"Patriarchy" comes from two Greek words. Patria refers to the father. "Archy", from the Greek arche, means beginning, first in origin, to rule. We use "archy" in a variety of terms: Monarchy, oligarchy, lots of "archy's". One form of "rule" is "patriarchy", defined as "the structuring of society on the basis of family units, where fathers have primary responsibility for the welfare of, hence authority over, their families." As it turns out, in fact, "patriarch" is a biblical word (Acts 2:29; Heb 7:4). Everyone knows that the Jewish origins are "the fathers", Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. From the very beginning, in fact, the fathers were the dominant reference. Why? Because "Adam was formed first" (2 Tim 2:13). The concept is unavoidable in the Bible.
First and foremost, we have the God of the Bible. We have God, the Father, Jesus, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to whom the Bible always refers as "He" (never "She"). (I'm hoping I don't need references for this. It's quite obvious.) While both man and woman are made in the image of God and both share equal value as persons and both are required to exercise dominion over the Earth, even before the Fall, woman was designed to be man's helper. At the Fall, God declared to woman "he shall rule over you" (Gen 3:16). It was God's design.
And so it went as an unbroken string throughout the Bible. Regarding Abraham God says, "For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has promised him" (Gen 18:19). It is fathers who are commanded to bring up the children "in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Eph 6:4). It is about fathers and husbands that Paul writes, "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8). While wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, husbands are commanded to love their wives (Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19), offering distinct commands to distinct genders. Paul doesn't mince words about the hierarchy (another "archy" word) of the home: "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). He goes on to say, "[Man] is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" (1 Cor 11:7-9). There are controls and limits placed on male leadership. Fathers are not to exasperate their children (Eph 6:4). They are to show compassion (Psa 103:13). They are to honor their wives (1 Peter 3:7). The image isn't one of domination, but servant leadership, compassion, and honor. The man, then, is ordained by God to be the head of his household, the leader of his family, the provider and protector, with the authority and mandate to direct his household in paths of obedience to God.
So ... why did I ask, "Are you sure you want to go there?" Well, it's quite obvious that none of this is popular today. It's "sexist" and demeaning. It makes men as better than women. And on and on. Part of the problem is that the entire concept of "patriarchy" is defined and understood by most in terms of error and extremes. I say "patriarchy" and they think "male domination", "subjugation of women", "unequal value". None of that is accurate. They are errors. They don't align with biblical patriarchy. One of the difficulties is the problem of "submit" versus "devalue". Somehow we believe that if one person submits to another, the one who submits is of lesser value than the other. This is demonstrably not true. The Son submitted to the Father. In no way would we say that the Son was less valuable than the Father. In similar terms, we connect value with significance. A person in charge, we seem to think, is more important than the rest. Headship, somehow, makes someone more important than those over whom he is head. Any one with any sense who supervises people will tell you that the people are the important ones, not the supervisor. The supervisor coordinates, perhaps, but it is the supervised that make it happen. And then there is the inevitable "What about lousy fathers?!" People who abuse their God-given role are just as much in error as those who refuse it. We can't determine what "godly" is from people who are wrong. Still, some determine "Patriarchy must be wrong because my father was abusive." That doesn't make sense.
Properly understood, it is inevitable that we conclude that the Bible teaches a structure for the family with the father and husband at the top. It isn't the top in terms of value. It isn't the top in terms of importance. It is often a difficult, unrecognized position. I suspect that one of the reasons that patriarchy is out is because men didn't want to do it. Imagine, guys, if you took your role seriously and knew that it was your job to be the one to supply all the answers to whatever question your wife might ask (1 Cor 14:35), for instance. Imagine that you kept in mind that it was you whom God holds responsible at every turn for the choices and direction of your family. Enviable position? Not really. But it is the biblical one, despite all the complaints of today's unisex society.
100 comments:
Stan said:
Everyone knows that the Jewish origins are "the fathers", Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. From the very beginning, in fact, the fathers were the dominant reference. Why? Because "Adam was formed first" (2 Tim 2:13). The concept is unavoidable in the Bible.
