« Obama's Public Religion |
Main
| Examining Ilona's exploration of Eve-ness, part II »
Examining Ilona's exploration of Eve-ness, part I
I started out to comment on Ilona’s post on Eve-ness but it got rather long (understatement), so I thought I’d post it as two blog entries. Here goes:
Ilona, this is a very good exploration. I think we must identify just where terms like “hierarchy,” “mutual submission,” “delegation,” and “chain of command” apply, though, in the scheme of things.
You say, When we say that "God has all the authority" we don't mean He micromanages all the decisions, and the same holds for men and women. I think we have to look at this from that point of view: God places men in authority over creation, not instead of, but by delegation. If men have authority in a position of "headship", they can delegate anything up to the final authority to their wives. This is real authority. That means wives exercising real authority in harmony as their husband's partner. But for many advocates of feminism that isn't enough.
Upon what (authority ;-) ) would you build a case that, because God delegates authority over creation to mankind (Genesis 1:28), that husbands therefore have authority that they may delegate to their wives? First, I think it could be debated whether or not God actually delegates authority to mankind in Gen. 1:28. He certainly bestows authority (authorizes), yet he also directs, or commands.
Some questions that I think must be asked, relating to your statement: Does a husband have exclusive authority by nature of his headship? Is authority always passed down, outside of human institutions which require a chain of command such as a business or other organization involving groups of people, and outside of what God bestows upon people? Does a wife’s answering to her husband have an additional dimension that his accountability to her doesn’t have?
A directive (or command) is not delegation, nor is authority given Christ by the Father, because He does not answer to the Father for it. Nor do I delegate authority to my son when I tell him to clean up his room, although he answers to me for the state of his room and whether or not he cleaned it when I directed him to. Yet I allow him some latitude (authorize him) to decide just how to pick it up. And I answer to God for my dealings with my son.
Delegated authority and command have accountability built-in. Non-delegated authority does not.
I would say that, to deny that authority is delegated or passed down in certain places, and to say that there is only one authority (God’s) is not to affirm that authority is exclusive to Him such that absolutely none other than Him has any authority whatsoever (no agency, or authorization). It is to say that none have authority outside of what is granted them by Him: within the Godhead there is no accountability because there needn't be, and within mankind, the accountability one has to another is really accountability to Him, and cannot rightfully be outside of His commands or gifting (agency). There are a myriad of examples of earthly delegation; it is completely legitimate and entirely necessary.
(Many people do, in fact, believe that God does basically micro-manage every decision; they hold that, if in fact He sovereign, then He must. I'm not one of them.)
Are you saying that real authority only comes via delegation, or is proven only by power to delegate, or bestow authority? If so, doesn’t that limit the definition of authority? From the Free Online Dictionary:
authority n.
1.a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
b. One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.
2. Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.
3. A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field: a city transit authority.
4.a. An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.
b. A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument.
5. Justification; grounds: On what authority do you make such a claim?
6. A conclusive statement or decision that may be taken as a guide or precedent.
7. Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience: political observers who acquire authority with age.
8. Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: played the sonata with authority.
Also from Free Online Dictionary, a definition of delegate, both noun and verb:
delegate
n.
1. A person authorized to act as representative for another; a deputy or an agent.
2. A representative to a conference or convention.
3. A member of a House of Delegates, the lower house of the Maryland, Virginia, or West Virginia legislature.
4. An elected or appointed representative of a U.S. territory in the House of Representatives who is entitled to speak but not vote.
tr.v.
1. To authorize and send (another person) as one's representative.
2. To commit or entrust to another: delegate a task to a subordinate.
3. Law to appoint (one's debtor) as a debtor to one's creditor in place of oneself.
The Father sends the Son and the Holy Spirit (as does Christ), and both the Son and the Holy Spirit can be said to be agents of the Father. But do they represent Him, or are they Him? They do not go on His behalf; He goes with Them – He is, in essence, in them. They act as Him.
In the major translations there are no words translated “delegate.” The word used for the conferring or transfer of authority is “given,” or else one is simply said to have authority. One may consider this a semantic difference, and it is not necessary to use the word “delegate” to describe the delegation of authority, but there is no doubt that authority delegated is authority accountable. Authority merely given, or possessed, does not necessarily imply such accountability – it is not required by the word “given” as it is by “delegated.” There is no implication that the receiver or holder is in any way beholden or responsible to the giver.
