conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Working backward through your questions: the point is application, Tripp. It's very well to discuss and illuminate the various virtues, but if they can't be applied, then the discussion's power is limited.

Perhaps all that means is that I am limited in my ability to extend in my own mind what you're laying out in theory. That wouldn't surprise me; I'm working 80-hour weeks right now, and have little discretionary time or mental energy.

Continuing backward through your questions: I don't think conflict is avoidable, and I don't know about destruction of the family.

Continuing backward further: no, and no.

Posted by: Megan at June 17, 2004 08:11 AM

They can be applied, O She Who Works Many Hours. That is what I was getting at in the longer descriptiosn of those virtues.

Application holds up under the critique of the definition of the virtues. The ambiguity is a reasonable one I think. Meaning: they are descriptive and prescriptive all at the same time. A Christian is humble, compassionate etc. A Christian should endeavor to be humble, compassionate etc

Humility and Compassion may be applied differently given certain situations.

Posted by: Tripp at June 17, 2004 08:42 AM

Tripp:

I'm not sure how Megan feels about the both of us in being in some agreement with one another, but I have to add some "amen's" to what Megan has noted, though with some differences in perspective, of course.

#1:

Based on how you've worded this, the family's foundation comes from the Church; though admittedly, what you picture Church to be is unclear. You come off here as almost relegating Church to the Sun. a.m. worship service.

#2:

By construing headship as "uberpriesthood" you've created a straw man argument. Traditional headship has nothing to do whatsoever with "uberpriesthood." And clearly Paul sees no contradiction between Christ being head of the Church and the husband being head of the home. This will have to be reworked.

#3:

Once again, you've created a straw man argument. Stereotypical roles are not the same thing as headship. Proverbs 31 as much addresses the wife as does Ephesians 5. Nor does Ephesians 5 address who should the breadwinner of the home. This are things you're importing into the text. You need to deal with the text, not the stereotypes; then work the text against the stereotypes.

#4:

I am in substantial agreement with Megan's comments here, so I won't repeat them.

What I will ask is this: Why don't you view headship as a gift? It is clearly God's will--after all, the straightforward reading of the text in no way abrogates that this is from God. So why don't you view it as a gift? And if it is a gift, why then can't it be used with the others you mention? Indeed, doesn't it come with its own virtue: self-denial and sacrifice? Then it's a gift to be exercised in concert with those virtues.

Nor is failure to live perfectly those virtues a denial of those gifts. You wouldn't deny to women the gift of motherhood, just because they aren't perfectly compassionate and nurturing would you? Yet motherhood is not a gift God has given men.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 17, 2004 08:43 AM

So then, will you demonstrate that application for me? I'm too out of it to do it myself.

Example: a husband and wife are in disagreement about whether to buy a home. Apply virtues from there to resolve the dispute.

Clifton, I'm fine with you agreeing with me when you do, and with your disagreeing with me when you do.

How, exactly, do you see "headship as gift" to those who are supposedly being headed over?

Posted by: Megan at June 17, 2004 08:51 AM

Megan:

Doesn't this describe something most women would want?

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (Ephesians 5:25-32 [NIV])

Furthermore, since it's something the husband offers of his own free will, in submisssion to Christ, it is fairly described as a gift. Furthermore, since this ordering of relationships originates in God's will, it is a gift from God.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 17, 2004 09:05 AM

Cliff -

#1 "Christian life does not exist solely within the context of a one-hour worahip service on Sunday morning." I am doing the opposite of what you say.

#2 Jesus, as I understand scripture to say, is the True Priest or High Priest. He he is the head of the church. Thus, he is the head of the family. Through the priesthood of all believers, no one can hold ecclesial rank over another. This is a baptist perspective I realize that you do not share. Obedience belongs to God, not to an ecclesial officer. The same can be said for a family.

#3 The text refutes the stereotypes, as you say. And I suggest as much. Where do you see the problem?

#4 I do not deny the gift because of the reality of sin. Again, I say as much. The reality of sin is just reality. We live out the virtues, our gifts, incompletely because of the reality of sin. This does not mean that we should stop trying to exercise those gifts.

Is headship a gift? Um, headship is not given according to my reading of Ephesians. You seem to avoid Ephesians 5:21. 21 Because you fear Christ subordinate yourselves to one another. This is mutual subordination. You need to subordinate yourself to your wife and she to you. This is the same subordination. The remainder of the passage is an exploration of how that might play out. Thus, again, headship belongs only to Christ. So, to complete the thinking, since subordination is to one another:

husbands to your wives - as to the Lord. 23For [only] in the same way that the Messiah is the head of the church
-he, the savior of his body-
is the wife the head of her husband. 24The difference notwithstanding, just as the church subordinates herself [only] to the messiah, so husbands to your wives - in everything. 25Wives, love your husbands, just as [we confess],
The Messiah has loved the church
and has given himself for her
26to make her holy by [his] word
and clean by the bath of water
27to present to himself the church resplendent
free from spot or wrinkle or any such thing
so that she be holy and blameless.
28In the same manner also wives owe it [to God and man] to love their husbands for they are their bodies. In loving her husband a woman loves herself. 29For no one ever hates her own flesh, but she provides and cares for it - just as the Messiah for the church 30because we are members of his body.

This is what it means for a husband and wife to become one flesh. The become the same.

And, for the sake of clarity, define motherhood. Is it the basic biological reality that women can have kids and men cannot?

