EricH Posted May 14, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted May 14, 2007 Even within the God-head there is an equality of deity but a differing of roles between members of the God head. Any discussion of roles and authority should reflect the tinitarian relational reality that marriage is mean to display Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OopsMartin Posted May 14, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 829 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/26/1943 Share Posted May 14, 2007 (edited) Boy, I can see smoke coming out of some ears here! Look, all are equal in G-d's eyes; none is greater than the other. I take issue with this statement of yours: [A]lthough male and female are of equal worth in God's eyes, they differ in terms of their responsibilities before God and therefore have been appointed different degrees of authority. Equal is equal; there cannot be degrees of equality! In the Kingdom we all have the exact same standing and the exact same responsibilities. On earth, as a demonstration of the orderliness of the Kingdom, there has to be a hierarchy of authority. Having said that, the best marriages are cannot dictatorships. G-d is a benevolent Dictator because He is omniscient. We aren't--not men and not women--therefore we need each other to make decisions. Men and women think differently but together they for a complete person. It's ridiculous to force a milquetoast-man into being the single decision maker! Similarly, it's crazy to have a bully forcing his way or the highway on his family. But the reverse is also true; a shrew makes a lousy leader. No, I would say that the best marriages are a co-operative effort between husband and wife; none makes a decision without discussing it with the other. Ultimately, I think the husband--if he is able mentally and emotionally--should make the decision after consulting his wife. If he's a total boob, and don't laugh, boob-like husbands are all over the place, he should have humility to let his wife work with him. Well said Marnie. Being male or female does not guarantee a certain set of learned characteristics. Gifts and skills are not distributed according to gender. Further, marriage is not a picture of Christ and the Church (ekklesia-outcalled). It is Christ's sacrificial love for the people of God that is likened to the perfect love that a husband should display toward his wife in marriage. But I don't see what any of this has to do with feminism or how one's understanding or interpretation on the marriage relationship has to do with anything "anti-Christ". sounds like someone is on a hate agenda. Edited May 14, 2007 by OopsMartin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoMike Posted May 14, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 499 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/27/1964 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Unfortunately, in our society people equate authority/power with "equality." If someone has more authority than we do, somehow we view that as being above us. This is not true. People can have more authority than others, but still be equal with others. I don't follow your first statement. If somebody has more authority than I do, that somebody, male or female, is definitely above me at least in that circumstance. We may be of equal worth in terms of being part of the human race, but in that instance, if they have more authority than I, we are not equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OopsMartin Posted May 14, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 829 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/26/1943 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Even within the God-head there is an equality of deity but a differing of roles between members of the God head. Any discussion of roles and authority should reflect the tinitarian relational reality that marriage is mean to display Perhaps, a discussion of Kevin Giles book, "Trinity and Subordinationism", might help clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OopsMartin Posted May 14, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 829 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/26/1943 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Unfortunately, in our society people equate authority/power with "equality." If someone has more authority than we do, somehow we view that as being above us. This is not true. People can have more authority than others, but still be equal with others. Quite true. As long as we do not assign authorities by reason of essence. Authority needs to be earned, not given as a privilege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricH Posted May 14, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted May 14, 2007 Even within the God-head there is an equality of deity but a differing of roles between members of the God head. Any discussion of roles and authority should reflect the tinitarian relational reality that marriage is mean to display Perhaps, a discussion of Kevin Giles book, "Trinity and Subordinationism", might help clarify. Giles lands at one end of the spectrum (egalitarian) and would need to be balanced by looking at other authors like Grudem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted May 14, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 14, 2007 I would say that feminism is definitely anti-Christ. But the repressing of women is just as anti-Christ. I think both exrockstar and my wife make great points. I think that in years past Christian men basically ran rough-shod over their wives, using Bible verses taken out of context to "be the king of their castle." I would say that in recent years, the exaggerated