You said, “...what is the point of contention in recognizing Paul's listing of the order of the sexes? Not everyone is first... I think that is what Paul was saying."
Where did Paul list the order, ordinally or according to rank, of the sexes, and where does he say that someone must be first, except that Christ is the first-born of all creation, from the dead, and of the church, and that man was created first, before woman? In Matthew 20, Jesus says that the first shall be last, and the last, first.
Furthermore, he [Paul] is saying that by recognizing an order of authority we are giving our allegiance to God as the highest authority.
Where does Paul say that by recognizing an order of authority we are giving our allegiance...? It seems to me that God (and Paul) tells us where authority lies, and who must be obeyed and why, not that there is an order of authority.
We all answer ultimately to God. We submit only to His authority, directly or through submission to that held by those in governance over us (which is from Him and established by Him – Romans 13:1), or mastery or parental responsibility over us. Therefore, if an earthly superior (or anyone else) asks us (or commands us) to do something that goes against God’s directives, we are perfectly within our rights to refuse. This may make us a martyr, and so be it. But “where the buck stops” depends on which buck you’re referring to. The chain-of-command buck in an earthly organization stops at the top, but, on an individual level, the spiritual buck stops with each of us; we each are accountable to the authority of God. But I can find no evidence of chain of command in the Godhead, or the marriage relationship, or that a husband has authority over his wife (I'll discuss this further in part II).
(Not all who don’t believe that a wife can only have authority as delegated by her husband must necessarily be aligned with feminism, must they?)
Reposted from Ilona's thread.
You asked, in an earlier post to provide you with scriptural references to the Authority of the husband, please examine the following passages:
Num 5:20 But if you 1 have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had sexual relations with you
Num 30:8 But if when her husband hears it he overrules her, then he will nullify 1 the vow she has taken, 2 and whatever she uttered impulsively which she has pledged for herself. And the Lord will release her from it.
Rut 1:9 May the Lord enable each of you to find 1 security 2 in the home of a new husband!” 3 Then she kissed them goodbye and they wept loudly. 4
If we examine these passages, it would appear that God has indeed delegated "Authority" to the husband. Indeed, the very creation narrative alludes to the primacy of man. If God truly had an egalitarian ideal, could he not have also created Eve from dust, in the same way he created Adam? The beautiful imagery and allegory of man sacrificing his flesh in the creation of his female helpmate and companion, from the begining to define the nature of the husband and wife relationship.
Isa 54:5 For your husband is the one who made you –the Lord who commands armies is his name.He is your protector, 6 the Holy One of Israel. 7
He is called “God of the entire earth.”
Eph 5:23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body.
However our God being just and faithful, doesn't delegate "Authority" without requiring responsiblity and commitment. The husband is the wife's protector and should offer solace and security to his wife. God's delegation of "Authority" isn't irrevocable however, and men have are not given God's grace in vain. A man who shuns his responsiblity or allows sin to corrupt the application of "Authority", is to be held accountable, both to God and wife.
Our human sin nature is what seperates us from God, and hinders the realization of the beauty of oneness with our spouse.
As you pointed out in your post, we subject ourselves to authority willingly every day, however we only do so with the promise of safety and security. When we submit to the power of the State, we confer that authority in trust. If the State abuses it's "Authority" or threatens our safety, becoming totalitarian or corrupt it has forsaken its purpose and our trust, and will not stand in perpetuity.
Structure abounds throughout creation, do we presume that we are exempt, that we are somehow removed from the effects of our actions within our relationships? Submission to authority is our willing service, when we rebel against holy authority we are the ones who are called to repentance.
do we presume that we are exempt,
Who is the "we" in this sentence? It seems as if this is about the bondage of women, not men.
The church needs to repent for cases like this found on Piper's blog,
I actually sat in my office once with a husband who believed that submission meant his wife should not go from one room to the other in the house without asking his permission. That kind of pathological distortion makes it easier for people to dispense with texts like these in the Bible.
While men drone on about their own authority, some women live in bondage. But nobody cares about them. I have not heard one word about what the women does, who after leaving a situation like that, lives as a single parent, providing and protecting her own children. No one cares about her, or extols her or even thinks that the Bible is for her or about her.
however we only do so with the promise of safety and security
Nobody guarantees women anything. The women of the scriptures were Phoebe, Lydia, Nympha, and Chloe. They did not get the authority of a male to travel, care for Paul, host a church, etc.
The church has abandoned the single woman and kept many other women in bondage to men who ask for minute by minute obedience. This is slavery, which the Hebrew scriptures also supports. I wonder if people are still advocating the awl in the ear for household servants and other ancient practices.
I think women need to be kidnapped away from authoritarian husbands.
Sue,
It is a tragedy that anyone, male or female should suffer emotional or physical abuse or neglect from those who should love and care the most.
I apologize if I was unclear in my previous comment, since the "we" was not meant to be applied to a specific gender, as human beings that dwell in God's creation.
I would wholeheartedly agree with you concerning guarantees, which is why I stated "with the promise", the promise being the oath spouses make in their wedding vows. I recognize, that due to our sinful proclivities, we upon our own power can guarantee nothing in this life.
I'm deeply troubled by the pain and anguish your comments contain, and will offer prayers for healing of your spirit. I agree that anyone in an abusive relationship, needs to be able to rely on their Christian brothers and sisters to aid and assits those suffering from abuse and neglect. Apparently you had no such resource, and that is a shame, however I vehemently disagree with your assertion that Christians are unconcerned or uncaring/unsympathetic to "People" in difficult and/or dangerous situations.
I am a survivor of sexual and physical abuse myself, and have offered councel and prayers to everyone I know who deals with or has dealt with abuse. I realize that you may no longer, on your own will and/or desire, be able to faithfully accept the oath of a man in his marriage vows. Frankly the road to recovery is a very long road, and there are no shortcuts, yet by the grace of God recovery continues. I have been in recovery for 20 years, and still haven't fully recovered from the damage I suffered.
So I hope you understand that for me hearing about gender based authority in the pulpit is akin to reading a subdom magazine. Worse because the bondage is mental and spiritual calling into question the value of eternal life if it is only to endure eternal subordination.
I cannot expose myself to this language again. The church reinforces the bondage of women and refuses to take responsibility. I don't see anyone dealing with this adequately.
I really can't get far enough away from male-based authority to assuage my anxiety. Perhaps I misread you but the Hebrew scriptures that you quoted seem as useful to a former wife as reading the slavery laws out to a former slave.
Perhaps I should stop reading this blog altogether. I enjoy the posts but the comments create ongoing difficulty as I would rather not know about men who believe women belong under male authority. It is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
You must understand that it is also the minister that claims male based authority that I cannot bear either, not simply a marriage relationship. Fortunately I have since met a community of Christians who do not believe in gender based authority, so it is the past that is so troubling for me, but there is good reason for this. I won't ever in real life expose myself to the ministry of a man who believes his gender gives him authority and mine does not.
Answers to Bonnie's post:
"I think we must identify just where terms like “hierarchy,” “mutual submission,” “delegation,” and “chain of command” apply, though, in the scheme of things."
Agreed.
-------
"First, I think it could be debated whether or not God actually delegates authority to mankind"
Since you mentioned the Genesis 1:28 passage, what do you think this means in terms of authority? and I would keep in mind that this statement is pre-fall; while in parsing out the state of women we would have to look at the curse, then view what the redemption in Christ means in reference to that. But if we are speaking of the form of authority itself- without the modifiers of application- I wonder what you view the "dominion", or Hebrew radah to mean?
"Does a husband have exclusive authority by nature of his headship?"
I think that is the wrong question, although you are asking the right one as you elaborated,"Is authority always passed down[?]". The way authority works is by jurisdictions. You have the right to exercise it over what is rightfully in your given parameters. The bible is full of delineations of where ones responsibilities start and stop. By virtue of something being head, it means the source of command...where something starts. Delegation takes place under one's jurisdiction, it is the right transfered to another to exercise power in the name of one who has the source of authority. Not to displace it, but to "help" it perform its duties, and thus answerable itself to all line of command over it. As the husband answers to God, the wife does no less, but the primary responsibility to faithfully carry out the responsibilities remains with the husband. I'm not going to go into the question of "cleaning the room" because that is more a matter of micromanaging - even though I could digress on it. I think it would prove a straw man here.
-----
"Many people do, in fact, believe that God does basically micro-manage every decision"
Actually, if this were true we wouldn't have sin operating in the first place. At some point God takes His hands off and does not manage the situation for us. He gives real freedom ... although not releasing one from ultimate accountability.
There is no non-delegated authority. There is usurpation. Unlawfully grasping authority for oneself.