Posted by: Tripp at June 17, 2004 09:08 AM

Megan: I imagine that they would resolve the coflict the best they are able. No one person gets final say unless that privilege is granted by another. So, the wife could or the husband could...or maybe little Jimmy who likes the slide that goes into the swimming pool tipps the scales.

This is what I mean by relative: Are good schools important to this family? Just the husband? Just the wife? They will have to work that out humbly, compassionately, and mercifully. The decision that they come to is not as important as how they manage the conflict. They will probably yell and get mad. They may even sick Jimmy's grand parents on one another. But in either case, they are to practice the virtues as best as they can. Sin will play into this. That is inevitable.

What is so unclear about all this? It seems so obvious to me. I am missing what you two are getting at.

Posted by: Tripp at June 17, 2004 09:14 AM

Tripp:

#1:

You mention Church, then Christian life. It's not clear what you mean by Church. I was just trying to clarify. The Church exists always already that the same time the Christian family exists.

#2:

On the contrary, I fully accept the priesthood of all believers. And I believe in the giftedness of all Christians. Which is also why I believe in the sacrament of Church orders. But at least in Orthodoxy, it is not the clerical rank per se that holds the authority, but Christ the Head. Yet neither does it deny a real authority to clerical orders.

#3:

You use the stereotypes to critique the text. That's where I see the problem. You use essentially the "barefoot and pregnant" symbol as equal to what the text means/says. I submit that that is not the case.

At least you need to more carefully distinguish between the stereotype and the text.

#4:

On the contrary, I don't leave out Ephesians 5:21. (I only truncated the text when citing it for Megan because she wanted to know how headship could be a gift, and I wanted to focus specifically on that portion of the text.)

But neither is it legitimate to use v. 21 to deny vv. 22ff. In fact, I find it telling that you cannot use your interpretation of v. 21 without altering the text. This is a clear sign of eisegesis. (Which is not to say it isn't a useful exercise--but it's not exegesis.)

One flesh hardly equals the same. This a very great problem in egalitarian thought. It has to wrestle with equality also including difference.

Re: motherhood. I'm just making a general statement here. The norm for women is to conceive, through sexual intercourse with their husbands, and to give birth. (I realize and readily admit the exceptions; which only prove the norm.) So, yes, it's primarily about biology.

But not just biology. The fact remains, both men and women nurture children. But it is absolutely impossible for them to do it the same way. Men nurture as men (thus as fathers), and women as women (thus as mothers).

For example, a mother can tell her boy about becoming a man. She can inculcate in him various understandings of manhood and fatherhood. But she cannot ever be a father to her son, nor can she embody manhood and fatherhood. And I submit that the embodiment of manhood and fatherhood is essential to a young boy (which social research backs me on here). And all this vice versa for fathers and daughters.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 17, 2004 09:27 AM

Cliff:

#1 Sorry if it was unclear.

#2 We will have to disagree here. As a Baptist, any authority I have will be a gift of the congregation. That will vary from congregation to congregation. There is nothing in the position that is predicated by authority.

#3 I am trying to use the text to critique the stereotypes. We actually agree here. Who knew?

#4 My eisegesis is an exercise. I agree with a common interpretation that the scripture as read plainly sets up an egalitarian relationship because of verse 21, thus we should be able to reverse the pronouns with no fear of changing the meaning. The meaning is the same by virtue of 21.

I know your thoughts on motherhood and fatherhood. I would say that you are suggesting something that I just do not agree with. Here is a question for you.

How would you define manhood?

Posted by: Tripp at June 17, 2004 09:41 AM

Tripp:

#2:

But the general dynamic you mention is something with which I agree: authority is derived from the Church.

#4:

On the contrary, the reading is very clearly NOT the same. Which goes to show that v. 21 cannot be read as absolutely egalitarian.

Re: manhood/fatherhood and womanhood/motherhood. You don't just disagree with me but with the scientific research (and, at least the Tradition).

Manhood: I'm not sure a simple definition is possible, given our complexity as human beings, but I'll give it a go.

The essence of manhood, is, personhood, which highlights the always already communal nature of what it means to be a man. Thus, men, being essentially persons, have an essential equality with women, whose essence is also personhood.

But manhood cannot simply be reduced to its mere essence, because manhood is also always already embodied. There is no such thing as manhood in the abstract, but only men. And here biology and personhood are united, two natures, as it were, in one person. Men, as persons, share an essence with women, but are also different and distinct, because as embodied, they have different traits and characteristics which arise from their biological embodiedness.

Thus, in conception, men play a biological role that is distinct from that of women, and therefore, they embody conception in a different way than do women. Similarly, the nuture that men give their children are distinct and different from women. But yet at the same time, their nurturing shares an essential similarity in that both men and women are always already in community, and so also the children they conceive and bear.

Now beyond the obvious biological traits are the more controversial ones. Clearly Scripture embodies distinctive roles in the family. There is an essentially similar submission, but because of the embodied personhood which men and women possess, their roles are distinctive.

Why I think my definition commends itself over yours is that it has obvious symmetry between the definitions for manhood and womanhood, it is clearly modelled on conciliar Trinitarianism, as well as on the Chalcedonian definition of Christ as the new Adam.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 17, 2004 10:10 AM

Clifton, in what way am I qualified to generalize about "most women"?

As I'm sure you recognize, there's a vaaaaaaast difference between "respecting" and "obeying." Headship has to do with authority and obedience.

In addition to which, as one mere data point of a woman, I'm not the least bit drawn to the idea of a relationship in which one party's supposed to "respect" but the other's not, and one party's expected to "love" but the other's not.

