gengwall

“The comp. books I’ve read and sermons I’ve heard make Proverbs 31 sound more like a “to do” list of duties rather than an example of a godly wife.”

Cherry picking at its ungodly extreem.

From what I recall, the conversation just frittered away. Some men tried to persist in their view that male sex drive is universally higher than female. It is a demonstrably false position and it wasn’t worth the effort to argue endlessly with them.

“Do you mind revealing the response, if any, from the comp?”

I can’t for two reasons

1. It wasn’t just one guy.
2. It was on Christian Forums some time ago and I simply can;t find the old post.

Sorry.

Hi Kay. I didn’t ignore your response, or put more accurately, your response required no response. You are correct – that isn’t in the text. But since when has that stopped a comp? Remember, I was playing devil’s advocate. Reading into the text what isn’t there is one of the chief tactics in that advocacy.

Ha! Cheryl – I see our little off blog conversation sparked something in you. Do I sense the beginnings of a “Proverbs 31 marriage” model?

This idea that men have some superior godly wisdom or some uniquely male conduit to God has never made any sense to me. Well, in all honesty, it makes perfect sense to my male ego, but no sense to my human mind. It ignores three realities:

*Many men are dumb as a post.
*Many men “lean on their own understanding” instead of seeking God. (In fact, women seem to be the ones with the conduit…or at least, the ones who recognize and use the conduit)
*And finally (this will irk the “sameness” folks out there but it must be said) men in general are less intuitive than women.

Even if every man pursued wisdom in a way that would make CBMW proud and their wives appreciative, they simply can’t know EVERYTHING. That is why “two are better than one”. Duh.

“One side says an ancient word is feminine, the other says masculine.”

I too am curious. Most of the people from “the other side” that have commented on this blog, and even those with “credentials” from CBMW and others, don’t argue about the original grammar so much as they argue how the original grammar should be interpreted. For example, some have argued that the switch from plural to singular in 1 Tim 2:11 is in essence a shift from “all woman” to a generic “woman”. But no one I know of denies the shift in number takes place. They simply try to explain it away.

The translations, on the other hand, play fast and loose with the grammar, changing tense in verse 14 to imply that the verse is sepaking of Eve and changing number in verse 15 to imply all women are being addressed.

The edited passage I gave above in post 66 relays the grammar straight. I do not change any tense, number, gender, voice, etc. The only place where I have chosen a translation that leans in my favor are the two instances where “husband” is given. It isn’t that “husband” is an invalid translation, but there are arguments either way (i.e. it could just be “man”). Otherwise, there is no fiddling on my part (or the part of the translators I used for each passage). I do not believe that anyone would disagree that those are literal translations of the grammar. But there are many who would argue that those are bad interpretations of the grammar. Which basically proves the point I think Cheryl is getting at – every translation is also to a degree an interpretation.

Now, the question for you, or any bible reader, is this: “do I whole heartedly trust the translator’s interpretation or do I take it with a grain of salt?” I hope your answer is the latter, especially for those verse that are controversial. Everyone has an agenda and will try to convince you that ther translation/interpretation is correct. It is up to you to do the research (which you are doing dilligently), and eventually draw your own conclusions. But keep in mind that one must always view a translation/interpretation with context and the original audience in view. That doesn’t at all mean that the bible is inapplicable to today’s audience. On the contrary, the bible has proven to be timeless. Never-the-less, there was an original audience for Paul’s letters and we must first determine what those letters meant to that audience before we explore the applicability of the letters to us today.

Yes Kay – my “little” is different 😉

sm hit it on the head. The premise is false on several levels.

In order for the argument to even work, a greater male sex drive would have to be universal. It is not.

Even without universality, male sex drive would have to be greater at least within each marriage. It absolutely is not.

Even worse, sex drive levels change over time for both partners, so even within a particular marriage, which spouse has the greater sex drive is not necessarily fixed over time.

So, unless someone arguing this position is willing to admit that in some marriages, and even for periods of time within any marriage, the woman would have the greater authority, they have no case.

I’ll wait a little longer before revealing my response. (*gengwall lets out evil laugh*)

Believe me Alison, you get some pretty wild arguments on men’s forums. I wouldn’t throw it out there if I hadn’t actually heard it myself from someone. I know why it is invalid. But I want to see how others would approach a rebuttal.

As for your question, I don’t know what one does with Eph 5. Ironically, Cheryl has tried several times here to take the attention away from Eph 5 and focus on her core question which remains solidly in 1 Cor 7: is there a hidden hierarchy within the apparently reciprocal authority in this passage. So at the risk of offending, I would say tentatively that Eph 5 is irrelevant. *gengwall cringes*

So quiet. Maybe I should say something controversial. OK – some more devils advocacy. Some may say that although the authority appears reciprocal in 1 Cor 7 it really isn’t because of the differences in sex drive. Since the male sex drive is so much greater than that of the female, the authority he wields over her is proportionally greater. Therefore, he can in a sense overrule her authority in relation to intimate relation and there is a hierarchy which needs to be submitted to. What say you to that?

I was planning on it once I’m finished. I have been wrapped up with a play that I was doing sound for and getting ready for Christmas so I haven’t gotten much further. But maybe after the new year.

(Sorry Cheryl for commandeering the blog momentarily).

Fair enough Susanna. Just letting my male ego get the best of me 🙂

“What do you think? Is there a “leadership role” for the husband in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 as CBMW claims?”

Going back to the original question, I had a funny thought. It reminds me of the movie “Animal House” and the “double secret probation” the fraternity was under. Apparently, CBMW thinks there is a “double secret authority” that men have.

BTW – I expect that NONE of you have seen this movie, nor do I recommend it as it is quite immoral (and really funny). If you have seen it, I respect your efforts to keep that fact a “double secret”. LOL

“Unfortunately the allurement of power is such that most men are contended to have their personal lives shattered rather than seeing their wives, and women in general, as their equals.”

Actually, most men I know do their best to resist the allure of power (to varying degrees of success) and live lives that are fairly shatter free (at least in relation to their marital paradigm). Best be careful about stereotypes, eh?

But that command to the church eliminates a hierarchy, does it not? Or more in line with 1 Cor 7, does Paul not create a reciprocal subjection, leaving no one actually in charge? Are husbands exempt in their relationship with their wife inside the home from the very command they are called to follow outside the home. Certainly the walls of a home do not cancel the call for believers to subject themselves to one another. So, the question in my mind is not so much whether or not husbands need to subject themselves to their wives. They most certainly do. The real question IMO is why did Paul repeat the instruction when he turned to wives in particular. But that is best left for another time.

Anyway, I was referring to the “love your wife” half of the marriage passage.

I’ll accept you are not making an argument of your own. For the record, husbands are given parallel instruction in Ephesians 5. I am sure Susanna would love to jump in here and explore the real meaning behind hupotassoe as she does in her book. Even in a military context, it is not the blind subjection to authority that many make it out to be. Other than that, I won’t derail the conversation anymore. Carry on.

I should have said “not the marriage in all its aspects” instead of “not the marriage itself”

Oh, ok now I understand which reasoning you were finding flaws in. It is true that 1 Cor 7 addresses an aspect of marriage, not the marriage itself. But Cheryl’s main point in the opening still has weight – this is the ONLY time that exousiadzoe is used in a discussion of marriage, whether it be between man and wife OR between Christ and His bride the church. Let me ask you – do you find it presumptuous that some find the existence of one way exousiadzoe in marriage when such an arrangement is never taught in all of scripture?

But NN, if we accept that hierarchical governance is in play in the marriage relationship, isn’t it reciprocal based on 1 Cor 7. The point people are making here is that 1 Cor 7 can not be used to show a one way hierarchy with husband as governmental authority and wife as subject. You agree that any governance that exists in 1 Cor 7 is completely reciprocal, don;t you?

I truly believe this is a battle between the flesh and the spirit. The battle rages in me personally all the time. It is basically the battle that inspired the book “Every Man’s Battle”. The inclination to look and think sexually is, to a great degree, “natural”. But all that is natural is not godly. And of course, we all know we are surrounded and bombarded 24/7 with the temptation to look and think sexually. We don’t deny the impulses and temptations exist, but we are called, I believe, to resist them at every turn. I believe the 1 Cor 7 teaching is not altogether separated from this reality.

I’m curious what people think. This is slightly off topic but still related to 1 Cor 7:4.

I have long argued (mostly in vain) with my fellow Christian brothers about the bible’s teaching on “beauty”. I have contended that looking at women in terms of their beauty (what is really meant is “sexiness”) outside of marriage, even while single, is not only shallow but quite ungodly. Conversely, I have contended that the physical attraction mechanisms that do exist within us (and are especially “tuned in” in males) were originally designed to be expressed or acted on only within marriage.

Here is the 1 Cor 7 part. I have used 1 Cor 7 as part of my evidence that men should not be looking even glancingly in a sexual way at womenn other than their wife. I know Jesus talks about “visual adultary”, but many men say that Jesus’ words don;t count unless a man is thinking about actual sex with another woman. I disagree, partially based on 1 Cor 7 (as well as Job 31:1). Here is how the argument goes.

I believe that the authority over our spouses body extends beyond the exterior. I believe that we, and especially women, have authority over the hormonal responses, visual stimulations, mental image retention, and all other sexually related internal workings of our spouse. As such, I believe that anything purposely done by a man (or woman) to “kick into gear” their sexual biology, no matter how minor, violates their spouses authority over their body.

What do you think?

“My first thought is that these are secular government authorities, not believers taking authority over each other.”

Go with your first thought. The bible makes a clear distinction between the secular world, with its authorities, and the Church and home, with its servants.

Love this post!