--------
"to say that there is only one authority (God’s) is not to affirm that authority is exclusive to Him such that absolutely none other than Him has any authority whatsoever (no agency, or authorization). It is to say that none have authority outside of what is granted them by Him: within the Godhead there is no accountability because there needn't be, and within mankind, the accountability one has to another is really accountability to Him, and cannot rightfully be outside of His commands or gifting (agency)."
I agree with this and do not find any place to disagree. I am not sure that some of what we then follow with is the outcome of this truth. I want to point out here that I have previously supported the idea of the Trinity being understood as Athanasius argued it.
______
I would question why Paul stated "that man was created first, before woman?" and have you look at the context in which he was stating it.
"In Matthew 20, Jesus says that the first shall be last, and the last, first."
Yes, it does. Is this in the context of order of authority or something else? Is the comparing being done between men and women in humanity or between the opposing systems of God's Kingdom and this world's system and the estimation of men?
As far as definitions go, our conversation here is limited to how the scripture defines it, authority and delegation, not how the idea is generally or variably used.
"But do they represent Him, or are they Him?"
God is One.
This, however brings us to an interesting juncture in the marriage relationship. The husband and wife are called "one", and this segues into the process of how we are to interact. This is where many of the egalitarian points are going to have application.
In the context of the Trinity, however, ...Who sends?
"allegiance" is what *we* give. When we recognize order, or rightful authority... our estimation of that is followed by our giving allegiance, or following it.
"if an earthly superior (or anyone else) asks us (or commands us) to do something that goes against God’s directives, we are perfectly within our rights to refuse."
Now, here, I would not agree. It is not "our right" it is God's rights... and we are mandated by our prior allegiance to Him to resist that improper and usurping authority which asks us to trespass.
I think this is a vital understanding which separates the maintenance of freedom and dignity against the oppression of evil(implicit in the term)tyranny.
Sue, I am completely in sympathy with you, believe it or not. As an independent thinking woman, and as one who has had more than enough time spent in very traditional congregations I have experienced some of the hurt... not to the degree of some, but enough to understand how very damaging it is to leave the issue of authority without the addition of the commandments of how true authority is to act.
I have argued for the establishment in our minds that there is indeed order and authority. We can't go further without this base. How do you call upon men in the church, or leadership, or any form of authority to behave as they ought... in the love of God, in the humility of Christ... without first laying the base of authority's right to demand this of them?
It isn't just a "nice thing to do" to love each other, or for men to love their wives as their own bodies, or any such admonition or command. It is what God, as the final authority in their lives, calls them to. This is the only way to produce freedom for women as a group in the church... and not produce desperate "escapees" who are then made to feel and seem like pariahs. We have to understand how authority works and its demands on us as human beings ( we cannot ultimately escape it in some form, iow) before we can define how God says authority behaves.
It is in discussion of moral issues and indeed the very existence of God Himself and our accountability to Him that undergirds my belief that we must recognize authority to give standards, before we can discuss the moral implications of our choices of actions.
If the church understood how authority works and what its parameters were... we would have less abuse of it. As it is the abusers hold power over victims and nobody says anything because no one seems to recognize where the "rights" or boundaries are. I believe we can know, if we will pursue the study of it.
I do recognize the great pain this must give you, and I am sorry for the way this is opening wounds. Sometimes for healing, though, we - at the point we are ready- try to sift through to find understanding.
Ilona,
I feel that you and Bonnie are handling this respectfully. I also have affectionate relationships with men in my life, as friends and colleagues.
However, the male who thinks of himself as having gender based authority, is to me something I would rather not meet.
Authority is not given to the gender - in any way shape or form.
Authority as an absolute, as the one church, as the authoritarian govt has been found to be open to such abuse that the Christian community has rejected these things.
Authority has been made bureacratic - it is bound by laws and contracts. Authority is made responsive to those under authority. The church is something that members can walk away from with penalty. The government of a country is responsible to the collective and to the laws, bylaws and precedents.
There is no marriage contract now in which it is written in black and white that a woman is to walk out if she is mistreated. The husband must not be given authority unless the contract says that he may not hit, withold freedom of movement, food, and communication from his wife. You simply cannot trust human beings with unbounded authority. This is pure evil. Most women won't talk about it because it is so humiliating.
There is no accounting for this. John Piper knows women live in these conditions. Will he not admit that giving men authority is evil.
Luther was clear that authority is held on behalf of and not over other human beings. Such evil this teaching.