It will surprise exactly no one here that I hold very different views of how to embody Christian love in a couple relationship, than Paul does. :-)

Again, it comes back to whose authority does one accept? You accept the authority of a church -- seem to crave it, in fact. I don't. You accept the authority of people other than Jesus (epistolarians, etc.) I don't.

I further disagree that the nurture men offer their children is somehow qualitatively different than the nurturing that women offer their children, BECAUSE they are men and women. Your whole idea of "modeling manhood" and "modeling womanhood" is totally alien to me, but maybe that's because when I was growing up I wasn't the slightest bit interested in the difference. I was interested in growing up, but I wasn't thinking, "Now how do I be a woman?" I was thinking, "Now how do I be a person?"

Posted by: Megan at June 17, 2004 11:46 AM

With all due respect to the both of you, you keep inserting things that aren't in the text: "I'm not the least bit drawn to the idea of a relationship in which one party's supposed to "respect" but the other's not, and one party's expected to "love" but the other's not." That's not what Paul said.

Of course you weren't thinking "Now how do I be a woman?"! But nonetheless your foundational understanding of what it means to be a woman, you got from your mother, not from your father. Done largely without verbalization, but merely by being a woman.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 17, 2004 11:53 AM

Cliff, how does any of what you are saying jibe with "no male or female?"

I am not picking nits, I am trying to understand.

And, honestly, I recall makeing decisions about modeled behavior where I told myself "if that is male, then I don't want it." "If that is female, then I don't want it." Instead I looked for behaviors and qualities I admired in people in general and adopted or mimiced them. I have to agree with Megan here.

I think that the subject of personality and gender is still being explored. Certainly, as you say, science speaks to the importance of gender modeling. What science also says is that most of this has to do with the very earliest stages before self diferentiation of the child. Then culture and other influences outside the family will play an even larger part.

How would you describe Christian masculinity (maybe a better way of defining it) in practical terms. I love the theological stuff. I do. But what does it look like. How do you nurture Sofie in ways that Anna does not and vice versa? I know you may speak of breast feeding and such, but once that stage is over, how is it different? How do the writings of Paul, for example here in Ephesians, prescribe the behavioral differences?

Does it say, anywhere in scripture, "Women, your nurturing should take on this quality." "Men, your nurturing should take on this quality."? I know that there are places in scripture that have more definintions and prescriptions than Ephesians. How does this influence what you imagine your role as father to be?

These are huge questions. Take your time. ;-)

Posted by: Tripp at June 17, 2004 12:32 PM

Clifton, what on earth do you know about my "foundational understanding" of anything? Let alone, about how that understanding might have been built.

Posted by: Megan at June 17, 2004 12:40 PM

Megan:

You ask, "what on earth do you know about my 'foundational understanding' of anything?" Specifically speaking? Nothing. But I do know what science says. Before we rationally think about anything, we already have embodied for us the differences between male and female, both essential and non-essential qualities. I made an assumption that your earliest years were not all that different from the rest of us, with one male and one female parent, and therefore you were shaped pretty much the same way everyone else is. But if my assumption was incorrect, forgive me.

Megan and Tripp:

Yes, of course, when we begin to reason, and more to the point, when we begin to explore these things for ourselves, we may reach different conclusions. But we will always be working for and/or against the foundation that has been laid.

Tripp:

I'm not sure that it's necessary to delineate a Christian masculinity, since the vast majority of men have little to no problem with being the men their fathers and other men embodied for them, and which they are now embodying for others. It's really not all that complicated. In fact, it's pretty natural. Similarly for women.

However, I do acknowledge that what is natural is also fallen. This does not invalidate masculine characteristics, but it can twist them. So the authority God gave to husbands can be disordered into control, instead of servant leadership. And thus Paul needs to point out to Christian husbands that rightful husbandly headship does not mean control, but rather servanthood.

You misread what Paul says in Galatians 3 as to no male and female. The context does not--nor the rest of Scripture--support an elimination of male and female. Rather, being male or female does not provide any different standing before God. That is to say, access to God is open to any and all regardless of covenantal relationship to God vis a vis Israel, one's status with regard to freedom and slavery, and sex. Women do not have to become men to be saved, nor do men have to eliminate their gender. Else what is the Incarnation about? If we can't be saved in the bodies and sex we have, then why did God become human? Rather we are saved in being male and female, not androgynous. Thus the distinctive orderings within the Church that Paul gives to men and women.

Read the context again. Chapter three begins with a discussion on whether salvation is by faith or adherence to the Law. Using the example of Abraham, Paul shows that it is faith, not Law observance by which God credits righteousness to us. So one's standing vis a vis the Law is not the determining factor. (Subtext: Gentiles are allowed into the Kingdom.)

Then Paul moves on to specifically discuss how the Law was a tutor, and not the Goal, of God's salvific covenant. The Law was to point us to the coming Seed--Christ--who would fulfill the Law and through whom we would be justified by faith.

So now, whether or not we are descendents of Abraham, or descendents of the Jewish people, we are still sons (children) of God by faith. The dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile has been demolished. So Paul starts off his no x or y, with "neither Jew nor Greek." It has nothing to do with eliminating Jewishness per se, or Greekness/Gentileness per se, nor, at least in terms of salvation, the elimination of slave and free. And of course, neither being male nor female matters in terms sonship.

Think about it. Jewish girls were not circumcised. Now, in the Church, all girls were baptized as were boys. In the Jewish covenant, Gentiles were always something of second-order "Jews", somehow not quite the full thing, though still members of the covenant. Could you imagine what message Christianity would have if it required that only freemen were eligible for salvation? In Hellenistic society, slaves and women were not full citizens. Yet here slaves and womens were equally brothers and sisters in Christ.

