« Examining Ilona's exploration of Eve-ness, part I |
Main
| Why is it that... »
Examining Ilona's exploration of Eve-ness, part II
Continued from part I
Regarding mutuality and consensus, mutuality happens between two or more people who are, in some aspect, of the same mind toward one another, or of character or similarity of relationship. Consensus can also occur between two or more people but has to do with a coming-together in agreement, or ending such convention with agreement. But mutuality in marriage need not designate consensus nor submission to authority within the relationship; mutuality isn’t just about decision-making.
There is no consensus in the Godhead – it has (they have) one will. Nor is there mutual submission in the Godhead. Ephesians 5 and 6 do not argue for consensus per se, but they do argue for mutual submission. They erase any notion of entitlement or legitimacy of fleshly power. Does a husband rule his wife, or a parent rule his children, or a master his slave? In some ways, yes, but which ways? Is the relationship between husband and wife the same as that between a parent and child, or a master and slave? No – these are three different relationships. What they have in common is an order in terms of human identity or lot, or form, and the functions and roles inherent in that. In some ways there is rule, but in some of those ways, the rule goes from "inferior" to "superior". This is why I said, early on in my series, that we must determine what rule there is in various places, and what authority.
In Roman culture at the time Paul wrote, it appears, from the historical record, that husbands were outright rulers of their wives, parents tyrants over their children, and masters harsh to their slaves. It was culturally prevalent that wives acted independently of their husbands (or worse), children defied parents, and slaves only made a show of obedience to their masters. We find these same things in our culture today. It is these that Paul was speaking against. He told husbands that, (rather than rule over them), they were to love their wives sacrificially. Wives were told to submit to and respect their husbands for the sake of unity, peace, and persuading the disobedient husband. Children were to obey their parents in the Lord and honor them, and fathers (paterfamilias) were not to exasperate their children but to bring them up well. Masters were to be good to their slaves in accountability to God, and slaves were to be obedient to their earthly masters as slaves of Christ.
One of the reasons for using a base of multiple checks and balances in a consensus form of decision making is to work around the blind spots of individuals and the "optical illusions" of physical circumstances, and this is accepted in our egalitarian ideas of government, but is it necessary or desirable in God's Kingdom?
I don't think that the matter need come down to consensus vs. delegation or command in the Kingdom of God. Is not helping and kindness to one another, whether in their inadequacy, weakness, or shortcoming, or in adding strength to strength, the better part of what it means to be a “helpmeet,” or “suitable helper”? Are we not commanded (and given power, and authority) by our Authority to do these things, in our various capacities as men and women, husbands and wives? There is a place for delegation and command, and a place for consensus, in the Kingdom of God. There is a place for mutual submission (humble deference or service) in every human relationship.
So, in returning to Eve, we find that she exhibits neither the hierarchal type of recognizing authority to make her decision, nor the egalitarian form of consensus.
When you speak of hierarchal type of recognizing authority, do you mean to her husband, or to God directly? (You could say that Adam exhibited consensus when he took and ate of the fruit himself.)
She has become a loose cannon, wholly answerable to herself only.
I think we could say that she has become answerable to a false authority – that of the serpent.
And that is why original sin is sin- it has not only edited out the idea of accountability horizontally, which is a mutual submission, but that of the vertical relationship with God, as well.
Is unity of purpose or decision only found by recognizing and submitting to authority within a relationship, or by consensus? Can it not also be reached via humble and legitimate deference, i.e. mutual submission?
I think that the “vertical” relationship with God is the main the issue in terms of accountability. Did Eve sin against Adam by not consulting him? We’re not told that she did. We’re told that both Eve and Adam sinned against God, by disregarding and disobeying His words about the fruit of the forbidden tree. Nowhere in Scripture do we read that Eve disregarded Adam in eating the forbidden fruit (or that Adam sinned against her by not preventing her from eating it). This doesn’t mean that she didn’t, and he didn’t, but the fact that this specifically isn't listed as her sin (or his) makes me think that it’s not. The sin specified is that she ate of the fruit which God commanded the both of them not to eat. And Adam not only didn’t stop her (mutual accountability), but took and ate also.
