Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage

Those of us outside looking in have to make our best judgements of what "Christianity" really means.Obviously we can tell from EvC that there is a wide range of variation in the individuals who profess themselves Christians. To attempt to determine what value there is in Christianity from the individuals gets one lost because of the diversity of opinion and the individual personality. We have here on the site those who show both the compassion that I understand the Christ was supposed to have taught and the most hateful and closed-minded bigots.We can't judge Christianity on either. The individual is overwhelming the teaching.We can however, judge it on the major themes of history where the individuals are subsumed in the large ebb and flow.The supression of women, the support for slavery, the bigotry that having the only "truth" and being utterly sure of oneself leads to are some themes to judge the religion on.The support for the hungry and poor in the world is another. The times when churches have stood up to oppressors something we can judge Christianity as a whole on.On balance where does it stand? I don't think it can be weighed well enough to come to an objective opinion. Nor can we replay history to see how it would have gone without the influence of Christianity. It is a subjective judgement.Personally I find it hard to put aside the kind of disgusting attitudes that we see portrayed by the "traditional" Christians that have posted to this thread. This is in spite of the kind of Christians I have as friends and the likes of Jar. They are just not enough to overcome the poison that I see here.My subjective judgement is thumbs down. Too bad the roman emperors hadn't kept them down 1700 or so years ago. Christianity owes it's survival to the politics of the Roman empire. Not the best legacy.

Maybe because women are generally superiour at social relationships (when they want to be at least), God in his mercy let us men have the lead role, at least on paper, so there'd be more balance.....? Women after all usually do dominate the domestic situation, although there are always exceptions, and men that are the sole bread winner need some encouragement for leadership, and will need wisdom in their dealings outside the home...just speculation, mind you

Christianity is the primary vehicle that elevated women above chattel status. If you want to look at women's status without Christianity, just look at places like Japan or Islamic states where Christianity is not as influential.

This, boys and girls, is what we call a Post Hoc logical fallacy.For instance... it can quite easily be said that if you want to look at women's status without Pauly Shore movies, just look at places like Japan or Islamic states where Pauly Shore is not as influential.This too, would be a fallacy.This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 01-18-2006 05:58 PM

---

"I fail to comprehend your indignation, sir. I've simply made the logical deduction that you are a liar."
-Spock

I must admit it pains me when I read an evaluation such as yours. But I also cannot deny that it was essentially true. Overall, Christianity has much to be ashamed about.One reason though is the attempt by Christians down through the ages and continuing today, to deny the reality of the evils done in the name of Christianity. Time and time again I've seen people use the excuse "Well they were not real Christians" or "Anyone can claim to be a Christian". These are futile and hollow assertions.Christianity has been among the most violent, the most intolerant, the most represive movements in human history, and certainly the longest lasting continuing oppressor known.It has also produced moment of grandure and many great works. But those high points do not excuse the bad. As Christians, one basic tenet of faith is that we must acknowledge our sins and try to do better. By pretending that the evils done by Christianity do not represent our Faith, we are failing in our mission.We MUST acknolwedge our failings, slavery, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, what was done to the natives of the Americas, what we did to the Hiwaiians, and yes, what we are doing today to gays. We must acknowledge those acts, and try to do better in the future.It really is as simple as that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

who says he's not living up to his responsibilities? he makes a great living. you don't have to be a tool to make a great living. i never sprained my ankle. but i did damage the cartillage in my knee. because my one knee was weak and the other had to be stronger for it (one was a woman so the other had to be the man, per se), the strong knee was over-taxed and eventually gave out. it is unreasonable to expect a man to be 'the strong one' and sacrifice what makes him whole to 'bring home more bread'. by carrying her half, a wife supports and honors her husband. by expecting him to be 'the man' she wounds him. your unequal idea of marriage is destructive.i eventually had to go in for physical therapy on both knees in order to train them to work equally. think about that one. god is the same. the bible still does not represent him appropriately.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-18-2006 08:52 PM

