conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Tripp:

I don't think you have what Paul is saying. It's not as though the husband directly serves Christ, while the wife serves Christ by serving her husband. Both serve Christ in serving one another: the wife by submitting to her husband as to the Lord, and the husband by giving his life for his wife's holiness as Christ gave himself for the Church. You see, there is a symmetry (I would assert an equality) of submission, even if that submission takes different forms with each of them. The husband does submit to his wife: he does so by giving his life for her.

Once again, the lense of seeing authority and submission through control skews the straightforward interpretation of the passage. Both wives and husbands are called to submit to one another. Both submit to Christ directly in submitting to one another. And the husband submits to his wife just as the wife does to her husband, even if that submission is different in form because men and women are different while also being equal.

It's not as though a husband is more able to follow Christ directly than is the wife. That's silly. But just as my submission to Christ as a married man differs from yours (at least for now) as an engaged man, so too does my submission to Christ as a married man differ from my wife's as a married woman. But there is no inequality here. We both submit to and follow Christ as person redeemed by his grace.

Even when I don't follow Christ the way I should, Anna is not released from her obligation to follow Christ in the way he has commanded (through Paul), nor if Anna were to apostasize would I then be free to ignore Christ's command to me to sacrifice myself for my wife and her holiness.

In Christianity there is authority. But there is no inequality, because authority is exercised in, as you put it, servanthood.

We are walking fine lines here. I edited my post just before you commented, Cliff.

Here is a question for you. Can a wife submit herself to her husband in the same way a husband submits to his wife?

Yes and no. Yes, in that both husband and wife submit to Christ. Same submission, same direction: all to the Lord.

But no in a few senses: She's not the same person as her husband, so it won't be the same; just as my submission as (generic) man still won't be the same as yours as (generic) man, since we're two different people. Also no in that being a woman is a qualitative existential difference from being a man. Even if the act of submssion would be exactly the same in every way, the qualitative aspect of it would be different; a woman is not the same as a man. (I'm the master of the obvious here, I know.) But also no in that Christ has shaped her submission to Himself in a way that is different from the way he has shaped the submission of the husband to Himself. The wife submits to Christ by submitting to her husband. The husband submits to Christ by sacrificing his life for his wife. But it should not be read that the husband doesn't submit to his wife. He does. It's just that his submission, when considered from the standpoint of Christ's command to him, is of a different form than is that of his wife.

See, this is the thing...I so not think it is that obvious. I know that I tease in that vein, but I have to say that I am not sure it is that obvious.

To think of the sexes as qualitatively different is to put a stumbling block before us. This sets up a gender-based hierarchy potentially, and that is a stumbling block.

When I hear phrases like "women are..." or "men are..." I try to have a discipline of seeing feminine viewpoints and masculine viewpoints in terms of skill sets. I am a human being. I am anima and animus. I think Jung was on to something in this. So, I try to enjoy both of these aspects of myself.

Now, one could also argue that tools are tools and a hammer is no better than a hammer. But to ascribe this same type of functionality to human beings is short-sighted. Perhaps it is true that a woman would not approach a familial problem in the same way that a man would. Okay, fine. But this has nothing to do with role. To ascribe stereotypical traits to either role of husband or wife is inappropriate. Why? Because Jesus calls us to the same thing...servanthood.

Does it look different? Yes, in the way that you say about generic men or generic humans. But this is happenstance and not a job description.

This is why I think that the theory that Ephesians and the like are a redefined pater familias stands up. It assumes that the pater familias model is normative and redefines it. By normative I mean "The Will of God." It is a type of Naturalist Theology. It is akin to thinking that the English monarch and the feudal system was divinely inspired and how all human societies should be structured if they are to follow the will of God.

This is foolishness and you know it. Like saying that democracy is how God wills his communities to be structured, it is incomplete. It is how we function within those structures that defines Christains. So, how does a Christian function within the contemporary family structure? This is what Paul was wondering and working through. So, the specifics will change, but not the theology of servanthood.

I think the social world, differences based on sex do exist. And because we all live in the social world, thsoe differences that have been pounded into us by human expectation, reward and punishment express themselves in our behavior. This is my way of understanding Clifton's point.

But, I believe that in the spiritual world, there is no difference between men and women (or anybody who places hirself in another category). I believe that God created us in God's image -- the behavioral differences were created by humans, not by God.

So, I do believe that individual men and women and others can find their places on the whole spectrum of ways to serve God, unrestricted by their sex.

Responding to this, "Now, how does a woman serve Christ directly? I mean, without the mediation of her husband? Can she? Is she unable to serve Christ without the mediation of her husband or is the only way that she may serve Christ through serving her husband?"

Well, she'd better be able to serve Christ in ways other than "through" her husband -- not every woman HAS a husband! Are unmarried women then just cut off from Christ perpetually? That would be silly.

Megan's point is extremely pertinent: quite obviously women, and wifely women, can serve Christ without the mediation of their husbands. Amen, sister! Paul is very clearly NOT in Ephesians 5 indicating that women have access to serving Christ only through their husbands.