Galatians 3:28 is about as far from the elimination of sex as one can get. In context, it's a celebration of diversity. All can be saved, and be saved as they are without a change of race, political status or sex. Chapter four simply reiterates the reading I have given, emphasizing that in Christ all are free.

Galatians 3:28 in fact strongly reinforces Ephesians 5:22-24, as it does the whole (vv. 21-32).

This is one of the problems with the egalitarian position, it cannot synthesize these disparate passages as well as the traditional reading. It is forced to invent novel meanings and to twist the natural context of the passages so that it can accomplish its eisegetical reading.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 17, 2004 04:47 PM

I just had to contribute this obscure mess. I love obscure mess. This is some stuff about Amma Sarah. How do you guys respond to this kind of thing?

Another time, two old men, great anchorites, came to the district of Pelusia to visit her. When they arrived one said to the other, 'Let us humiliate this old woman.' So they said to her, 'Be careful not to become conceited thinking to yourself: "Look how anchorites are coming to see me, a mere woman." 'But Amma Sarah said to them, 'According to nature I am a woman, but not according to my thoughts.'

I know it is a little inflamatory, but it is an interesting example of what kind of stuff was wandering about and is still elevated even today.

She also said to the brothers, 'It is I who am a man, you who are women.'

So, Cliff, I think we agree almost entirely up unto the end of your last comment. I still have some clarifying questions.

Can a woman be a servant leader for her husband? Why not? Is she incapable or is it just not in the job description?

Re: "no male or female" no different standing before God...exactly...except that men have headship and women don't. Right. That's not differnt? If it is not a qualitative differnce, then why have the difference? And if there is not difference then why the distinction? If it is "just that way, dunno, God said so, then I wanna bring up Amma Sarah. She saw a difference qualitatively. Her view, as we know, was pretty common. It was common for centuries. Does Orthodoxy understand the place of women differently than it did when Sarah was around? Even Augustine says some flagrant things about women and sin. So, um, was Augustine wrong? Did he need a good shrink? I know the 85% Orthodox rule, but tell me he was wrong...or tell me he was right.

Re: Baptism for all...Excellent!

In your estimation is male headship a sign of God's plan of diversity in salvation?

Woah...this is getting heavy. I think I'll call it here. This has been good, Cliff. Thanks.

Posted by: Tripp at June 17, 2004 05:29 PM

Love the Ammas. So glad there is some record of their words and deeds.

If, by servant leader, you mean head, I would say no. Because that is not God's command to her, but to her husband. But insofar as a husband and wife order their lives in ways unique to themselves, I don't see why there wouldn't be important and significant areas where a wife wouldn't be a servant leader. She may handle the finances, as does Anna in our home, because she's so damn good at it. Indeed, she took the lead in researching and looking for our new (to us) car. But she did not in anyway usurp headship, though she clearly served-led in the whole process.

The thing modern egalitarians have is that they have to have sameness to have equality. The genius of Christianity is that diversity and equality go hand in hand. There can be differences, even differences in authority, yet still be deep fundamental equality.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say diversity in salvation, but I do think it true that none of us are saved in exactly the same way, although all saved through faith in Jesus alone.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 17, 2004 06:02 PM

Question, gents. What exactly is "headship"?

Is it "the one who ultimately makes the decisions, even if those are the decisions about who makes the decisions," i.e. Clifton your example about buying the new car?

Posted by: Megan at June 18, 2004 08:38 AM

This is like watching a tennis match.

Posted by: Jennifer at June 18, 2004 09:58 AM

Headship isn't just about decision making because it's not just about power.

This is where the egalitarian position falters. It must constrain itself to viewing things in matters of power and control.

I do not deny that headship isn't about authority at all, but it's not the main thing. Paul shows that the main thing is holiness, an "icon-ing" of the mystery of Christ and the Church.

This, from an article by Steven Rhoads (admittedly a bit "old" from 1999), doesn't define headship, but indicates it tends to be "built in" as it were to male and female natures:

These traditional phrases from church weddings might remind one of the traditional Christian understanding of marriage–one where wives “submit” to the “servant” leadership of their husbands. Last summer the Southern Baptists reminded the faithful of this Biblical teaching, and feminists denounced it as “domestic feudalism.”

Most of the rest of America shrugged it off. After all, androgyny is everywhere. Women fly jets and make up 43 percent of all law school graduates. Men go to hair stylists and wear earrings. To most of us, male headship seems like something from another planet.

But social science research on intact marriages finds that in real marriages, male headship is simply a fact. Most men and women seek things in a mate that render something like male headship inevitable. If we care about marriages that work, the Baptists just may have something to teach us. . . .

The androgyny advocates believe that with different social conditioning, men can be reprogrammed to become fully intimate, communicative partners like their wives. And once reprogrammed, men will gain from the sharing of problems as women do. But the testosterone research suggests otherwise. So too does a study that followed the progress of patients dismissed from hospitals after recovery from congestive heart failure. For women the absence of emotional support in the community increased their death rates more than eightfold. For men it made no difference at all. . . .

The existence of women’s innate desire for connection and nurturing is beyond debate. In the first day of life, girl babies respond more intensely than boy babies to the sound of another human in distress. The heart rates of non-mothers exposed to a video of a crying baby accelerate, while the heart rates of men watching the video decelerate.

Women’s estrogen facilitates the effect of oxytocin, a substance which promotes touching, holding, and bonding. During pregnancy and nursing oxytocin surges in women, engendering pleasure and relaxation. When male rats are given oxytocin, they start building nests like their sisters.

The effect of male hormones on nurturing is dramatically different. Evidence comes from studies of women exposed to high levels of male hormones in their mothers’ wombs. These women have little interest in dolls as children, and compared to most women, they are less attracted to infants as adults. On the other hand, Turner’s syndrome girls, who do not produce the small amount of male hormone most women do, show heightened interest in dolls and babies.

Women’s keener sense of touch makes them more responsive to babies, and their high, sing-song voices have been shown to be more pleasing than men’s attempts at baby talk. Especially pleasing is a mother’s voice. Babies hear it in utero, and after birth its sound slows, calms, and steadies a baby’s heart.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 10:45 AM

Cliff, you say "just," meaning somewhat about power? that there is power that the male posesses over the female in the relationship? Not to be too nit picky, but I want to make certain that is what you mean.

Posted by: Tripp at June 18, 2004 10:58 AM

And, from what you just posted, I would rather have the male absent from the family system and not responsible for it.

Really. A man can then contribute nothing to his family but some money according to this information. I know that the information paints an incomplete picture, but there you go. This is how it reads to me.

And it suggests nothing that would place a man "over" or in any type of leadership role at all. Am male, by this definition, has no natural skills for leadership.

Men do not make intimate connections easily.
They prefer to suffer alone.
Children do not bond as well to them.
We do not respond to others' distress easily.

Damn, Cliff. If this is it then I am no man, nor would I wish to be. And if it is biology, then we are God's failed experiment. Truely.

Now, if this is the context for Paul, then the restrictions on male behavior are to protect others from our blundering. All of which says horrible things for the priesthood and about Jesus.

Does any of the above describe Jesus? He was a man.

Posted by: Tripp at June 18, 2004 11:05 AM

I should probably stick to the use of "authority" because in this conversation power is going to be seen in ways Paul doesn't mean it. (Though doubtless authority carries much the same connotations for you all.)

So, is there authority in headship? Of course. But it has never been what headship is all about. How does Paul define it? Self-sacrifice. Loving wife as one's own body. Imaging the relationship of Christ and the Church. Synergizing with one's wife so that she may come before God in utter holiness (by grace). This is headship. Is there authority? Yes. But it's not something the husband enforces, rather it is something to which the wife, of free will, submits. This is what Paul says.

I spend so much time dwelling on everything but authority (in this series of conversations and on Jennifer's blog and elsewhere) because we moderns have this single-minded fetish about power and control. As Christians, we need to so get over it. Moderns want it all parsed out: who makes the decisions, who gets the final say, who has "covering authority" and all that crapola. Move! On!

The reason we cannot parse each and every patricular is because no single marital relationship is the same--and, do I need to point this out?--Paul doesn't parse it so finely. It's all about a single organic reality. One that adapts to various times and situations, but that nonetheless retains the same basic shape. What is that shape? Go back to Ephesians 5.

Can wives buy cars and husbands still be the head? Darn tootin'. Do I have to formally declare to my wife: "Honey, I delegate my headship authority to you to go procure us a car. Proceed forthwith. HUA!"? Please. But do we still have--as much as we sinners can achieve it by grace and repentance--the sort of marriage God wants? Yes and no. We try. He blesses.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 11:11 AM

Tripp:

Re: article:

You certainly take it in a direction the author doesn't.

I'll leave the implications of that to you.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 11:16 AM

re: article

I'll read it all, but siting the SBC "wisdom" is sketchy because the Patterson commission on the family states that the wiffe is to do as the husband says even if he is wrong. You clearly don't buy that. I know. So, if the article is following them completely, I have a problem.

What is positive, according to the article, about being male? What is good? What he lists i would say are bad things.

What are the qualities of Christ and how far is the male of the species from them?

Posted by: Tripp at June 18, 2004 11:34 AM

The question, Clifton, is whether "headship" determines that the husband says to the wife, "You may do the research and handle the transaction on the car." Is he supposedly the one who says "You may"?

Above, in this, you slipped away from answering my question about the definition of "headship." You wrote, "I do not deny that headship isn't about authority at all, but it's not the main thing."

So I repeat, what IS "headship"? Please don't tell me what it's not, tell me what it is.

Tripp, I don't think there are any absolute "male" or "female" qualities. I think a person can't choose how he or she feels (as Clifton's article demonstrates, that's at least partially biologically based). But he or she CAN choose how he or she ACTS.

Posted by: Megan at June 18, 2004 12:01 PM

Tripp:

Granted, the SBC isn't always my primary example of Christian doctrine and practice. But if one reads the article, it's clear Rhoads is not saying anything more than the SBC is headed in the right direction.

You ask: "What is positive, according to the article, about being male? What is good? What he lists i would say are bad things."

Can't help you here. You value what you value. Only your own change of thinking on the matter will realign your values.

But I do have to ask, What about the following don't you value?

47-year-old wives with “very modern” attitudes about job and family roles receive a little less help with household tasks from their husbands than do 47-year-old wives with “very traditional” attitudes about job and family roles. Another study found that the husbands most likely to help wives with household chores are orthodox Christians.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 12:01 PM

Megan:

Quoting myself above: "How does Paul define it? Self-sacrifice. Loving wife as one's own body. Imaging the relationship of Christ and the Church. Synergizing with one's wife so that she may come before God in utter holiness (by grace). This is headship. Is there authority? Yes. But it's not something the husband enforces, rather it is something to which the wife, of free will, submits. This is what Paul says."