position of women has taken its toll on marriages. There is a Divine order to things, without regard to "curses" in Genesis. In Christ, the curses are negated. But we still have to live this life, in the flesh, and we have to respect the various gifts and talents each partner brings into a marriage while acknowledging this Divine order. As a general principle, it is clear the primary responsibility of the marriage in the spiritual realm falls on the husband's shoulders; he is to be "high priest" of his family. On the practical level, though, I am man enough to say I don't have a clue about certain things, like finances, for example. God has put me together with woman who manages finances like a pro. Why would I want to take charge of something she does so much better? On the other hand, there are some things (can't think of any off hand right now...) that I do better than Marnie, and so I have charge of those things. Somebody way back mentioned the word "partnership." At it's most basic level, a marriage is a partnership; it is a financial partnership, a business partnership, an emotional partnership, a sexual partnership and a spiritual partnership. Both partners have a responsibility to ensure the smooth operation of that partnership throughout the life of that partnership. A dysfunctional marriage (partnership) is when one partner abdicates their responsibility totally and sits back and allows the other partner to "run" things as they see fit. That's unfair and selfish. I wholeheartedly agree with you OC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted May 14, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted May 14, 2007 It is necessary first to understand what is meant by equal. It cannot mean "the same as" because all men are not the same - never mind women. In boxing, for instance, we have heavyweight and lightweight classes. Bring women into the equation, and we have seperate sporting events for men and women. So there is obviously an inequality between men and women at a physical level. Which is why I said that men and women are equal in terms of worth. Interestingly, the law treats mean and women differently, recognising that women are subject to different outward influences than men, such as PMT. So "equality" has to be defined before it can be properly discussed. I would define it in terms of "intrinsic worth" but maybe others have a better idea. In Jesus Ruth Shalom Ruth, You have it according to the Scriptures. We (women) are to submit to our husbands, the way that the church submits to Jesus. That doesn't mean we aren't equal in His sight for salvation and gifts, but we have different ROLES and the authority is set up in the home this way: Jesus Husband Wife Children If the wife usurps her husbands' authority and takes on his role, she is not submitting to G-d's plan of authority. Those that want to argue against it should really pray about these verses, for G-d makes it very clear: Ephesians 5 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. This verse is also widely misinterpreted as the hierarchy of authority, as is 1 Corinthians 11:3... "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." Paul was giving a chronological timeline, using the word, "kephale" for "head", which is interpreted as "source/origin". It follows completely logically, as Paul is a distinctly logical and orderly writer of precepts, that what we read is: the source of every man is Christ. The source of woman is man (Adam). The source of Christ is God. Paul refers to the Genesis in order to continually represent that men and women have an interdependence on one another. God's desire because of that is that we not have any room to despise one another. Man holds no prideful disdain over woman because she was created for him because of his need for her. Woman cannot be independent of man because she was created from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted May 14, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 14, 2007 I don't really see a huge difference of opinion between Ruth and Marnie. First of all, I do agree with Ruth, but after reading Marnie's complete post, I mostly agree with her as well. I believe that whenever possible, both the man and woman should try to come to common agreement. In the rare cases where they cannot, the final decision rests with the husband. It is not wise for the man to simply demand his will on every matter with no regard to his wife's feelings, but at the same time, there will be times where agreement is not possible, and there has to be order. God made the husband the head of the wife, so according to scripture, I have to agree with the position of Ruth. I also believe feminism is basically a form of rebellion and that it is anti-Christ. While I don't believe in feminism at the same time the male dominance side my way or else being a dictatorship or tyrant over the females in a marital relationship is also just as wrong the side you seem to have overlooked. Sure I understand God's order and sometimes couples don't agree sometimes and a decision has to be made on things but there is way more to it than that when a man wants to be a dictator in the marriage and the woman wants to be the same. Most men leave out the partnership side of the marriage and demand my way or the highway so to speak. OC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted May 14, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 14, 2007 Even within the God-head there is an equality of deity but a differing of roles between members of the God head. Any discussion of roles and authority should reflect the tinitarian relational reality that marriage is mean to display Good point EricH OC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts