SM

NN (214):
“If interested for gmail chat ingarandur[AT]gmail[DOT]com – it is so much quicker to figure out where the common ground is for a starting point in the discussion that way, and easier to step through a discussion point by point without it taking aeons…

I appreciate the invite. I am not so much interested in a “live” chat because I am not able to just sit and carry on without interruption or having to leave the computer for some time. The blog format posting is more compatible with my schedule and responsibilities. Again, there are others who are engaged in this conversation on this thread who seek to understand your premise. This is where your article came under discussion. I didn’t get any answers from my questions posted there when I initially obliged your request but rather you seem to step back somewhat in your comments.

I have made my questions succinct and clear for the ease of clarity and brevity in your responses; therefore, I a chat would only take much more time than I have.

NN continues: “Though you raise a good point…”

Ok, what is the good point I raised? Again, please explain what you are claiming.

NN continues:
“I presume that we can agree that the apostles consistently give distinct and non-equivalent instructions to husbands and to wives separately:
Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Pet 3, etc. – In each case the wife specifically is told that she is to be submitted (”hupatassoe”) to her husband; while in each case the husband is given a distinct and different instruction.
Whatever the origin of these distinctions are in the case of the instructions given: personal, cultural, or universal – we can at least agree that the instructions given are distinct and non-equivalent.
Agree? Disagree?”

I have now answered this at least three times. Here is what I wrote at 209 in this thread:

“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.”

My answer to this question on your journal:
“I concede that the authors may very well be instructing the original audience how to best live within their current cultural climate given their station in life. Specifically, for wives for whom it was already a cultural mandate to not only submit but obey, the gospel elevates their societal obligation by instructing wives to “submit as unto the Lord” but even more remarkable in a society consumed by status and prominence was the instruction to all (men included) to “submit to one another” (Eph 5:21, etc.).”

I have been more than fair by consistently and forthrightly answering your questions. However, you have yet to answer one of mine. You avoid by inviting me to your journal. When I pose questions there you evade by responding that you will not answer as it seems I have worked them through myself or by simply restating your presupposition without giving any explanation or basis and when pressed you still do not answer by inviting me to chat as if that will some how simplfy this process.

If you believe something, say why? It is based on what truth? What fact? What scripture? If it is not based on anything other than your observation or experience or anecdotal evidence then own that.

I was reading a blog recently where the author claimed that hierarchal complementarianism was divinely ordained because women were less confrontational. He had no scripture. He merely based this on anecdotal evidence based on his experience with his wife, but at least he owned the premise of his reasoning by saying she was more shy and steered away from confrontation, and he believed men to be generally more confrontational therefore qualified for headship i.e. authority and leadership over wives.

NN, whatever it is, just own the basis of your premise and spell it out for those of us who are sincerely trying to understand your conclusion: —because “eros” exists between a husband (who can never be a wife) and a wife (who can never be a husband) a patriarchal hierarchy is divinely-intended.

At this point, if you do not do that, I have to conclude either:
1) that you realize what you thought Paul wrote so directly and what you thought was so clearly evident now appears not so direct or evident, or
2) that you knew up front you were reading into the text, or
2) that you do not know the basis of your premise, or
4) that you realize you were misguided and are backing away from this.
Which of these is it or is it something else?

With respect,