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 12:29 PM

Is it your/Paul's opinion that a woman cannot come before God all on her very own?

Posted by: Megan at June 18, 2004 12:33 PM

Clearly, neither Paul nor I believe this.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 12:34 PM

I hit the reply button too soon.

You should note Lydia, Priscilla, Phoebe, and other NT women of note in Acts and Paul's epistles.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 12:36 PM

Ah. Well then. Too bad.

Posted by: Megan at June 18, 2004 12:36 PM

Megan:

Your reply makes me think I've been misunderstood.

Let me be more clear: Both Paul and I believe that women can come to God on their own apart from men.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 12:39 PM

My reply was to your first posting.

So if you do believe that women come to God on their own, what's the point of this? "Synergizing with one's wife so that she may come before God in utter holiness (by grace)."

Posted by: Megan at June 18, 2004 12:42 PM

What is the point of synergizing with other Christians to come before God in utter holiness (by grace)?

But husbands have a particular responsibility to give of themselves in such a way so as to facilitate their wives' growth in Christ. That is to say, I am more responsible to my wife's holiness than I am to yours, because of my relationship with my wife.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 12:48 PM

"Committing to facilitate your spouse's spiritual growth" seems to me to be a far cry from "being in charge of anything."

Imagining, say, that a wife recognizes that she needs to study with a particular person in order to advance her spiritual growth. Say, that her husband disagrees with her.

Who then makes the decision? How does "headship" operate in such an example?

Posted by: Megan at June 18, 2004 12:50 PM

As it alway does: with mutual submission.

One could well argue that if the husband objects, and the wife still presses the matter, that she should willingly acquiesce to her husband's will.

On the other hand, it is the husband's role to sacrifice himself for his wife. So one could also well argue that in this instance the husband should go along with his wife's desires, despite his misgivings.

But one thing that has been left out of the discussion, at least overtly, till now is that headship does not operate in a vacuum. Headship in the home is anchored in the life and witness of the Church. So this conflict that you describe if irresoluble should be brought to one's parish priest or spiritual father, and the resources of the Church enlisted to enable the couple to get through the impasse.

Aside from sheer self-will on both parties, which is neither mutual submission nor headship, there doesn't seem to me to be any problem that an organic conception of headship, which Paul gives, can't work through.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 01:12 PM

Why would she "willingly acquiesce to her husband's will," if that will is going to stultify her spiritual growth? That seems counter to a real commitment to life with Christ.

Posted by: Megan at June 18, 2004 01:17 PM

47-year-old wives with “very modern” attitudes about job and family roles receive a little less help with household tasks from their husbands than do 47-year-old wives with “very traditional” attitudes about job and family roles. Another study found that the husbands most likely to help wives with household chores are orthodox Christians.

That is the exact opposite of what a book reviewed in Touchstone found. http://www.touchstonemag.com/blogarchive/2004_06_06_editors.html#108680883657597690

The only concrete practice of "soft" patriarchy I understood from that Touchstone article was that soft patriarchs don't do dishes ("perform less household labor").

Posted by: Jennifer at June 18, 2004 01:50 PM

Megan:

You assume that acquiescence is stultification. It need not be. After all, no matter how beneficial an activity could be for the wife, if she insists on an activity from self-will, that can hardly accrue to her spiritual benefit could it? Of course, for a husband to stubbornly resist an otherwise spiritually beneficial exercise for his wife from self-will is hardly headship, nor is it beneficial for him, either.

Once again, I find it illustrative that egalitarians must always seek to view these relationships in terms of either/or. Either there is equality and no authority, or there is not.

Why is it so difficult to understand that there can be both equality and authority? I mean, it's common sense. We live it everyday.

Why do I seem to be the only one in this discussion who has the ability to hold equality and authority in balance? I mean, wouldn't you have guessed that this traditional guy would have been more black and white than you all, instead of the other way around?

(I can't help but tease you all: Who's the "fundamentalist" now?)

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 05:07 PM

Cliff, in the article he mentions studies but does not site them. Can you find citations? I am having a hard time finding much of anything.

Posted by: Tripp at June 18, 2004 05:08 PM

Jennifer:

As with everything, it would be helpful if we better understood what each of the studies understand by "traditional," "orthodox" and "patriarchal." (Also "household chores.") I would suggest that when these are clarified, the discrepancies will likely be less than they appear.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 05:08 PM

www.barna.org has some stuff...

Divorce (2001)

Among those who have been married, college grads are less likely than those who did not earn a college degree to have been divorced (31% to 36%, respectively).
While black adults are more likely than white or Hispanic adults to get divorced, the differences are miniscule (36% of black adults who had been married had experienced a divorce, compared to 34% of whites and 32% of Hispanics).
The region in of the nation in which divorce is least likely is the Northeast. In that area, 28% of adults who have been married have also been divorced, compared to 32% in the Midwest, 35% in the South, and 38% in the West.
Overall, 33% of all born again individuals who have been married have gone through a divorce, which is statistically identical to the 34% incidence among non-born again adults.

It is interesting that "born again" Christians have the same divorce rate. But that is not pertinent to this conversation.

Posted by: Tripp at June 18, 2004 05:10 PM

Um, I think we live with inequality all the time. This is why I strive for equality. We have inequality in our government, laws, employment etc...much of this can be tracked down to who is in authority and how that authority is used or abused.

If you give someone authority, will they abuse it? Sure. Should they, even Paul agrees with me here...no. But they do. Thus, I look for equality because Jesus looked for equality. He never asked from something of women that was different from men...or vice versa. He spoke of followers and believers.

I know, this is the divorce between Paul and jesus, but that is fine with me. You follow the history that the church took Paul's words to be revelation. So do I. And equal to the Gospels. Yep, me too. But Paul is an example of working it out in your own life and in the life of the church. His own writigs demonstrate just how complicated and difficult that is. I read much of his stuff as "In my best guess, this is what I think it is about." Why? Because Paul and I are no different. You and Paul are no different. We share the same relationship with Christ. So, Paul is giving it his best shot, as am I. Sometimes I miss the mark. Sometimes he does as well.

But this is that damn dead horse again.

Posted by: Tripp at June 18, 2004 05:30 PM

Tripp:

These were specific studies/researcher/authors the text mentions:

Frank Furstenberg and Andrew Cherlin
Liz Gallese’s study of women graduates from the 1975 class of the Harvard Business School
Pepper Schwartz
Deborah Tannen and Carol Gilligan
Theresa Crenshaw, co-author of a leading medical text on sexual pharmacology
Another study—part of the world-famous Framingham research
An experiment at the National Institute of Mental Health
Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz’s major work, American Couples
A cross-cultural anthropological study looking for reasons for conjugal dissolution in 160 modern and primitive societies
feminist Rosalind Barnett and co-authors
David Courtwright’s book Violent Land
Riessman’s Divorce Talk

One of the sad things about modern popular journalism is its retreat from full citation of sources. From NYT to Touchstone, the footnoted article is rarer and rarer. But clearly the author is utilizing several studies in a very condensed article.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 05:37 PM

Thanks. Just being lazy.

Posted by: Tripp at June 18, 2004 05:40 PM

Tripp:

". . . because Jesus looked for equality. He never asked from something of women that was different from men...or vice versa."

Really? He didn't make any women Apostles, though he had many women followers. Which of the Twelve were women? Isn't this asking something of men that he didn't ask of women?

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 05:41 PM

Yeah...I knew you would go there.

Here is something for you in gender difference: Men won't particpate unless you give them a board position. Ha!

Would women have studied with men? Were women even allowed to sit at the feet of a rabbi as students?

Jesus had followers. Were disciples men for any reason other than the cultural norm? Paul expands this retinue to women as you listed above. Do only men posess the gift of teaching? When gifts are spoken of, the only "gift" that men have that women do not is that of "headship" in the family structure. Paul speaks of not allowing women to teach, but no one follows this. Father Reardon even says this.

There is no reason but culture for Jesus to have chosen men...or for men to be remembered as disciples and teh women as followers.

Is family structure the same thing? Is it something to be ignored? Is it one of those "orthodox but not salvific" practices that can be ignored to no detriment of ours?

This is one of the problems in this conversation. I am not sure why it matters to you that we keep the practice of male headship. What is the benefit spiritually? Is it of any more benefit than cutting my hair?

I know this is a crazy question, but I am going to throw it out there, because we mainline types oft mistakenly lump everything into salvation. Lemme know. Because if my salvation is not on the line, then I ain't gonna sweat it no more.

Posted by: Tripp at June 18, 2004 06:00 PM

As with anything, all we say and do is related to our salvation. Nothing is unrelated. Jesus said we will be judged for every careless word that comes from our mouth. Jesus again: We will be judged for our very thoughts. (So much for the gentle Jesus meek and mild who lets us stay as we are and still lets us into heaven.)

So, yes, headship is part of the whole life-transformation that is salvation. Is it salvific in exactly the same way as is Baptism, Confession, and the Lord's Body and Blood? No. But then again, whether or not I take out the trash doesn't have quite the same status as my having said "I do" to my wife in front of the Church and God himself. But is taking out the trash related to my marriage? You bet! (As are careless words and my thought life.)

You may come--indeed, may have already come--to a decision that you will just ignore the biblical and God-ordained mandate of headship. That's certainly your choice. But this is like ignoring God's commandment to truthfulness. It may not result in the final damnation of your soul--if you even believe in that, of course--but it will unleash chaos and destruction, perhaps on a different scale, in your married life.

God's command for sexual purity and sexual expression within the bonds of the marital union of one man with one woman for life is not simply just a moral code he laid out. It is truth and life. Therefore, when his commands are ignored, chaos and destruction are unleashed. Concretely, this means STDs, abortion, illegitimate births, fatherless (more rarely motherless) homes, violence and drug addiction. These are scientific facts, not just fundamentalist blather.

Headship is like that. You can ignore it, but it will have its consequences anyway. Reality cannot be undone by wishful thinking and philosophical, theological fantasy.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 18, 2004 07:56 PM

Clifton, uncharacteristically lazy reading on your part of my last post. Let me repeat, with new emphasis:

"Why would she "willingly acquiesce to her husband's will," ****IF*** that will is going to stultify her spiritual growth? That seems counter to a real commitment to life with Christ."

IF doesn't mean ALL THE TIME. Try again?

Meanwhile, your second-to-last paragraph above: do you believe that these plagues of locusts visit themselves on everyone who conducts a sexual life outside marriage?

Posted by: Megan at June 19, 2004 08:37 AM

The STD's thing is a big button for me. Take that out of your list, Cliff. To place it there shows incredible ignorance on your part.

You can get STD's using the public restroom.

And even the claim of "typically through intercourse" that could be made does not stand up to the particular. To claim the general in spite of teh particular is inappropriate.

And, shall I begin speaking of addiction?