In your summary of the Genesis account, you list only Eve as culpable. Yet Adam was just as guilty; in fact, he is the one who bears ultimate responsibility. (Romans 5:12) It’s quite a leap to say that “this same erasure of men's importance and role happens in modern feminism.” How do we get from Eve’s disregard of God’s command not to partake of the forbidden fruit to an erasure of the importance of men? In truth, it seems she thought she was sharing something good with Adam, not necessarily erasing his importance. (But of course she was, uh, dead wrong.)
We are hung up at this juncture on the struggle between hierarchal and egalitarian ideology.
Is there not a third way? One that is neither hierarchical nor (entirely) egalitarian?
"There is no consensus in the Godhead – it has (they have) one will. Nor is there mutual submission in the Godhead."
I am not sure this is correct. In fact, I might say this is incorrect, but since we are getting into theology of the Trinity we are overreaching somewhat here. If the oneness in the Trinity is like that in the marriage, then there is consensus even though the oneness of will in the Godhead is perfect and ours is not. IOW, it wouldn't collapse down into a lack of individuality. So I wouldn't give you this point in the premise.
"In some ways, yes,"
As soon as you say this you admit to the presence of authority and hierarchy. The extent of it is moot for the question we are discussing:whether there is order and chain of command.
"but in some of those ways, the rule goes from "inferior" to "superior"."
I don't understand what you mean by this- so if you could explain an example it would help clarify the idea for me. Do you mean the "demands made by responsibility" when you say "rule"?
"I don't think that the matter need come down to consensus vs. delegation or command in the Kingdom of God."
This is where I have to differ. For my own part, I need to know the basis for how I deal with God and with the authority which He institutes in people. I need to know where the boundaries are and what my rights are. I need to know how to behave in the Kingdom of God. So it makes a great deal of difference whether the system of Heaven works by consensus of the members or by an order in the authority.
If there is an admonition to mutual submission I need to know whether I appeal for that or whether on the commands of God I claim a place for it. There were times that Paul beseeched (appealed) but also stated that he had rights to claim as well.
"Are we not commanded (and given power, and authority) by our Authority to do these things, in our various capacities as men and women, husbands and wives? There is a place for delegation and command, and a place for consensus, in the Kingdom of God."
This is true. The authority of the command has the prior place, and it is on that basis that we then consent with one another. The authority is the skeletal structure on which the flesh of relationship is then built. Otherwise the flesh is a globby mess. If the concept of of authority and order is removed from the dealings within the Church and only the relationships with their conflicting desires and demands are remaining, the result is very much like we see today: arbitrary. Injustice thrives in an arbitrary environment, and authority is not absent, only unleashed. Now that is what I would call scary. Underground authority, that answers to no one.
You might say here that it isn't unaccountable because everyone answers to God. But what is the guarantee that that is happening? How do we account for the proper actions of the authority if there is no order to the delegation? Down to the where the rubber meets the road (as old Magee would say) what are the parameters of the wife's submission and of the husbands love? Where does confrontation begin when something gets out of whack?
We all know that love transcends the demands of the law... but upon what do we appeal when the Christians involved are not walking in love? Upon what basis do we find Church discipline involved? (this is a previously unarticulated factor in the discussion).
Paul spent alot of ink time on sorting out just how the Church behaves in these sorts of situations. He could because he was an apostle. He had authority. And it was not subject to consensus in these matters, not in the sense that the whole body of the Church got together and voted on a constitution, and while there was mutual checking in with other apostles (peers), there are times he states that it doesn't matter what those seemed to be, the truth was upheld by God and then became a test of those apostles.
We see this all through the New Testament Church as it is recorded for us. Consensus comes within the parameters of an authority structure, and never displaces it.
What bothers us most is our own filter of tyrannical connotation to all authority. And that is where more of the problem is in these discussions. I am saying that the answer is not to use that to form our interpretation of the scriptures and doctrine. Our experiences are not the defining factor in truth.
I think once we blow away all demands of authority we then have little place to discuss what we all want to: which is the admonition to Christian behavior of mutual submission, humility with one another and with God, and fruits of the spirit which shine forth in a gentleness that we all recognize as the earmark of a true Christian.
Everyone seems to want the cart before the horse in this, and then leave the field of how things are actually run to those who hold out a system of authority that is abused because so many of the premises (i.e. eternal submission,et al) are all wrong.
Molly at Complegatarian had a really excellent point of critique on this, calling Grudem to task for misrepresenting Athanasius on Trinity theology. But that gets swept away when we start saying "Well, I don't think there is authority, or I don't think that the Bible says headship is headship".
On headship, ...what is that if it just means the man happened to be created first? so what? that is my reaction. If it doesn't mean anything to us, why do we bring it up? It gets reduced to semantical nonsense to me.
But if headship means something in the way in which I relate to God... then that matters to me. If I need the Church to properly educate my husband in how to love his wife like Christ does, if I need to appeal rather than decide to do something on my own... I want to know that. This is not an argument for complete annihilation of a woman's will, Abigail saved a household and deterred David from a terrible mistake in acting on her own recognizance in a situation that needed it. I see that, but there are probably lesson of right relationship to authority in that story as well.
But you know, for myself... I want to know where I stand so I can stand.
And I think we need to come to agreement on the fact that there is authority to recognize... and then get on with the rest of the discussion.
:) At least that is what I am ready for. And just to confess, the whole idea that my husband should have headship just because he is male is something that stirs some anger. I admit that. It needs ot be mitigated by at least what that headship should demand in the form of acting responsibly and lovingly.
that makes me angry a bit too- because then I get angry at an organized Church structure which fails to place that in its primary responsibility of making disciples... not playing with little power pawns in the numbers game we often have costumed as Church.
There is more...
I don't focus on Eve because she alone is culpable, but because she acted without consensus, and I see that feminism does the same and that the Church's egalitarianism follows this manner (we talk consensus, but we mean PC substitutions). In modern feminism, whether of the Christian sort or not, we get a situation where the man disappears. It is a false dilemma of everything is male or nothing is male.
I got the leap because I don't see her going to Adam to discuss anything before making a decision. No input, nothing. I made the connection to what I see is going on in feminism and its now measurable impact on the culture and gender identity - and the backlash it creates.
I also edited out the Serpent in the conversation.
"she thought she was sharing something good"
I don't think that makes a difference in the outcome- reminds me of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". she still didn't consult with anyone else- certainly not God either.... He was going to be walking in the Garden in the evening, right? she could have taken up the matter then and gotten an explanation- but she didn't.
And I think that is repeated in the modern decision of what to do with Church doctrine. we like this, this is what seems good to us at this time... we think this is what is good for men and women in our modern age... all these reasonings.
In your question about whether Eve sinned against Adam in not consulting- that isn't the question I would have. I would ask whether Eve sinned against God by not consulting with Adam. Might the fact that there was discussion between the two opinions perhaps put a stop long enough for mankind to come to its senses in that moment in the garden? we will never know, but God saw culpability in a tripartite way and dealt with it after the fact. I think the curse is instrumental in the inequality of the sexes in the fallen world, and I am wondering now whether some of what Paul seeks to ask the Church to do is show a humble picture of authority for the sake of those viewing Christ's Body from the outside even though our spiritual reality is the Galatian's statement of no class based on gender or race or even the old Gentile/Jew divide.
Then, in looking at the rest of account- I don't know why Adam took the fruit, but scripture says the woman was acting on deception, and Adam seems to have made a decision with clear sighted volition. Maybe that is why we "sin in Adam".
"Is there not a third way? One that is neither hierarchical nor (entirely) egalitarian? "
Yes. We need the "third way" because neither of the present two work within the cohesion of scripture and Christian practice.
that is why we are talking so vociferously :)
Hi Ilona,
Thanks for your response. I don’t have time to fully respond, but for now:
On the point that there is no consensus in the Godhead, let me clarify: there is consensus in that they have consensus. But it is not a consensus that must be reached – they already have it. Iow, when I said there is no consensus in the Godhead, I meant that there is no coming-together of differing minds, viewpoints, or wills to reach agreement, because there is no need for this. We cannot make an analogy of this to marriage because marriage is between two people who, while sometimes being of same mind, viewpoint, or will, are often of differing minds, viewpoints, and wills. This is part of complementarity, imo.
"In some ways, yes,"
As soon as you say this you admit to the presence of authority and hierarchy.
I never denied the presence of authority, and of hierarchy in certain places. I'm also suggesting that there is more to rule than a hierarchical understanding of it.
I need to know how to behave in the Kingdom of God.
Romans 12
what are the parameters of the wife's submission and of the husbands love?
The wife’s duty is to submit no matter what, and the husband’s is to love no matter what. The form, or actions, of that will vary according to the situation.
Where does confrontation begin when something gets out of whack?
I Peter 3
but upon what do we appeal when the Christians involved are not walking in love?
Depends on the situation. There’s also 2 Timothy 3:16
Upon what basis do we find Church discipline involved?
authority of multiple witnesses, of God’s precepts, and authority to act accordingly. Matthew 18:15-17 This is tough, though, in marriage situations. But ought to be addressed much, much more by the church than it is.
I’m not sure why you respond to my comments and posts by speaking of denial of authority – I’m not denying authority.
On headship, ...what is that if it just means the man happened to be created first? so what? that is my reaction. If it doesn't mean anything to us, why do we bring it up?
Man didn't "happen" to be created first. It's extremely important that he was created first, and woman from him. That's the whole basis of "two-become-one." It means everything to me :-)
More later!
Hi Ilona,
It may be too late to get back to this discussion, but I’ll add this comment so at least it’s “filed” here in case of future reference.
I don't focus on Eve because she alone is culpable, but because she acted without consensus
I don't believe that consensus is always needed in order to make a correct decision; it certainly wasn't in the Garden. She already knew what God commanded concerning the fruit.
I would ask whether Eve sinned against God by not consulting with Adam...
Good question. I would respond that her consultation with him or lack thereof, or need to, isn't stated nor implied in the passage. Therefore I don’t see evidence of its importance in terms of her sin against God. What the passage does clearly state is that she sinned by partaking of the forbidden fruit. In Gen. 3:1, the serpent asks Eve, “Has God said...” There is no mention of Adam, nor in the ensuing exchange. Later, when God asks Eve what she did, she answers (v. 13) that the serpent deceived her. She doesn’t say, “I didn’t listen to, or consult, my husband.”
It does not appear that she consulted him. Yet she could have and still decided to eat the fruit. Would her sinful disregard, then, be of him, or of God, or of God via him? She might also have consulted him and he’d have replied, “Let’s eat!” Therefore I don’t think that her lack of consultation or even disregard of her husband was her sin against God; it was, simply, that she listened to the serpent instead of God, and ate of the fruit.
I see your point, but in defense of my interpretation here I was looking at the way God replied to each person. To Eve, He says here and it is restated in other parts of scripture that she was deceived, she also seems to have gotten the details wrong on the actual commandment. "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." The original didn't seem to have "shall not touch it". So, did Eve get the commandment first hand from God or through Adam?
It is difficult to discuss some of this without reading into the scripture, and that means that we probably aren't quite able to say for sure how it is that Eve became deceived. Given human nature as we commonly see it working, it does appear that if she consulted with Adam, the probability increases for her to have moved away from the sinful action. Just because there is the influence of a second person and a time lapse to think about the action.But, yes, he might have said "let's eat". He did end up eating the fruit, after all.
I guess in a circular way we get back to whether God instituted Adam as an authority for Eve to go to on matters of this type, or not. Since it is circular it can't prove anything. It is later that we hear of man being given a pre-eminance in authority.
So since I can't state anything with assurance on this I have to go back to the modern conundrum of finding where the man's place is, if women are answerable only to themselves and God. Why have the traditional family structure, then? why not something we see in the animal world: a female matriarchal society with males allowed access for procreation activity only?
If that seems too much a black/white dilemma we still have to understand how the roles are structured. I see the difficulty more clearly from a perspective of modern feminist ideas than I do from what the Bible leads us to accept . Maybe I need to approach it from another view altogether?