Even Laban held Jacob accountable if he mistreated his wives. But the marriage ceremony today does not require the father to stand up and say in public, as Laban did, that he will hold the husband accountable for abuse. If women are to live as adults without the lifelong protection of their fathers and brothers, then husbands will have to give up the power they have over their wives.
Yes, escapees, that describes women abused by male authority - the lucky ones.
Thanks for listening Ilona. I really appreciate it.
The church is something that members can walk away from with penalty.
I meant,
The church is something that members can walk away from without penalty
Men do not put themselves under a church authority they cannot withdraw from. Even in the workplace there are collective agreements for good reason. The wife is unprotected. This is the last most vulnerable position in our society, women sacrificing civil rights in order to be married. I cannot imagine a man giving up the right to vote for the candidate of his choice to the minister. No, men do not submit to this kind of obedience but women are supposed to?
Sue, I appreciate your willingness to share your view and to listen,as well. It is a tough subject.
I'd like to use one of your paragraphs and comment on it as an example of what I'm driving at.
Authority as an absolute, as the one church, as the authoritarian govt has been found to be open to such abuse that the Christian community has rejected these things.
There are few absolutes, and most of which are absolutes are somehow centered in God.
As soon as you use the adjective "authoritarian" we are stepping aside from the general concept of authority and giving the connotation of that which borders on abuse of authority- at least as we Christians understand the character of authority in the Church... or as outlined in the gospel I should say.
You say "government". all government has authority, not all is authoritarian.
"Christian community" can mean two things. It can mean the peers in fellowship, or it can mean all of it including God, Christ and His Spirit along with all the brethren. If the second of the two, we cannot say it has rejected "Authority as an absolute" when we say God has all authority. We recognize His complete sovereignty,and He never relinquishes it. The passages that we were discussing in Paul's comments on headship points to all support being given to the recognition of God's absolute claim to headship of all things.
I am trying to make distinctions between the fundamental doctrine and the failure in the practice of it through misinterpretation. I do believe the abuses arise from the misinterpretation of the scriptures- sometimes deliberate wresting of those scriptures.
Whether we as peers decide to accept or reject the fundamental truths of God makes little difference in whether those things are truths. I should say up front here that I tend to dismiss arguments of doctrinal truth based on cultural practice. the idea of relative truth in its forms such as morality by majority opinion is also something I'd debate.
a quote that sums this view for me:
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
~Anatole France"
You said something that takes this in a new direction when you commented on the marriage contract. Let me think about it a bit- that might merit a whole new thread that would help us to examine egalitarian thoughts more than the present look at the hierarchal complementarian's. So I will either make a post or come back to comment on this thread.
I love it when people make me think harder on a view:)
Ilona,
A few thoughts. I don't know that my thinking represents "egalitarian" teaching in general. I don't have much idea of this. I come from a Brethren background where there was no recognized spiritual authority which resided in humans. There was only the authority of the Word and the leading of the Spirit. It was extraordinarily egalitarian in every way except for women who were governed by the rule of silence in the assembly.
My parents were egalitarian in there decisin making although my mother stayed home and reared a large family.
There was never any discussion of human authority. In fact, there is not one instance in the New Testament where a human is instructed to have authority over another human. In fact, CBMW teaching relies on a whole construct of extrabiblical teaching. In a true Bible-based church, authority can only be either secular authority or the authority of the Word and the Spirit. There is no other.
(However, even in this teaching, the wife is taught silence and in some cases obedience, from the King James version of Titus 2:5. It depends on the family.)
The desire for male dominance is a human desire which appears in many otherwise diverse theologies. It is a cultural value and not a spiritual value. Not even one woman in the Bible is evaluated on the basis of her submission to male authority. Not one.
There is no teaching in the scripture regarding male authority before the fall, and the submission a wife owed a husband was listed in the same passage as the obedience of slaves to masters and citizens to an authoritarian government. This was submission to civil human authority.
When Americans repent of the Revolution and resubmit themselves to the British crown, then they will model submission and then they can ask women to submit in a unilateral fashion to men. But they will have to give up an egalitarian society and a representative government or they do not model unilateral submission. As we have it today, men say "Do as I say, and not as I do." That is not the teaching of Christ.
It is an absolute evil that women vow obediance in a contract and have no conditions written into the marriage contract to protect them from abuse. In a democratic country men need to repent and beg forgiveness for allowing this oppression of women to continue. It is a shame that they claim and enjoy life as a free person for themselves but they won't offer this freedom to women. It is extraordinary selfishness on the part or men. It also leaves women entirely unprepared for supporting themselves when finally they can't put up with the boundaried life one more day.