This is the key quote IMO from Zen:

Corinthians 7:1-5 I would suggest that decision-making should focus on finding the Lord’s mind together. Over the years the good ideas, solutions to problems and answers to dilemmas will flow from both husband and the wife as they seek the Lord as a couple for “symphony.”

This is exactly right. This is egalitarianism 101. Considering the varying skills, experiences, and gifts that two people bring to a marriage, I constantly wonder why anyone would object to such an arrangement for decision making. It only makes sense. Unilateral decision making rarely works, and never works in such an intimate relationship.

I recently finished reading “Undaunted Courage”, Stephen Ambrose’s biography of Meriwether Lewis. Even in a military era where iron fisted rule was the norm, the Lewis and Clark expedition was marked by amazing “symphony” in decision making. Not only did Lewis consider Clark the co-leader of the expedition, and treat him as such once they were under way regardless of their difference in rank, but there were many decision opportunities others were brought in and consulted and even delegated the decision authority. The reason is obvious – niether Lewis or Clark had all the skills and experiences necessary to deal with all the situations that would arise during their time together.

I think as well about the Proverbs 31 woman. It astounds me how complementarians ignore her, and more importantly, the relationship she had with her husband. Clearly, this woman had a great deal of authority in terms of decision making within the home and even related to financial and other family dealings. But vs 11 and 12 should be like a 2×4 upside the head to any complementarian:

“The heart of her husband trusts in her, And he will have no lack of gain. She does him good and not evil All the days of her life.”

This is a man who has no fear of his wife participating and even taking the lead in decision making. Why would this be – listen to verse 26

“She opens her mouth in wisdom, And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.”

A husband and wife working “in symphony”, as Zen puts it, bringing each of their gifts and experiences together and seeking the Lord for guidance is an incredibly powerful force.

Another great marriage to look at is John and Abigail Adams. Even though they lived in a very traditional looking marriage in a very patriarchal time, John often, really almost always when it was feasible, sought his wife’s counsel before making major decisions, whether they affected their intimate family or the fate of a nation. Conversely, some of John’s most troubling personal times occured when he went it alone. He valued Abigail’s input above literally everyone elses.

I know there is an old adage that says “too many cooks spoil the broth” but there is an even wiser and more trustworthy saying – “Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor.” This goes not only for labor in the field but labor in the family. And when those two also look to the Lord as the only true authority in their marriage, they form a bond of immeasurable strength, because, as we all know, “A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart.”

That is what I believe Cheryl was getting at by distinguishing Jesus-God from Jesus the resurrected man. Yes?

I think “Christ has ALL the authority…” is on the right track. The key then is to get them to understand that in this respect, Christ can not be compared to any man, be it a husband or a church leader or the pope or anyone. This “realm” if you will, of Christ’s authority, lies outside teh human realms in which Jesus models husband/head. Does that make sense?

I understand, Lin, but they still won’t give up. They will say that although we can’t attain Jesus’ sinless state, Jesus is still used as the model for human relationships. So, to the best of our ability, we are to lead (including exercising authority). Then all the androcentric stuff comes into play.

“Heretic” – yup, been called that one too. Well, to be honest, I was told I was “on the verge” of heresy. I’m not exactly sure how one becomes almost a heretic. It’s a little like being almost pregnant, isn’t it?

Sadly, Hannah, many do take that attitude without blinking an eye. But most simply are trying to see around logs in their eyes.

To reiterate – comps see the relationship between Christ and the Church as 1 dimensional. In other words, there is only one relational paradigm, and it is the head/body, husband/bride one. Even though they may agree that the head/body metaphor does not denote authority, they still believe it is all muddled together and so whenever they do see authority, they incorporate it into the “marriage”. They then extend it to church organization because, as we all know (where is that sarcasm smiley), you can’t have authority over a woman in the home but then have her have authority over you in another realm. Why that just doesn;t work at all.

I will give you a general one regarding the Church and a specific one regarding marriage.

The letters to the churches in Revelation are authoritative and corrective. I think we would agree. Comps take those letters as evidence that Christ exercises authority and gives correction to the church apart from His authority in the world. Now, here is the tricky part. Comps make a kind of connection. They view males as the Christ counterpart and females as the church counterpart in the Christ/Church relationship. Therefore, they see men in the church as being designated to fulfill the authority/correction role in the local body. I know this connection is fuzzy. I am not sure how to make clear to THEM that it is fuzzy. At any rate, they use Christ’s exercise of authority over the church to justify male exercise of authority within the church. I’m sure there are otehrs here who have run into similar justifications.

In marriage, they view every act of Christ in relation to the church (or psuedo church even) as an action related to husband wife relations. So, when Jesus cleared out the temple, they interpret that as justification of husbandly “righteous anger” and even domestic discipline toward the wife. When they see Jesus rebuking the disciples, they interpret that as justification to rebuke their wives. When they see Jesus correcting bad behavior and doctrine within the various chruches in Revelation, they interpret that as justification to scrutinize, correct, and even punish their wives. They view all of this as righteous “love” because this is supposedly how Christ “loved” the Church.