consensus,

which is your ideal as well. It is less quantifiable and more ambiguous when

sufficient effort has been expended to achieve consensus than when a wife has

submitted to a husband's decision, but that doesn't make it any less

important or any less required. And if the question is in an area that is

primarily

the wife's domain and is one with which the wife has more experience and more

education, it would be more symptomatic of arrogance than " Christian duty " for

the husband to assume the right to make decisions in that area.

So, if you look at this as a political charter, then its fundamental flaw is

that there is no enforcement mechanism for the vaguely defined responsibility

of the husband to achieve consensus with his wife and to submit to his wife's

wisdom when hers is greater than his on a particular issue. BUT IT IS NOT A

POLITICAL CHARTER. This is the husband's spiritual responsibility. For the

betterment of his salvation, he must be humble and gentle in all things, and

yield to wisdom where it is exhibited and exceeds his own. For the betterment

of

the wife's salvation, she must do the same. From a political perspective,

the wife is somewhat worse off in this scenario (if it is taken politically),

and from a spiritual perspective, the wife is much better off because she is not

tempted to the arrogance that comes with the assumption of " leadership. " God

looks favorably upon gentleness and humility, and obedience ( " I who am free

have become a slave to all, " says ) cultivates these qualities.

When God judges us, He will not look upon how you measure up to the legal

codes he established in a juridical manner. Rather:

" In the future life the Christian is not examined if he has renounced the

whole world for Christ's love, or if he has distributed his riches to the poor

or

if he fasted or kept vigil or prayed, or if he wept and lamented for his

sins, or if he has done any other good in this life, but he is examined

attentively if he has any similitude with Christ, as a son does with his

father. " -- St.

Simeon the New Theologian

So the question here is not what one has done on the surface, but what

disposition of the heart one has cultivated by that behavior. All things we do,

including fasting and any ritual, is not for the sake of the ritual, but for the

sake of cultivating purity of heart.

> IOW, sweeping requirements are made of both partners not taking them into

> account as *individuals* but only as members of a group - men or women.

This firstly isn't true in that it addresses husbands and wives, not men and

women. Secondly, you are treating the issue like a rubber band, like it must

be absolute authority of the husband or it must be perfect equality. When in

fact, the model being advocated here doesn't remotely resemble absolute

authority of the husband, unless you take it as a political charter, ignore the

husband's spiritual responsibility, and assume the wife fulfills her spiritual

responsibility entirely while the husband ignores his entirely, and assume that

the husband uses the " backup mode " claim to arbiter completely ignoring his

responsibility to achieve consensus with his wife.

> The only possible reason for this that I've been able to conceive of so

> far,

> is that IF there's going to be role differentiation based solely on gender,

> with one group given more " governance " power than the other, then the roles

> need to be assigned in a way that enables the couples to get closer to God,

> which I take, is His goal. Therefore, it would be necessary to give the

> group with the most fortitude - the one most able to endure hardship,

> marginalization, and with the least amount of ego getting in the way, to

> being in the NON governance role, then women would be a better choice, imo.

That seems reasonable to me. You know, it says somewhere in the Mattins

(Orthros) hymns that women saw the Resurrection first because women are superior

to men because " the Lord loves tenderness. " In an view that sees the first as

last and the last as first, it would be wrong to assume that the " leader " is

superior and one who " submits " is " inferior. " That's a *worldly* view that has

nothing to do with Christianity.

> Obviously, I cannot say with certainty that men wouldn't have fulfilled

> this

> role as graciously as women have through the centuries since that scenario

> did not happen.

Actually, I think we can say with almost entire certainly that they wouldn't.

If they would have, we'd have seen cultures in which women dominated men and

treated them with the same abuse men have treated women.

>But I think women HAVE demonstrated a remarkable ability to

> fulfill the role with grace, as a whole. Having nothing to do with

> *abilities* of " governance " but much more to do with virtues and the ability

> to follow God's commands. Which *may* indicate why they have been chosen for

> such a role, if indeed that is a correct interpretation of 's words.

> JMHO.

Yes, and a much worthwhile insight.

St. Symeon the Stylite had once confined himself to a stylus (tall,

needle-shaped pillar wide enough to stand on) on which he engaged in unceasing

prayer.

Two observers commanded him to come down immediately, and he obeyed. By this

they knew he did what he did of love rather than pride, because of his

obedience.

Chris

March 19, 2004

> Re: POLITICS: RELIGION - What is the correct translation

>of 's use o...

>> Ok, fair enough. I guess the " how " and " should " are becoming a

>bit merged

>> in

>> my mind since you seem to be a proponent of " should " while simultaneously

>> explaining the " how " . I should've been more careful to separate what you

>> seem to be promoting from your explanations of " how " it could work.

>

>For that reason, I'm unlikely to response point-by-point to your

>next email,

>which I haven't yet read, and think we should probably start over

>again, since

>our multiple discussions have become far to merged to make any

>sense out of,

>and since I'm finding myself defending hypotheticals as if their

>were solid

>beliefs of mine, which is confusing.

I agree. I think we've probably exhausted many of the points we've been

discussing here, and should start over if we're to continue at all. I

probably really won't have much to say anyways until I read the book the

articles we've been discussing were based on. I do have one more comment

below though.

>

>Anyway, my point is that it's undoubtedly clear saw men and women as

>equal in value, but you can't really argue against any particular role

>differentiation from that.

Maybe not, but that is the crux of the matter to ME, and perhaps to many

Christian women. I agree that role differentiation *per se* does not denote

inequality. BUT in a situation where one partner is granted decision-making

power *de facto* without *earning* this position by being the wiser,

smarter, etc.- well, it is VERY, VERY difficult to understand WHY God would

request such a thing. Especially as it means the *other* partner - the wife,

who in many instances may be more *qualified* for the position, is de facto

denied this position, even if her " headship " would result in a more

successful marriage.

IOW, sweeping requirements are made of both partners not taking them into

account as *individuals* but only as members of a group - men or women.

The only possible reason for this that I've been able to conceive of so far,

is that IF there's going to be role differentiation based solely on gender,

with one group given more " governance " power than the other, then the roles

need to be assigned in a way that enables the couples to get closer to God,

which I take, is His goal. Therefore, it would be necessary to give the

group with the most fortitude - the one most able to endure hardship,

marginalization, and with the least amount of ego getting in the way, to

being in the NON governance role, then women would be a better choice, imo.

Obviously, I cannot say with certainty that men wouldn't have fulfilled this

role as graciously as women have through the centuries since that scenario

did not happen. But I think women HAVE demonstrated a remarkable ability to

fulfill the role with grace, as a whole. Having nothing to do with

*abilities* of " governance " but much more to do with virtues and the ability

to follow God's commands. Which *may* indicate why they have been chosen for

such a role, if indeed that is a correct interpretation of 's words.

JMHO.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics