Sexism, racism, and misogyny: Beth Moore departs from the Southern Baptists

[Mountain Man]

Generally egalitarian households share the authority, they don't just reverse the inequity creating just an opposite form of potential oppression. Each one 'submits' to the other as it were, basically as what should actually be the end result in a complememtarian household where the husband actually takes on the Christlike role of servant leader who laid down his life for the church.

Modern notions of "equality" are contrary to scripture. The Bible clearly states that the husband is the head of the household. A servant leader like Jesus is still a leader in every sense of the word and has final authority in all matters. A husband can seek his wife's opinion and wisdom, but the final authority rests exclusively with him.

[oxmixmudd]

Modern notions of "equality" are contrary to scripture. The Bible clearly states that the husband is the head of the household. A servant leader like Jesus is still a leader in every sense of the word and has final authority in all matters. A husband can seek his wife's opinion and wisdom, but the final authority rests exclusively with him.

No, they actually are not. They key off other concepts in scripture that sit adjacent to them, and they recognize that there are cultural accommodations found in Scripture. They are also responses to the abuses of men in the past who ignore the adjacent scriptural admonitions that accompany the same passages you here reference to justify your opinion. And they also recognize, at least in the church, that while certain admonitions of the form you mention do exist, they also sit in a context with verses that declare that in Christ there is neither male nor female, or that deal directly with the tendency to abuse that granted authority. For example (from Ephesions 5):

"submit yourselves one to another in the fear of God" is the verse that precedes the instruction that you base your opinion on, an admonition to ALL in the church.

And that same passage also makes these commands to the husband:

"Husbands, love (agape) your wives, even as Christ also loved (agape) the church, and gave himself for it"

and

"So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church"

(The bolded large text explicitly recognizes the tendency in the culture to abuse the wife, a tendency that continues to this day)

and what is love except:

"Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things."


In the all too common manner you brandish the authority certain verses grant to the man, it can only - and often does - lead to abuse by the immature and younger members. It also leads to abuse by leaders that in their arrogance focus mostly on the granted authority role and not the admonitions to mutual submission and love that accompany it - which should instead be their primary focus given our sinful nature.

I'm sure Norrin will have a more complete reply, but in the end the fruit of those that emphasize the authority role of men and that bristle vigorously at the idea of women having any sort of authority over them has in my experience almost universally been the oppression and abuse of women.

[Mountain Man]

No, they actually are not. They are responses to the abuses of men in the past who ignore the adjacent scriptural admonitions that accompany the same passages you here reference to justify your opinion. And they also recognize, at least in the church, that while certain admonitions of the form you mention do exist, they also sit in a context with verses that declare that in Christ there is neither male nor female, or that deal directly with the tendency to abuse that granted authority. For example:

"submit yourselves one to another in the fear of God" is the verse that precedes the instruction that you base your opinion on, and admonition to ALL in the church.

And that same passage also makes these commands to the husband:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it"

and

"So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church"

and what is love except:

"Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things."


As you brandish this verse above, it can only - and often does - lead to abuse by the immature and younger members. It also leads to abuse by leaders that in their arrogance focus mostly on the granted authority role and not the admonitions to mutual submission and love that accompany it.

I'm sure Norrin will have a more complete reply, but in the end the fruit of those that emphasize the authority role of men and that bristle vigorously at the idea of women having any sort of authority over them has in my experience almost universally been oppression and abuse.

That some choose to abuse the authority they have been granted is a different matter and is not an excuse to ignore the clear directives of scripture which state plainly that men are to be the leaders of the household and the church. The solution to men abusing their God given authority is not to contradict the Bible and turn that authority over to women.

[Catholicity]

Lists numbering over a hundred are fairly trivial to create. The point of my original post being that with as many as there are, one needs to be careful about calling theological differences of opinion 'false doctrine' unless they hit close to the common truths all these different denominations hold in common.

Did you perhaps mean “lest they hit close?” I agree btw. Each splinter holds some mild differences and they tend to be trivial. I am reminded of the Simpsons “Presby-Lutheran” church which started over the right of women to attend church with wet hair...

[Catholicity]

Modern notions of "equality" are contrary to scripture. The Bible clearly states that the husband is the head of the household. A servant leader like Jesus is still a leader in every sense of the word and has final authority in all matters. A husband can seek his wife's opinion and wisdom, but the final authority rests exclusively with him.

No, my husband and I are equal partners. We both have different strengths and roles but we have equal say and we are both willing to make sacrifices for each other and for our children. We parent together, we choose where to live together, church is chosen together. This isn’t a 50/50 or all him and some me or all me and some him. It’s 100/100. And yes it does say wives submit to your husbands but husbands love your wives as Christ has loved the church means the husband is called to be prepared to lay down his life for his wife.....I mean.....sacrificial unconditional love is what marriage is about, equal to both husband and wife 100 percent of the time.