While clearly the bible is written from a patriarchal point of view, I don't find it avoidable at all that we must assume patriarchy is right and good. It, to me, is like slavery or polygamy - both of which are mentioned in generic or positive lights in the Bible, but that does not mean that they are good or desirable or Godly.
I guess, ultimately, my question would be, "What do you MEAN by this?"
To your credit, you don't mean patriarchy in a demeaning sense. You don't mean domineering, bullying, oppressing or demeaning, I don't believe. If I understand you correctly, you DON'T mean...
1. That women in a society ought not vote;
2. That women in a society ought not have leadership roles;
3. That women in a household don't have a voice in decisions;
4. That women ought not be considered chattel, as they were when these texts were written;
5. That women ought not work;
I don't THINK you mean...
6. That men can't cook, that women can't pay the bills, etc, etc (ie, that some household roles/jobs are for "men only" or for "women only");
7. That men in households make the decisions and women must go along with them regardless...
Although, on these last two, I'm not sure what your position is, so maybe I'm wrong and you DO think that some roles are men only and some women only and that men DO make the decisions in households, not women. You tell me. If it's the case that you think some roles are gender specific, would you give me a sample list and some (logical? biblical?) basis for your list?
For me, this is one area where I departed from the more conservative, patriarchal view earlier in my Christian life, while I was more conservative still. I just realized that, while I thought the Bible clearly taught that men were to be the "head of the household," it was a distinction with no difference. I meant nothing by that. I did not mean that women couldn't work or that some roles were gender specific or that women couldn't vote or that men made the "final decision" on matters. So, it meant really nothing to say that "men were the head of the household," except holding to the wording that was found in Paul's writings. So, if you could explain what you mean by that, it would help.
If you mean none of the above, then perhaps we're back to a mere semantic disagreement. But you can tell me.
Dan Trabue: "... Maybe I'm wrong and you DO think that some roles are men only and some women only and that men DO make the decisions in households, not women."
I'm guessing that you've never spent time in the military. (No insult intended.) In the military there are very clear lines of responsibility. In the Navy, for instance, the captain of the ship is responsible for all that goes on aboard that ship. Now, it would be mindless to think this means that the captain does everything that goes on aboard the ship. It simply means that he takes responsibility. He doesn't do all the work. He doesn't even make all the decisions. He takes responsibility. And that is what I'm trying to get across in a biblical patriarchy. Christ takes ultimate responsibility. Under Him, men are responsible. Under them, women are responsible. Christ does not do all the work, make all the decisions, or even fill all the roles. Neither do men. But we're responsible -- for our families.
Let me illustrate from one of your questions and my own experience. Can women pay bills? In my home growing up, mom always paid the bills. Always. She did so under the authority and responsibility of my father. All he did, essentially, was check up on things from time to time to make sure things were going well and she proved a responsible and trustworthy bill-payer. She did it. He took responsibility for it. Both were true. Does that help clarify at all?
Are there some roles that are men only or women only? Absolutely. No woman can be a father. No man can be a mother. No wife can be a husband and no husband can be a wife. Despite your certainty of the other side, Scripture is very clear that church elders are males only. (Deacons, on the other hand, are listed as male or female.) There are roles that are men or women exclusive. Certainly not many.
Do men make all the decisions and women none? Anyone who would say so (and some do) does so in violation of Scripture. You can't read about the excellence of the Proverbs 31 wife and conclude that's the case.
So, am I suggesting that it's a meaningless concept (your "distinction with no difference")? Absolutely not! A body needs a head. If a marriage takes two and makes them one, only one can be the head or we have a two-headed monster. We have very clear instructions in Scripture regarding "wives, submit to your husbands", for instance. (I won't be debating this here. It's in there. It's unavoidable. It's even the very words. The only way to "reason" out of it is, ultimately, to suggest that God didn't know what He was inspiring when He inspired it.) The "head of household" has duties and responsibilities. He doesn't have to do all the work (train the children, clean the house, whatever you may list), but he does need to take responsibility for it. God holds him responsible for it. (And, frankly, to suggest that this very obvious -- even to you -- system of patriarchy and male "head of household" is "a distinction with no difference" doesn't even make sense. Why put so much of it in the Bible when it's pointless?)
Why does the Bible write so much about polygamy if it's not the ideal for marriage? Because it was the times in which they lived.
Same for all this "head of household" and "submission," language. Slaves were told to submit to their masters, too. That does not mean that today, if we ran across a slave who was wanting to NOT submit to a master, that we would be correct in telling that slave to submit.
Times change and so do cultural mores and customs and it's okay.
Thank you, Stan, for such a good explanation.
I suspect that your suspicion is correct ~ that one of the reasons patriarchy is "out" is because many men didn't want to do it.
My husband takes his role as head of this family of ours very seriously. No matter who botches up or is having a difficulty of some sort, he believes that ultimately he is responsible and usually it is the result of some shortcoming on his part.
Probably there are not many who would want to feel the weight of THAT kind of responsibility. And yet, actually this goes on around the world with those in leadership positions. If an employee, athlete, or a soldier falls short of his/her mark, often his/her boss, coach, or commanding officer often feels and is held responsible for not showing more attention to this individual's needs ~ needs for such things as more training, better coaching, respite, encouragement, hope.
Consider policemen. I don't think most of them feel they are superior to the rest of us. (They shouldn't anyway.) They just have earthly jobs that temporarily put them in positions of authority. Their motto is "Protect and serve". This should be the motto of fathers as well.
In regard to your Father's Day post and all the comments that followed, a man can take care of (protect) his wife or wife and children in any ways that need be done ~ financially, spiritually, physically. But, when needed to keep things running smoothly in his home, he can also do the dishes, cook meals, vacuum, and change diapers (serve) and STILL be the head of the home.
As you said, the image of Biblical patriarchy is not that of some detached dominating dictator, but one more of loving husbands and fathers demonstrating "servant leadership, compassion, and honor."
Where we come to a disagreement, then, is your belief that wives ought to be "under the authority and responsibility" of their husbands in some way significantly different than wives AND husbands ought to be mutually responsible to and with one another.
My wife is quite a bit more capable of handling the money than I am and we have no problems with a "two-headed monster" in our household, entering into our 25th year of marriage now. We ARE one in marriage and AS ONE, we make decisions. She is not "under the authority and responsibility" of me, but we are under the authority and responsibility of one another.
So, I suppose on that point, we disagree.
Just to be clear, you all DO agree that we ought not encourage slaves to be submissive to masters nor should we encourage polygamy, right? I mean, just because they are listed (and commanded, in the case of slaves) in the Bible does not mean that we should accept these cultural norms from a distant society as normative for Christians today, right?
And I know you agree that we ought not accept the norms of punishment against disrespectful children (ie, kill them) as normative for today. That THOSE type of rules were dealing with a specific people in a specific context. And, with the changing of context, the rules went away.
My point being that we agree on the concept in at least some places in the Bible, that SOME norms that were true in the Bible are not normative morality for us today. In fact, I believe that we agree that SOME biblical norms and practices would be highly immoral if they were implemented today (again, the punishment for disrespectful children).
We agree that some places in the Bible have teachings that were specific to a time and place and not universal in nature. We just disagree on the patriarchical types of teachings, with you thinking those are more universal and me and perhaps most disagreeing with you.
I suppose we can find out for sure from God one day. For now, I'll bet that I'm right and you're mistaken.
In the meantime, I'll hope that your patriarchal beliefs don't turn too many people away from God and the church, as I'm sure you'll hope that my position doesn't give the wrong idea to people... or something.
Thanks for the clarification of your position.
Dan Trabue: "Why does the Bible write so much about polygamy if it's not the ideal for marriage?"
