SM

NN (207 & 208)

“To answer your question ‘how or why NN equates the existence of ‘eros’ within marriage as the basis for a ‘natural, God-made asymmetry’ which is patriarchal.
“In the marital relationship the husband is not the wife and the wife is not the husband – these two people are inequivalent upon interchange.”

NN, in your article you say you are establishing your claim by looking at the principles found in scritpure. You begin with a “parallel” scripture from Phillipians to correspond with Eph 5:21 and draw the conclusion that “agape” is the overarching principle allowing for mutual submission among Christians.

Then you turn to Eph 2:22 and write, “[s]ince the first passage was made clear by observing that the governing principle in christian relationship is “agape” love we shall seek the same sort of understanding of the marital relationship.” However, you do not seek the same sort of understanding, but continue, “[a]nd as we do so it becomes apparent that there is another sort of love operative here – ‘eros’.”

The problem I have is not only your claim in the article under discussion on this thread that “eros” is the basis for hierarchy in marriage, but you are drawing your conclusions–seeing a principle of “eros”–from Eph 5:22 that is not there. NN, in looking at Eph 5:22 how is it “apparent” that there is “eros operative” which becomes the overarching principle requiring submission solely by the wife to the husband throughout all time?

NN: “And you agreed”

I agreed only that men are only husbands and women are only wives.

NN: ” – furthermore we note that the apostle gives distinct instructions to husbands and wives (whatever the reason he did this for – the instructions are consistently different: we can at least agree on this?)”

No, we cannot agree that the virtues or principles that should characterize the female or male Christian are unique to their gender. The instructions, as I understand, are addressing real people in real time with their own unique set of political and cultural circumstances. All the epistles are addressing real people including–the disenfranchised and marginalized–Christians, women, salves–and how they can best live out their faith within the current systems…. Given the overall teachings of scripture, I do not see that wives and husbands are given distinct instructions but that the same principles and virtues are incumbent upon both believing spouses.

NN, do you see this differently, if so, how?

NN: “So the husband-wife relationship in that context was an asymmetric (inequivalent) relationship.”

In what “context” is the husband-wife relationship asymmetric (inequivalent)?

In your article under discussion on this thread, the context is that “[t]he presence of this type of love (“eros”) is distinctive of the marriage relationship versus other christian relationships. And if we recognize that this sort of love is between two *inequivalent* people then the hierarchical nature of the marital relationship instructed by Paul becomes evident.”

In other words you are saying: Because a man is a husband and can never be a wife, and because a woman is a wife and can never be a husband, and since “eros” exists between them it is evident there is a patriarchal hierarchy in the marriage. No, it is NOT evident to me that because “eros” exists in marriage Paul is instructing a hierarchical nature for the marriage relationship.
NN, can you please help me see how you see come to this conclusion?

Your claim about “eros” in the article under discussion on this thread is not consistent with what you have written about 1 Cor 7 which includes the idea of “eros” on another thread on this blog to which you linked. There you write, “1 Cor 7 seems to indicate an equality between the man and woman regarding their ‘exousiadzoe’ toward each others bodies…certainly the passage does seem to indicate equality in this claim between each spouse to the other’s body.”

To me it seems you are inconsistent.

So, I ask again, (195) “…[W]hat does the existence of “eros” whether romantic or sexual love between a husband and a wife have to do with establishing a ‘natural and God-given asymmetry’ between the genders in the relationship?

If anything, I would think the very nature of “eros” which is [sic] culminates in a sexual union is a very “leveling” experience. In other words, getting naked together and mutually pleasuring each other is a great equalizer of sorts. I can’t think of any other human experience that creates a physical and spiritual oneness–a single organic union–than two becoming one in sex. The idea that “eros”, whether or romantic or sexual, constitutes the basis for a natural, God-given asymmtrical hierarchy contradicts everything inherent about “eros” between a husband and wife.”

NN: “So thus far we have proved inequivalence -”

I was not seeking to prove inequivalence, but I did concede men are husbands and women are wives.

NN: “…but not the nature or origin of it…”

Again, I wasn’t seeking to prove existence or the nature or origin. It was your term in your article. I was seeking clarification from you of your claim.

NN: “I ask again if we can move venues to make it easier to keep track of.”

I obliged you before, but because we seem to both be following this thread which is addressing your article, because this is where the conversation began, because others are engaged in this same topic, for the sake of time following the same conversation in two places, and for various other reasons I believe this venue is suitable and that it would be much easier for us to navigate this one thread on your article.

However, on another post at your blog, I am awaiting your reply to my comments and questions.