Now since the both of you (but more particularly I am addressing Tripp here) view anything BUT an absolutely egalitarian relationship between men and women as completely human-constructed, I cannot provide the Gestalt necessary to see the text for what it says on its face. I have given a reading of the text that does not reinterpret any words with novel meaning. I have let all the facts of the text stand as most straightforwardly read. And I believe I have shown how it is absolutly consistent with that reading of the text to see an egalitarian status between husband and wife in terms of submission to Christ and to one another while at the same time also allowing the text to speak the qualitative differences in that submission.

Nowhere did I affirm any sort of stereotypical roles for the wife (always at home with the children, meekly submissive to every ordinance of her self-sacrificing spouse) or for the husband (always out of the home providing for his family from his income alone, the sole authority and disciplinarian, etc.) In fact, in my comments on your post from yesterday, I very clearly noted how Proverbs 31 with its "strong woman" mercantilist jibes very nicely with Ephesians 5.

That you read something like "barefoot and pregnant" into Ephesians 5 is not the fault of the text so much as the failure of us husbands and wives to live up to the command of Christ. It is here that I mean our society has built in reactions to Ephesians 5 that are based on an unholy caricature of what Paul is actually saying and not on the actual thing Paul (and Christ through him) did say. I'm not claiming Gnostic insight, or impugning IQ levels. I'm trying to identify a filter which cannot but distort Paul's meaning.

Finally, yes men and women are the same in terms of essence (as are the Persons of the Holy Trinity in whose image men and women are created) but to deny the very real distinctions between men and women is tantamount to denying the distinctions between the Persons of the Trinity. We have, as it were, a unitarianism of personhood, which I submit is as much a Christian heresy as is denial of the distinctions between the Trintarian Persons. Or, at least if it's not unitarianist heresy of personhood, it's the equivalent of the Gnostic heresy which denies the Incarnation and the embodied existence in which we humans are saved and sanctified.

"to deny the very real distinctions between men and women is tantamount to denying the distinctions between the Persons of the Trinity."

In what way? Walk me through the logic, please, Clifton.

Doesn't "heresy" mean "in contradiction with the Gospels"? Where in the Gospels does it say that men and women are spiritually distinct?

Trinity: one in essence as God, distinct in Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

Humankind: one in essence as human, distinct in persons (male and female)

Of course, I do not intend an absolute one-to-one correspondence between the nature of God and the nature of humanity. But if we are created in God's image, it stands to reason that our humanness and our maleness and femaleness would have resonances with the Trinity.

Heresy, in Christian context, means, most literally, choice, and is the elevation of personal authority over that of the Church. It's nearest modern equivalent would actually be "opinion." Heresy has always been teaching which does not agree with the Faith of the Church; which Faith is expressed in the Scriptures (Old and New Testament), the Liturgy, the Canons, and the lives of the saints (all of these being contained within that thing we call Tradition).

Megan, I know that you prefer to divorce the Gospels over against the other writings of the Christian Scriptures, but this is an impossibility. The Gospels carry the same authority as do the epistles of the Apostles. Indeed, we only have the Gospels because of men like Matthew, John, et. al. The Church came into existence prior to the Gospels, and in fact, the first Christian Scriptures were the letters of Paul (as hinted at in the 13th chapter of Hebrews), not the Gospels which came later.

Megan:

You asked: "Where in the Gospels does it say that men and women are spiritually distinct?"

I have two questions.

1. What do you mean by spiritually distinct?

2. Based on the answer to #1, what would you accept as an indication of the distinction between men and women?

This is not what Cliff was saying, but it is an interesting summary of part of our conversations from a critiques of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Wives:

The Pressler-Patterson coalition’s subjugation of women extended to the privacy of Baptist homes when a statement on the family was added to the BF&M. In line with the chain of command made explicit in the 1984 resolution, the 1998 family amendment advised wives that they must “graciously submit” to their husbands.

The unconditional nature of the wife’s subjugation became clear at the official press conference following the statement’s adoption. Dorothy Patterson, wife of Paige Patterson and a member of the committee that drafted the family statement, said, “When it comes to submitting to my husband even when he is wrong, I just do it. He is accountable to God.”

Such interpretations ignore the grammatical (in the Greek) and logical priority that must be given to the command to mutual submission in the family (Eph. 5:21). It also makes the husband “lord” of the wife rather than acknowledging that Christ is Lord over both and that submission is only proper when a request is worthy of Christ — “as unto to the Lord”

(Eph. 5:22). Compounding these misunderstandings is their insistence on viewing the metaphor “head” (Eph. 5:23) as an image of a proud and powerful “military ruler” rather than as an image of a self-sacrificing and humble “suffering servant” who voluntarily sets aside power and glory and gives his life for his family (Philippians 2:3-8).

These and other recent instances of the SBC’s subjugation of women have led many women to question how they can continue to conscientiously support a denomination so opposed to their values.

This is almost the same comment I left over at Endlesslyrocking. First, the Southern Baptist model of patriarchy (let's call it traditional) vs. the Cliff model of patriarchy (let's call it enlightened), do we agree that traditional patriarchy is in fact what's happened throughout history? If so, it seems that enlightened patriarchy is in fact, that dreaded word, "new." You might say it's a re-claiming of what was originally intended, but that's what I and other feminists believe about various issues. Maybe not what was originally intended by Paul, but then again the Orthodox have women teaching men, and it seems as if Paul didn't intend for that to happen.