Posted by: Tripp at June 19, 2004 09:06 AM

Re: spiritually beneficial activities: It wasn't lazy reading on my part. Read my reply again. Even if an activity is beneficial, to assert her self-will (which I am distinguishing from mere free will) would not be beneficial to her spiritually. The root of sin is self-will. Whatever benefit she might receive from some other activity would be disordered do to her self-will. As it would be for the husband who asserts his headship from self-will.

Re: STDS--Excuse me? Is it not the case that STDs are, well, um, sexually transmitted diseases? Are you telling me no one gets them through sex?

What is it with this extreme either/or thinking you all keep pushing the issue toward? Aren't folks like yourself all about both/and thinking?

Re: "locusts"--No, Megan, of course not. It's not the case that every time someone has sex outside the bonds of marriage that bad things happen. For cryin' out loud. But it is the case that when sex is kept inside the bonds of marriage, the rate of STDs drop considerably. You make the connection.

And yes Tripp I know that STDs get passed in ways other than sex. But are you then prepared to say that sex has nothing to do with STDs? Now who's ignorant?

Wow.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 19, 2004 09:45 AM

Cliff: You said, "Therefore, when his commands are ignored, chaos and destruction are unleashed. Concretely, this means STDs, abortion, illegitimate births, fatherless (more rarely motherless) homes, violence and drug addiction. These are scientific facts, not just fundamentalist blather."

So, if the family structure is ignored we get STD's? STD's are by definition sexually transmitted. We both agree that there are other means. If there are other means of transmission, why give this causative relationship between "self-will" and STD's? Again, the particularity. And the connection you make for Megan regarding the lowered rate of transmission: sure. That's basic math. Fewer partners, fewer diseases. You can use condoms and manage the same thing. But so what? Why place a moral judgment upon something like an STD? You know, you can get a cold by the same means. I do not see you saying that the spread of the common cold is because of the disintegration of the family. I do not follow your logic. No, that's not it. I think your logic is overly focused and inappropriately causative.

Sex has a much to do with the spread of STD's. Sex has much to do with the spread of the common cold. Sex has much to do with the spread of yeast and urinary tract infections. It can even result in pulled backs of those in poor condition. In the worst case, sex can result in death. This is all sill, I know, but the moral coloring you paint with befuddles me.

Yes, anonymous sex, indescriminate sex are problematic. They may or may not lead to the individual getting an STD. Does the spread of STD's increase when people practice indescriminate sex? Yes. So? Are STD's a moral problem or are STD's a sign of a moral problem.

I hear you saying that STD's are a sign of immorality. I say the increase is mathematical and not moral. There is no moral value on STD's.

Posted by: Tripp at June 19, 2004 10:58 AM

On the contrary, Tripp, we use mathematical relationships to posit causative explanations all the time. Think about cancer and smoking. There is currently no acceptable medical explanation which details the biochemical processes for how it is that lung cancer results from smoking. Instead, all we have are mathematical relationships. X% of smokers get lung cancer; Y% of non-smokers do not get lung cancer, factor all the variables and voila! Smoking causes lung cancer. Almost no one disputes the relationship, even if we can't physcial demonstrate the causative nature of smoking and lung cancer.

I'm simply suggesting that the mathematical relationships between non-marital sex and other social and physical states of disorder and disease. Nor am I making this up whole cloth. Once again, the studies are there. It's not inappropriately causative.

Nor, I should be careful to clarify, am I equating STDs with some sort of moral state, as was done when the HIV epidemic hit in the 80s here in the U. S. That is to say: if you had HIV you were homosexual, and therefore immoral, or that somehow because HIV was associated with gay sex, if you had it, it was evidence of your immorality. But of course Ryan White through his sacrifice, showed us that is not the case.

I am not saying that if you have the clap, you could only have gotten through illicit sex, therefore you were immoral. I'm saying immoral actions have consequences. Since the Christian Faith believes that God has built into reality the norm of sex between one man and one woman, married for life, then to deviate from that norm will bring about disastrous consequences.

I think it just common sense to note the studies done on the prevalence of STDs among non-marrieds. Does this mean that any non-married sexually active person will get STDs? Of course not. Does it mean I would counsel non-marrieds to not use condomns if they were going to engage in sex? Of course not. But note that to achieve something like an STD-free state, those who practice sex outside of marriage have to effectively alter the natural state of intercourse to achieve their aims. And even use of condoms is not guaranteed to be absolutely safe.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 19, 2004 12:17 PM

You said: "I'm saying immoral actions have consequences."

I am saying that all actions have consequences. I am actually saying mathematical realities have no bearing in this. Again, we agree on the realities. I am suggesting that there is no moral component and you are saying there is. If the sole purpose of being in the will of God by being married in the Pauline way is to avoid the above...wow...the across the board application of the logic is staggering.

Posted by: Tripp at June 19, 2004 12:26 PM

Tripp:

You know me better than that. I am in no way suggesting that the only point to marriage is to avoid the consequences of sin. But neither am I denying that that's not, at least in part, an acceptable motivation.

I would hope that you would keep in context all my remarks. The point of marriage, or at least a major point, is holiness and union with God. That's clear from Paul.

I would sincerely ask you both to try to refrain from taking a single point I make out of this overall context. I realize that I may miscommunicate, and you would be right to press me on matters I don't make clear. But it seems in the last several exchanges I make a point and then it gets taken to an extreme that I not only don't mean, but which is not in keeping with the context of my overall remarks.

Again, I know I can be unclear at times, so I welcome points of clarification. But misconstruing what I say out of context is a whole 'nother thing.

And if I have and when I do violate my own request here, please, call me on it.

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at June 19, 2004 12:49 PM