Ilona,
(Here comes another post-within-a-comment ;-) )
Since you mentioned the Genesis 1:28 passage, what...
I don’t dispute that man has dominion, or authority, over creation, given pre-Fall and not taken away after. I’m asking how they get it. They’re given it by God – what does this mean? How do you relate it to husband and wife?
"Does a husband have exclusive authority by nature of his headship?" (me)
I think that is the wrong question
Why would this be the wrong question?
although you are asking the right one...The way authority works...
The authority you speak of here is of one of earthly authority. Does authority to walk in the Spirit have a jurisdiction? Yes, but it is universal. Yet this type of authority is not delegated, nor under a line of command. (I’ve got a post ready on this.) The “help” you are referring to is agency.
As a parent, can I delegate authority to my son? Certainly. But is this the only type of authority I have as a parent? No. The authority I have to train him is not authority I also delegate (or can delegate) to him (who is "under" me). I could delegate it to someone else, but again, I don’t view entrusting him to a coach, or summer camp, as delegating. In a sense I do, but I really don’t think that “delegate” captures all that I'm doing.
The whole issue of who has final authority over our children is even up for grabs in some ways – schools and teachers vs. parents or government vs. parents (minors getting abortions without parental consent, for example) – these are earthly authority structures, and there is conflict in them. The authority of these structures is not infallible.
the primary responsibility to faithfully carry out the responsibilities remains with the husband.
To faithfully carry out which responsibilities? ***starred question – if you don’t respond to anything else in this comment, please respond to this :-)
"Many people do, in fact, believe that God does basically micro-manage every decision" (me)
Actually, if this were true we wouldn't have sin operating in the first place.
Perhaps, in terms of the first sin. I think that those who say that God micromanages view the operation of sin as entirely within His management, which it is, actually. But if God doesn’t leave anything up to us then we have no accountability.
There is no non-delegated authority. There is usurpation. Unlawfully grasping authority for oneself.
I agree about usurpation, but is God’s authority delegated? No, He’s the Source. And is all authority within the Godhead delegated? I also wonder whether, for example, authority to love is delegated. I would say that it’s not delegated, but granted, even commanded. Does command or granting equal delegation? Is being given power and ability to do something mean that this power and ability are delegated? In a sense, yes, but I don’t think this is the point.
I would question why Paul stated "that man was created first, before woman?" and have you look at the context in which he was stating it.
I have, at length :-)
"In Matthew 20, Jesus says that the first shall be last, and the last, first." (me)
Yes, it does. Is this in the context of order of authority or something else?
I would say, yes, this is in the context of order of authority. If not, then what?
Is the comparing being done between men and women in humanity or between the opposing systems of God's Kingdom and this world's system and the estimation of men?
I think I understand the distinction you are looking for, and it’s the one I’ve been trying to make all along (albeit not very well in places). "Estimation of man" was founded upon earthly rank and glory, based on an order of authority – the ruled considered inferior to the ruler, slaves inferior to masters, the poor inferior to the rich, the student inferior to the teacher. The truth is that authority structure is found in both the Kingdom of God and this world’s system, which was ordained by God. However, it’s not the structure that matters in the Kingdom of God, except that we are to respect those in positions of authority over us (Romans 13:1)
As far as definitions go, our conversation here is limited to how the scripture defines it, authority and delegation, not how the idea is generally or variably used.
How do Scriptural definitions differ from the ones I provided? (I had a similar discussion with Rusty, only he was saying similar to what I just asked you, and I was saying similar to what you said above :-D )
It is not "our right" it is God's rights...
Ilona, in your comment you said this: The way authority works is by jurisdictions. You have the right to exercise it over what is rightfully in your given parameters. (my emphasis)
I'm using the term "right" the same way you are :-) Actually, this is the same sort of thing I’ve been trying to say about authority: Authority is not something we own; it is from God. We don’t own our rights, but have them, in Him.
"if an earthly superior (or anyone else) asks us (or commands us) to do something that goes against God’s directives, we are perfectly within our rights to refuse." (me)
Now, here, I would not agree. It is not "our right" it is God's rights...
Are you saying that we cannot legitimately refuse if an earthly superior commands us to do something contrary to God’s directives?
Not that it is not vitally important to understand authority in our lives and in the Kingdom of God, but the reason I am a bit wary of a seeming over-emphasis upon authority and the idea of it is that, not only do I think it's often misunderstood and misapplied, but I don't think one ought go about thinking in terms of authority all the time. Isn't it much more profitable to think in terms of the gospel, and all that means, and love, and being pure in heart? There is more to truth and the Christian life than authority. Philippians 4:8-9
sue,
"Not even one woman in the Bible is evaluated on the basis of her submission to male authority. Not one."
Sarah.
"In a true Bible-based church, authority can only be either secular authority or the authority of the Word and the Spirit. There is no other."
Paul states that secular authority finds is basis in God given authority to the state.
"When Americans repent of the Revolution and resubmit themselves to the British crown, then they will model submission and then they can ask women to submit in a unilateral fashion to men."
The theology was worked out by Samuel Rutherford, and I really don't think the church speaks of unilateral submission, so you are arguing from a different platform than I am.
"It is an absolute evil that women vow obediance in a contract and have no conditions written into the marriage contract to protect them from abuse."
This is an emotional statement. I don't believe in such things as contracts being absolute evil. by virtue of something being a contract both parties have to agree to something. In what we are talking about , marriage contracts in our free society, I don't think you can reasonably say this.
There are laws that govern abuse. And as we are finding often, the Church is not outside the arm of the secular law. The bible makes no claim that it should be in this sort of matter.
I don't get your whole argument on women in a free democratic society. I see, and live, very differently than the argument describes. If I am unprepared, it is my neglectful choice, or it is a lie I believe that makes me so- the opportunity is there for a woman to be prepared to support herself if need be. Does the Church obstruct that? I see an argument in the Proverbs 31 woman that says the opposite: Women are virtuous in their vocations as well as in their housework- they have businesses and own property and generally wield a great deal of economic and social power in that iconic picture of women.
Bonnie,
"How do you relate it to husband and wife?"
Only that there is authority structure. In looking at Genesis in th egarden account, it is Paul that takes us here, pre-fall to say that the man was created first, and uses that as the pattern of order. He relates that to authority and the reason women should not exercise authority over the man. Now I take this in the group sense, although I am not sure I have strong support for it. That delegated authority to women can result in a woman by position of authority having power over an individual man in some cases. But perhaps this is restricted to organizational things only, and not in performance of discipline, etc.
I am working through this like everyone else here- I stated last year that I don't have a concrete doctrinal take on this question of a woman's place in the Church.( just reminding everyone;)
====
"Why would this be the wrong question?"
Because we are deliberating two separate questions in that one. You have asked whether headship connotes authority, then you jump to saying exclusive authority in headship. Then you proceed to admit that authority is functional while questioning whether it is ontological when you elaborate in the paragraph.
"The authority you speak of here is of one of earthly authority."
Yes, that is the field of my discussion. I consider much of the debate about our spiritual reality to be separate as it is based inside Trinity theology, or how things will be once this present world system is removed. My parameters are how men and women relate as members of the body of Christ, and what their roles are within the Church. In those parameters are questions like whether the scripture allows for women senior pastors or not, if not does it allow for women pastors under the authority of male pastors? When there is conflict in decisions, do women have a duty to give submission? If so, to what extent, if not, under what circumstances. These are all in earthly practice of our spiritual faith.
"I don’t view entrusting him to a coach, or summer camp, as delegating."
Why not? what else is happening here in terms of authority to train your son? You might and should restrict the terms of delegation, but it is still what is happening.
me:"the primary responsibility to faithfully carry out the responsibilities remains with the husband."
you:"To faithfully carry out which responsibilities? ***starred question – if you don’t respond to anything else in this comment, please respond to this :-) "
OK. I am talking about primary responsibility", "the buck stops here" type, you are asking about rigid specifications of job descriptions. The job description doesn't matter here, that is the business of the one that has the primary authority, but the realization that has to take place is that the accountability doesn't remove along with the delegation of power or jurisdiction. The husband is still the one who holds headship- no matter what power the wife wields, or what extent. If a husband becomes handicapped in all ways except that which would qualify for incompetency... he is still the head of the household. And even when not exercising it, he still is afforded honor on that basis. As Christians we reunite in oneness, so I would think the attitude that should be seen here is that we are one in running the household,directing our life together; if the husband is incapacitated he is not removed or displaced, but the wife functions in his behalf- he is still the father and husband...nothing substitutes for that.
Should we as wives give any deference to husbands? What should that look like? Are we less Christian or less free when we give deference? And is it only when we feel like it or is there a "should" attached somewhere? And if so, why, upon what basis of demand?
oops. forgot to close the bold html command after the word primary. sorry I look like I'm jabbing my finger in the air!
Ilona,
I would love to have you elaborate on Sarah. I have no recollection of how she was submissive to her husband.
If the wife submits to her husband and he tells her she cannot work outside the home, and he is in charge of their savings, and then he dies, she may or may not be in an ungodly mess that is not of her own doing. It is 50-50 whether the husband or wife is better at estate planning. He may have organized her life to support his unfulfilled ambitions, who knows.
There is a law against physical abuse, but not emotional and financial abuse. A wife is rarely prepared to leave the marriage over abuse if she is not financially prepared. Women have little recourse.
About the head of the house. Technically the wife is the head of the house in the scriptures. 1 Tim. 5. If she earns over 50 % of the income she is head of the house in fact. So it is unreasonable to say that the wife has the responsibility to be head of the house, but not the authority to be head of the house.
How can you say to a woman who earns, provides and protects that God does not want her to be head of the house? How can you set up a fake reality for women?
Have you read any of this article on Coercive Control. The problem as Evan Stark sees it is that there is no law to protect a woman from such control because no one thought of a law to protect women from such irrational things as not giving women permission to work or see her family or whatever. The actual contract of obedience prevents a woman from doing anything at all that the husband does not want her to do, cough, eat ice cream, go to the bathroom on a road trip, whatever. There is no law that says a man has to let his wife go to the bathroom every so often. No one thought of a law like that.
What was on Piper's blog is no joke and there is no law against it. How can you explain in the marriage ceremony what is reasonable as obedience. The vow to obey should be removed from the ceremony altogether. Haven't enough women suffered? What is more important? Male domination or real time suffering?
Consider all the teaching on male authority and how little teaching there is on preventing physical, emotional and financial abuse.
What is so sinful about women making decisions the same way men do anyway?
Ilona,
(answering this from my hotel room near Columbus :-) )
I fear that our discussion is starting to miss the target, but will respond a bit more:
"How do you relate it to husband and wife?"
Only that there is authority structure.
I'll admit I'm at a bit of a loss here...what does man's dominion over creation have to do with the husband-wife relationship except that they are to rule creation together?
Paul's statements about women not exercising authority over men was not in reference to the marriage relationship.
"Why would this be the wrong question?"
Because we are deliberating two separate questions in that one. You have asked whether headship connotes authority, then you jump to saying exclusive authority in headship. Then you proceed to admit that authority is functional while questioning whether it is ontological when you elaborate in the paragraph.
Well, first of all, I'm afraid I'm not following this; second, why can't I ask rhetorical questions, and third, I'm interested in how you would answer the question.
"The authority you speak of here is of one of earthly authority."
Yes, that is the field of my discussion.
I thought you were also discussing authority in the Kingdom of God - which is in heaven and earth, and is in ways distinct from earthly authority.
"I don’t view entrusting him to a coach, or summer camp, as delegating."
Why not? what else is happening here in terms of authority to train your son?
Because I'm (and my husband is) not really delegating. I'm not handing my authority over to someone else, or authorizing them on my behalf (or God's). I'm authorizing them to care for or train my son on his behalf.
On the starred question (thanks for answering it :-) ) -- where does it say that the marriage buck stops with the husband? Where does it say that Christ is accountable to God for the church? As Christ's head, is God accountable for Christ?
you are asking about rigid specifications of job descriptions.
I am? Where do you think I did that?
Should we as wives give any deference to husbands? What should that look like? Are we less Christian or less free when we give deference? And is it only when we feel like it or is there a "should" attached somewhere? And if so, why, upon what basis of demand?
a)absolutely
b)well...exhibition of the fruits of the spirit in relationship with him.
c)of course we're not less Christian. In some ways we're less free, but not ultimately
d)well, it's a "should," a duty, but hopefully also happens out of love -- a pure heart
e)because of Paul's words in Ephesians and elsewhere (I Peter, Colossians, Titus) and general instruction and exhortation to us as Christians. But really, must it be a demand?
If by "deference" you mean of will, or opinion, or action, again, I think such deference must be made in light of the Spirit and in light of what's at stake. I've spoken to this earlier.
(On your last comment -- on my laptop, all the comments appear in bold type, so I didn't notice that you didn't close the tag!)
I'll call you in the morning!