I like Tripp's analogy of pater familias and systems of government. I brought up the issue of slavery and how that related to patriarchy on my blog, but no one took that issue up for discussion.

Clifton, quick answers:

1. I mean, what is the essential difference (if any) between a man's soul and a woman's?

2. Any example that is not explainable as an effect of human influence and expectation.

Jennifer -- I've gone down that slavery road in conversations about marriage before. I've found it too incendiary for most people to discuss rationally.

Back to Clifton -- so, your definition of heresy is tied up with an individual's relationship to a church. Since I'm not concerned with a relationship to a church, but only with a relationship with God, I'm not concerned with heresy. And hey, if I burn in hell because of my own stupidity, it won't be on your conscience. You tried. :-)

Tripp, this: "These and other recent instances of the SBC’s subjugation of women have led many women to question how they can continue to conscientiously support a denomination so opposed to their values." is a limited version of the larger question that I've been asking for years about individuals' (not just women's) relationships to churches.

Megan:

I'm not sure how to respond to your question re: the sameness/distinction between men and women at the spiritual/soulish level. I know what I want to say, but there is nothing that can't be said that wouldn't be undercut by the move of suspicion in your criteria of acceptance. Every sort of answer that could be given would be subject to the suspicion of human tainting. Science can't offer anything here, since it has been recognized at least since Einstein that the human observer influences that which s/he observes. Theology can't help, because since Feuerbach it has been under the suspicion of human projection. One is left with only one criteria: one's own individual preference, which must be impregnable from any outside influence lest it risk losing autonomy.

So, though I have an answer, I do not have one that will not pass your criteria. So I will not offer it.

Okay, I'm having trouble with the double negatives today. Here is my reply cleaned up:

Megan:

I'm not sure how to respond to your question re: the sameness/distinction between men and women at the spiritual/soulish level. I know what I want to say, but there is nothing that can be said that wouldn't be undercut by the move of suspicion in your criteria of acceptance. Every sort of answer that could be given would be subject to the suspicion of human tainting. Science can't offer anything here, since it has been recognized at least since Einstein that the human observer influences that which s/he observes. Theology can't help, because since Feuerbach it has been under the suspicion of human projection. One is left with only one criteria: one's own individual preference, which must be impregnable from any outside influence lest it risk losing autonomy.

So, though I have an answer, I do not have one that will pass your criteria. So I will not offer it.

What's the difference between suspicion and rigor?

Suspicion is insatiable, and never satisfied. Rigor has a set of definitive criteria by which it consistently evaluates phenomena; and also acknowledges the presuppositions on which it founds its criteria.

I'm not sure there is anything that could rigorously evaluate something as NOT being of human influence and expectation. And indeed, since your criterion is in the negative, the question will always be begged. That is to say, how would there ever be a scenario in which one couldn't suspect that something was of human influence or expectation?

Clifton, if I knew the answer to that question, I wouldn't need to pose it to you.

Megan:

So, do I understand you to think that your criterion is ironclad? Game, set match?

I'm not being facetious, and I certainly don't mean to be disrespectful, but since you offered as a criterion for determining the authority of the answer to whether or not women and men have essentially distinctive or essentially unitive souls/spirits (irrespective of their embodied sex) that any answer can't be suspected of human influence or expectation, I don't see how any answer can't be responded to with "Well, that's just human influence."

For example, if I were to bring up Scriptural texts, you might object to anything that wasn't from the Gospels. But even if Gospel texts were used, it might be that you would object on the point of it was only my human interpretation. If I enlist the writings of the Church Fathers, I could imagine your reply being something like these were men intent on continuing the hold on their power. If I brought forth writings of women saints, you might object that the women were merely a reflection of their (patriarchal) culture.

In other words, your criterion functions as an all-pervasive rejoinder to any discussion. This is why I previously said that there is no answer that could satisfy your criterion.

But then your criterion does not satisfy it's own condition, either. For example, based on your criterion, I could suspect any of your suspicions as being based on your own expectations or some other human influence.

That's what I've tried to point out. Suspicion does only one thing: it says "No" to any affirmative. But what it does not do is disprove that affirmative. It cannot, because it is not designed to do so.

I hope I'm not talking past you. Do you understand what I'm getting at?

Perfectly. And your analysis of the reasons your methods would not satisfy my criteria are correct.

So once again, I suggest we agree to disagree. You don't have the tools to refute my argument, and you're apparently not prepared to consider that I might be right. Thus, best to end it before we both waste much time and energy.

Megan:

Yes, we will simply remain in disagreement.

I would clarify that technically, yours is not an argument. How would you prove your criterion? To do so you would have to make an argument. But anything you suggest would self-refute, because every argument you would produce would be from human influence and expectation.

So what you have is a presupposition--in Aristotelian terms, a first principle--which you assert without proof. I submit that such a presupposition, due to its inherently vicious cricle, needs rethinking.

But on that, I am confident, you disagree.

Till next time!