It doesn't. Next?
No, just being flippant. If you would be so kind as to point out in the Bible anything -- anything at all -- that commands polygamy, I'll be glad to read it. On the other hand, I wrote a piece (a long time ago) that I even gave you the link to (a short time ago) regarding a biblical view of polygamy, what is commanded, and what is not. It is my suspicion, however, that you're throwing that out there as a red herring. You don't actually want an answer, and you think it somehow makes a point.
Dan Trabue: "Times change and so do cultural mores and customs and it's okay."
And that was exactly the argument to which I was referring when I said, "The only way to 'reason' out of it (wives submit to husbands) is, ultimately, to suggest that God didn't know what He was inspiring when He inspired it." He didn't have the brains to see down the corridor of time and have something written that made sense for our time. He didn't have the intelligence required to know what you know -- times change and so do cultural mores and customs and it's okay. He was just too short-sighted.
Dan Trabue: "Where we come to a disagreement, then, is your belief that wives ought to be 'under the authority and responsibility' of their husbands in some way significantly different than wives AND husbands ought to be mutually responsible to and with one another."
Absolutely! This is significant disagreement. I don't see anything about the multiple texts that command wives to submit to their husbands as merely cultural rules to be discarded today. I see them as timeless and even wise. I find the phrase "under the authority and responsibility of one another" completely illogical and, as such, meaningless. (I mean, seriously, Dan, what happens when she decides something contrary to what you decided?) It violates not merely the Bible, but simple reason. And when I see wives commanded to submit to their husbands, they're not so commanded because "it's simply the thing to do in today's culture." They're so commanded to submit "as to the Lord". (Husbands are likewise commanded to love their wives "as Christ loved the Church".) The calling exceeds culture. The repetition of the command exceeds culture. The fact that it is repeated by multiple authors in multiple ways under multiple contexts exceeds culture. But, then, I'm not free to simply discard clear Scripture based on "cultural mores and customs". The texts, the principles behind them, and even the logic of the situation demands that these be taken seriously ... so I do.
So, while your view is certainly much more palatable from the world's perspective (and the reason I titled this as "Are you sure you want to go there?"), it is undoubtedly in violation of clear Scripture.
There aren't any verses in our Bibles that tell us who should load and unload the dishwasher, the husband or the wife. But do you really have to "read things into" the scriptures in order to comprehend headship? At our places of employment, many of us have a boss that is head of our department. If our boss is following the rules of his boss and both are (the world's definition of) "good" bosses, then we won't have to ask, "Now, tell me again, WHY are you the head of this department?"
I have MUCH more problem with the "reading into" of the scriptures in regard to endorsing sex between two men or two women, even within a new thing called "same sex marriage". Now THAT appears to most all who read (or have ever read) The Bible to be reading things "into" it that aren't there. I hate to even bring that topic up again, except that it seems to keep coming up whenever marital or family relations are discussed. I guess, if you are going to redefine an institution that has existed from the beginning of mankind, MANY things will have to be redefined right along with it.... such as God's order for it.
I rather doubt that God is near as interested in who cooks dinner tonight as with whom we could misuse and even defile our bodies. I sat in church yesterday and knew that, if I were sitting behind a friendly, committed lesbian couple with children, it might be hard to see that how they live is really all that sinful. (I can't say the same for 2 gay men. Sodomy strikes me as repulsive with a capital R!) But the more we are exposed to sin, the more desensitized we become to it, and we didn't make up the rules. God did!
If we really don't approve of a lot of what Christianity has to say, maybe we ought to be searching for another god and set of beliefs in which to put our trust, though I don't see any other religions out there of whose god it is said "God is love". If that is kept ever in mind in regard to our God and this faith of ours, then what is the big problem with this issue of patriarchy? Does He have our best interests at heart, or does He not?
I mean, seriously, Dan, what happens when she decides something contrary to what you decided?
We work it out. You never have this happen? What do you do when she decides something contrary to what you decided? She submits to your wishes?