God has an order for marriage. It uses the words head/submit. This order doesn't apply to every dealing between men and women to include for instance, "wives obey your husbands male friends" "wives sit meekly at home sewing whilst the men do the work" The order he sets up doesn't involve the kind of domination that men have exerted upon women over the years. We can garner this because the model we are given to follow was the submission that the Son underwent w.r.t. the Father has nothing to do with domination or inequality. Furthermore, although the focus here has been held on the word "wives submit" bit, few, if any, have taken any account of husbands "sacrifice yourself for your wife" bit. Gods order for marriage doesn't give the man any power to enforce his wives submission in the same way it doesn't give a wife any power to ensure her husbands sacrifice.Men come along and decide to enforce their will on their wives simply because the can enforce it through physical strength. This is not sacrifice, this is contrary to Gods order for marriage.Your rational for negating Gods order of marriage has the same hollow ring to it as the argument against God has which is based on a (correct) horror of what man has done in Gods name. I think the phrase used for this fuzzy thinking is "conflating two issues"Mens abuse of women would occur whether God had and order of marriage or not. The abuse arises out of the fact that man (and women) are sinners and do wrong. And in this particular case man can enforce his will. That some may reach for the Bible in order to assist them in justifying their sin is hardly surprising. Mankind have been doing this foever.But to dismiss Gods order simply because of man misuse of it is the same as dismissing the place for a belief in God simply because man has misused with all his man-sized Religions. You are, I hold, barking up the wrong tree. Understandably so perhaps, but still throwing the baby out with the bathwater.You forget too that this order is only relevant to Christians. Christians are people who are subject (subject - by own free choice you should note) to God. Should they seek his will and not their own then the type of abuse which you note as being so prevalent is not going to be the basis on which the marriage is carried outI remind you again that any force that a man may use to enforce his will on his wife immediately steps outside Gods order. But it is not Gods' order which is to blame. It is the failure of the man who has stepped outside. A man who choses to remain within Gods order and whose wife will not subject herself to him (in the biblical, not wordly sense of the word) has no recourse to force her to subject. It is entirely her affair. Equality before God. Always... Not at all. It may well have enabled man to conform more closely with what Christianity holds: equality of men and women, but you can't change something that of itself is unchangeable. God calls the shots. Don't let mankinds changeability fool you into thinking otherwise. Who knows, God may have been the one aiding and abetting this change. He is a very big God Schraf. I have a number of times pointed out the equality within the Godhead - despite the fact that the son 'submitted' himself to his fathers will. You persist in insisting that submission of necessity invokes lower status. But you haven't ever explained how the above point is circumvented. Nor have you taken any account of a man sacrificing his own will for the sake of his family. Putting his personal goals and aims last. Ignoring his being called to serve.Instead you hold to a caricatured view of Gods order of marriage, insisting that it is what it isn't and clinging, limpet-like, to the abuses perpetrated by men - who do not hold to Gods order - in order to shoulder charge this malformed model into the relationships of men and women who do hold willingly - if not without the negative influence of this malformed model - to Gods order.This message has been edited by iano, 19-Jan-2006 12:55 PM

Had you, in your musings, attempted to expound on what "(women) you will be subject to your husband" or "wives submit to your husbands" as recorded in the bible, might mean - taking due note of the qualifications contained therein which strongly indicate equality is not affected in the least by the use of these words - then you might have walked on water. As it is, all you seem to offer is a product-of-his-times view which takes no account of what the bible says.Had the bible said " Woman, you are equal (in the wordly 20th century meaning of the word equal) to your husband and any role in the marriage is as open to you as it is to your husband" then no doubt Christianity would be getting a enthusiatic thumbs up from you at this juncture.This is unashamed God-in-my-own-image-and-likeness territory. Not that you would be the first to do so

---

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

quote:

---

Maybe because women are generally superiour at social relationships (when they want to be at least), God in his mercy let us men have the lead role, at least on paper, so there'd be more balance.....?

---

If women are really considered better in social relationships than men by conservative Christians, then why are they often considered unsuitable for certain jobs that require a high degree of skill in social relationships, such as being pastors of churches or presidents of countries?

quote:

---

Christianity is the primary vehicle that elevated women above chattel status. If you want to look at women's status without Christianity, just look at places like Japan or Islamic states where Christianity is not as influential. Christianity is the primary vehicle that elevated women above chattel status. If you want to look at women's status without Christianity, just look at places like Japan or Islamic states where Christianity is not as influential.

---

The social activist movement known as Feminism is the primary vehicle that elevates women's status in society.Since the Christians on this thread are still advocating that wives should submit to their husbands and that husbands need to lead their wives, I really don't think that you should point to Chrisatianity as a force for the empowerment of women.

I should also mention that no one who is familiar with the status of women in the Christian nations of subsaharan Africa would make such a statement, either.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Feminism didn't exist until after women were granted equal rights in many areas, such as woman's suffrage, etc,...The historical impetus for women's equality stemmed from Christianity, often being led by female ministers of the gospel.

Learn history before you try to speak about it with authority. One of the first undeniably Feminist texts was published in 1792. ("A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" by Mary Wollstonecraft.) The 19th amendment was ratified in 1920. Randman... the two major causes for Woman's Suffrage came from the Suffragette protests, and the country's changed attitude after World War I. (Having seen women take over the workforce for several years, the male voters thought that perhaps women were capable of accomplishing a thing or two after all.)Please explain how female ministers of the gospel factored into either of these things.

---

"I fail to comprehend your indignation, sir. I've simply made the logical deduction that you are a liar."
-Spock

Read your history.1. Women were elevated by the teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament, even Paul, in the claims that "there is neither male, nor female...in Christ." This spiritual equality had profound influences on raising women above chattel status, which is why it is among nations which had a strong, Christian influence that women began to be treated as more equal.2. Women ministers, such as Phebe Palmer, and revival movements held that females could preach and teach, and this assertion of a leadership role throughout times of revivals in Christian history, especially in the 1800s in America, but in previous times as well such as with the Quakers, or even among dissenters like Anne Hutchinson in Massuchusetts (not vouching for her but just an illustration) were where women's equality was being asserted, and the simple fact is female ministers pretty much led the way in the 1800s. Anyone denying their influence in the Holiness movement and other Christian movements as to their effect on women's rights is just being ignorant of history.