[oxmixmudd]

That some choose to abuse the authority they have been granted is a different matter and is not an excuse to ignore the clear directives of scripture which state plainly that men are to be the leaders of the household and the church. The solution to men abusing their God given authority is not to contradict the Bible and turn that authority over to women.

There are three elements here:

One is that the sinful nature makes a patriarchy almost universally abusive and oppressive of women. That is its history. And it is as true today as it ever was in those enclaves where people rigidly adhere to it.

The second is that where the scripture is clearly an accommodation to culture, we do have a responsibility to factor in that context and the broader principles that drive both the message of scripture and that accommodation. Keeping in mind that the principle of accommodation is not some new fangled liberal position but rather a concept and teaching of non other than John Calvin.

The Third is that no-one is advocating 'turning over their authority to women' but rather granting that both Men and Women are equal in Christ and therefore have the same capacity and authority to lead or minister in the Church.

Again, to be equal is not to reverse the oppressive paradigm and exchange one form of oppression for another, but rather to recognize or grant an equal place and potential to all.

In a family, the practical matter is that there is almost always a more dominant personality and a more submissive personality (which often leads to jokes about who 'really' rules the house in patriachal societies). An egalitarian aproach looks to work together to accomplish goals with the dominant personality humbling themselve by purposfully chosing to give place to and exault the submissive personality. This is just the practical way mutual submission works itself out. And I would contend that in the end - this is what actually happens in a household that truly obeys the scripture regardless of whether it superficially adheres to an equalitarian paradigm or a complementarian paradigm.

[Mountain Man]

No, my husband and I are equal partners. We both have different strengths and roles but we have equal say and we are both willing to make sacrifices for each other and for our children. We parent together, we choose where to live together, church is chosen together. This isn’t a 50/50 or all him and some me or all me and some him. It’s 100/100. And yes it does say wives submit to your husbands but husbands love your wives as Christ has loved the church means the husband is called to be prepared to lay down his life for his wife.....I mean.....sacrificial unconditional love is what marriage is about, equal to both husband and wife 100 percent of the time.

Yes, marriage is a partnership, and the Bible clearly says that a man should treat his wife with sacrificial love and respect, and a woman who manages her household affairs with prudence and wisdom is to be praised and commended (Proverbs 31), but that does nothing to change the fact that according to scripture, it is the man who has been vested with the exclusive final authority in all household matters. There is no allowance in scripture for a woman to be head of household in her husband's stead.

[Catholicity]

Yes, marriage is a partnership, and the Bible clearly says that a man should treat his wife with sacrificial love and respect, and a woman who manages her household affairs with prudence and wisdom is to be praised and commended (Proverbs 31), but that does nothing to change the fact that according to scripture, it is the man who has been vested with the exclusive final authority in all household matters. There is no allowance in scripture for a woman to be head of household in her husband's stead.

My husband and I are equal here. Also having been a single mother I was the head of the household and now my husband and I share the authority. Nothing you can say is going to change what scripture says. Men and women should love each other with sacrificial love. Also Proverbs 31 is ridiculous in one sense, I am the one that fixes computers and changes the oil in the car. And quiet spirited I am not. And who cares? Why is that anyone else’s issue? We are incredibly close as a couple and have an amazing marriage. Every day and every year we love each other more and we help one another grow closer to Christ. Frankly I am glad I don’t go to a church that tells me I can’t be the woman God created me to be. And that is not barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. FYI, help your wife clean up the house, I bet she is exhausted from raising your children.

[Mountain Man]

There are three elements here:

One is that the sinful nature makes a patriarchy almost universally abusive and oppressive of women. That is its history. And it is as true today as it ever was in those enclaves where people rigidly adhere to it.

The second is that where the scripture is clearly an accommodation to culture, we do have a responsibility to factor in that context and the broader principles that drive both the message of scripture and that accommodation. Keeping in mind that the principle of accommodation is not some new fangled liberal position but rather a concept and teaching of non other than John Calvin.

The Third is that no-one is advocating 'turning over their authority to women' but rather granting that both Men and Women are equal in Christ and therefore have the same capacity and authority to lead or minister in the Church.

Again, to be equal is not to reverse the oppressive paradigm and exchange one form of oppression for another, but rather to recognize or grant an equal place and potential to all.

In a family, the practical matter is that there is almost always a more dominant personality and a more submissive personality (which often leads to jokes about who 'really' rules the house in patriachal societies). An egalitarian aproach looks to work together to accomplish goals with the dominant personality humbling themselve by purposfully chosing to give place to and exault the submissive personality. This is just the practical way mutual submission works itself out. And I would contend that in the end - this is what actually happens in a household that truly obeys the scripture regardless of whether it superficially adheres to an equalitarian paradigm or a complementarian paradigm.

So because of our sin nature, we should ignore what the Bible actually says and "reinterpret" scripture to conform with modern social norms? I don't think so. That's the kind of heretical thinking that has led some to declare that scriptural prohibitions against homosexuality are culturally obsolete. The simple fact is, the Bible makes no allowances for women to hold positions of authority over men in the household or in the church.

[Catholicity]

So because of our sin nature, we should ignore what the Bible actually says and "reinterpret" scripture to conform with modern social norms? I don't think so. That's the kind of heretical thinking that has led some to declare that scriptural prohibitions against homosexuality are culturally obsolete. The simple fact is, the Bible makes no allowances for women to hold positions of authority over men in the household or in the church.

Priscilla was a Church leader, Lydia, Phoebe and then there was this apostle named Junia ( Julia ). So Paul didn’t all women to be over men, but he didn’t say that they were unable to be equal to men in leadership either.

[Mountain Man]

My husband and I are equal here. Also having been a single mother I was the head of the household and now my husband and I share the authority. Nothing you can say is going to change what scripture says. Men and women should love each other with sacrificial love. Also Proverbs 31 is ridiculous in one sense, I am the one that fixes computers and changes the oil in the car. And quiet spirited I am not. And who cares? Why is that anyone else’s issue? We are incredibly close as a couple and have an amazing marriage. Every day and every year we love each other more and we help one another grow closer to Christ. Frankly I am glad I don’t go to a church that tells me I can’t be the woman God created me to be. And that is not barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. FYI, help your wife clean up the house, I bet she is exhausted from raising your children.

I'm talking to a Christian who declares that a passage of scripture is "ridiculous". That does explain quite a lot.

As for your cheap shot about my wife, we had a great marriage until the day she died (two years ago, but I can see her face like it was yesterday). We loved and supported each other, and she was every bit the woman described in Proverbs 31, you know, the passage your dismissed as "ridiculous". We made decisions together, managed our household affairs together, raised our children together, but it was always with the Biblical understanding that I was the final authority in our home. But of course following the Bible in these matters is "ridiculous", isn't it?

[Mountain Man]

Priscilla was a Church leader, Lydia, Phoebe and then there was this apostle named Junia ( Julia ). So Paul didn’t all women to be over men, but he didn’t say that they were unable to be equal to men in leadership either.

The Bible does not say that women can not hold positions of leadership in the church, only that they can not be in a position of authority over men. Or do you also dismiss this as "ridiculous"?

[oxmixmudd]

So because of our sin nature, we should ignore what the Bible actually says and "reinterpret" scripture to conform with modern social norms?

No. But that isn't what I said we should do either. I said that the principle of accommodation applies. And that there are other scriptural passages, as well as historical examples (e.g. the aforementioned Priscilla, Pheobe, Lydia and Junia(Julia)) that sit in contrast to these statements and that require us to think a little less rigidly about 'what the Bible is saying'. Those historical examples, those contradictory scriptural principles, the fact our culture is very, very different in terms of the roles women take on in the world, their education level, their capacity to fill certain roles effectively all require we think carefully and more broadly than the literality what a singular passage directed to a singular church and culture at a specific point in time has to say about such things. Paul's directives where derived from and written to certain specific cultures and locations which means accommodation is a very real element. The women above occupied positions theoretically forbidden by Paul in the scripture you use to derive your position. And that has to be accounted for as we study scripture. You would perhaps dismiss those factors as irrelevant - I would not.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm talking to a Christian who declares that a passage of scripture is "ridiculous". That does explain quite a lot.

As for your cheap shot about my wife, we had a great marriage until the day she died (two years ago, but I can see her face like it was yesterday). We loved and supported each other, and she was every bit the woman described in Proverbs 31, you know, the passage your dismissed as "ridiculous". We made decisions together, managed our household affairs together, raised our children together, but it was always with the Biblical understanding that I was the final authority in our home. But of course following the Bible in these matters is "ridiculous", isn't it?

I am sorry for your loss, but you are taking the use of 'ridiculous' personally when it was applied to a very specific context - not your own. And it is quite possible for a complementary relationship to be good and loving and fruitful for all involved, as long as the husband is truly willing to die to self and put his wife's needs above his own, as Christ did for the Church. The problem is that historically patriarchal societies, including Christian ones, have been mostly oppressive and abusive of women. That is its fruit as it were. In Christ it doesn't have to be its fruit - we agree. But unfortunately, human nature is such that anytime one group is given authority over another group, the subservient group WILL be abused by the group in authority. Not might be, WILL be. That is human nature.

[Mountain Man]

The women above occupied positions theoretically forbidden by Paul in the scripture you use to derive your position.

False. The prohibition is not against women holding leadership positions but against women having authority over men, a position none of the women in your example held. A woman is free to be in a leadership position, and even instruct men (there is explicit Biblical precedent for this), but she is not to have any kind of authority over them. This doesn't tend to sit well with liberal Christians with their modern notions of "equality", and so they try to interpret such passages with unwarranted narrowness and declare them not applicable in today's culture, which is the exact same thinking that has led some in the church to accept and even enthusiastically embrace homosexuality despite what the Bible plainly says.