What if you wish to do something wrong, does she still submit? What if your plan is to become a bank robber and your decision is that she will be the driver while you rob the bank - submit or no?
My wife is a unique moral agent and adult responsible for her own decisions. It is not my role to make her submit to my wishes. She is to submit to God alone. You disagree?
Now, there is certainly a case that can be made that we ought to submit to one another, within reason.
Again, we AGREE that SOME rules in the Bible are time and place specific. You think this patriarchal approach to submissive women is universal.
I believe Christ has clearly taught (it's in the Bible, after all) that in Him there are no male nor female. That each of us is responsible to submitting to Christ. That we ought to obey God, not men (even if that man is our husband).
You hold your position undoubtedly in violation of clear Scripture and I'm sorry about that. Still, you'll one day answer to Christ for your position, as I will for mine.
Consider it this way...
1. You and I agree that when the Bible clearly and unequivocally says "He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death...." that EVEN THOUGH that passage is quite clear, that this is not a teaching for us. We today would be WRONG to kill a child who cursed his parents;
2. We agree that that passage does not apply today even though the Bible never once sets aside that passage as not still being valid. Rather, the one and only reason that we set that aside as not applicable today is because it is not applicable to the world today AND we reach that conclusion NOT because the Bible tells us so, but just based on our good ol' God-given reasoning. After all, clearly that teaching could not apply today. It must, at a minimum, have only been true back then at that time in that culture (if it were ever a true and good teaching);
3. The point is, we set aside that clear passage with its inescapable intent as not applicable today BASED UPON our logic;
4. So, just as you and I both set aside that passage as not being a universal teaching based upon our logic and not much else (ie, the Bible never tells us to set aside the teaching), so too, I set aside the patriarchal view of women based upon logic AND based upon Biblical teaching (ie, "in Christ... there are no male nor female," "you must obey God rather than men," etc); indeed, I would suggest I have a much larger biblical case in support of gender egalitarianism than either of us have for setting aside the "kill them" part of the OT teaching regarding a child that curses his parent;
5. Regardless, it is good and okay to let our logic dictate to us Biblical meaning. We should be prayerful and careful about it, since we are prone to be wrong, but that is not to say we ought not use our God-given logic. We do it all the time, all of us, and well, we should. In fact, I wish we'd be a bit more logical in our approach to exegesis than we are at times. Taking comfort in a simple literal interpretation for ease of understanding is an exercise in bad and often lazy exegesis.
Stan said...
And that was exactly the argument to which I was referring when I said, "The only way to 'reason' out of it (wives submit to husbands) is, ultimately, to suggest that God didn't know what He was inspiring when He inspired it." He didn't have the brains to see down the corridor of time and have something written that made sense for our time. He didn't have the intelligence required to know what you know -- times change and so do cultural mores and customs and it's okay. He was just too short-sighted.
I wonder, Stan... is it the case that you think God didn't have the brains to know that down the corridor of time it would be wrong to kill children who speak to their parents disrespectfully? Is it the case that you think God was short-sighted when God issued that clear and unequivocal command for God's people?
Let's keep it friendly, okay?
Dan Trabue: "What if your plan is to become a bank robber and your decision is that she will be the driver while you rob the bank - submit or no?"
Good stuff, Dan. Keep it coming. Let's deal with the theoretically ridiculous without actually dealing with reality. Look, when two people are involved at some point one person is going to have to give in to the other. It is my position that God determined that point by appointing a family leader at it is your position that there is no real point -- the Rodney King approach. Your approach is mandatory if you are going to be able to support the rest of your positions, so I don't see any reason to be surprised. (For instance, what meaning does "wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" have to a lesbian couple?) (Rhetorical question.)
Dan Trabue: "You and I agree that when the Bible clearly and unequivocally says "He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death...." that EVEN THOUGH that passage is quite clear, that this is not a teaching for us. We today would be WRONG to kill a child who cursed his parents."
I suspect that you are not quite clear on where we do and don't agree. You're quite sure that I disagree with God's command to put a child to death for cursing his father or mother. I don't. I disagree with the feasibility of doing it today under modern civil government. So to me the Bible made the penalty (not the sin) no longer valid when Paul wrote, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom 13:1). Therefore, the Bible commands me not to put a child to death for cursing his father or mother, not my logic. If God were the civil government today and ordered the death of a child (as He did then) for cursing his father or mother, you would refuse and I would comply.
Beyond that, of course, we have radically different logic. You consider it rational to both be in submission to one another and I consider it nonsense. You consider it reasonable to actually believe "in Christ... there are no male nor female" as if there is no male or female without qualification. You see that culture has changed so why bother with male/female roles and I see an insurmountable stack of biblical passages that demand differences between men, women, and their God-given roles. Of course, I can see the up-side of your view. No one is responsible for anyone but themselves. I would guess that this even gets God off the hook, too. I just don't see it in my Bible. You call it "lazy exegesis". I call it "clear cut understanding".
Stan clarified, saying...
So to me the Bible made the penalty (not the sin) no longer valid when Paul wrote, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom 13:1). Therefore, the Bible commands me not to put a child to death for cursing his father or mother, not my logic.
Okay, fair enough. But let me be clear here on your meaning. Are you telling me that IF you lived in a nation that DID put disrespectful children to death and it was your job to do the killing, that you would be morally correct to kill a child who cursed his parent? OR, if you lived in a nation that put to death "men who laid with men," you would be morally correct to do so?
I could be wrong, but I don't think you really think this.
Man, if you do, I must say I find that a bit horrifying and not the least bit biblical.
I must confess I'm a bit baffled at this point. Perhaps you can clear things up for me. In the Bible there are clear passages (let's avoid the unclear ... like there is no commands regarding polygamy) that you find ... repulsive. (Feel free to pick a better word if I misunderstood.) There is a definitive death sentence associated with, say, adulterers. There is a death sentence for kids who curse their parents. (The fact that nowhere in Jewish history is any record of anyone ever having carried this out is irrelevant to you, I know. That is, there was a point.) There are laws in which God (as government) includes a death penalty. You seem to be wholly opposed to any such thing.
So ... what is your evaluation? You're quite sure, I think, that God is good ... but you disagree with equally certainty with His method of justice. It seems to me that you have limited choices while remaining coherent. You can 1) say that God was evil in those penalties, or 2) say that the Bible never said any such thing (I mean that like the way you approach the commands to kill an entire race of people) or ... what? What is your evaluation of God's commands for the death penalty toward children or homosexuals or adulterers or whatever? It seems like you believe God was wrong, but I don't know that you'd actually make that claim, so I'm baffled.
No, clearly I don't believe God was wrong. I don't believe God commanded people to slaughter children or to use capital punishment against children. Where you find such points in the Bible, I believe someone incorrectly attributed such a command to God.
And to be clear: I don't believe God commands us to kill children BECAUSE of what the Bible has to say about shedding innocent blood and other biblical teachings, as well as basic human instinct nad logic - it's wrong to kill children.
Now that I've cleared that up, can you clear up your position: If you lived in a society that killed children for cursing parents, would you think it a right and moral thing to do? It is my position that the death penalty for such an offense is and has always been wrong, regardless if the gov't instituting such a law was a democracy or a theocracy.
Also, if I may return to this, you said...
Let's deal with the theoretically ridiculous without actually dealing with reality.
My using an extreme example was for a point, to show that at least at some point we agree that women ought NOT be submissive to their husbands.
I'm guessing you agree with me that AT A MINIMUM, if a husband is demanding his wife engage in sin, the wife ought obey God, not her husband (as the Bible teaches), yes?
So, my question was for a point. Beyond that, you probably agree that there are other times (beyond orders to sin) that a wife ought to make up her own mind. A Muslim convert to Christianity, whose husband decides to return to Iran, for instance, and raise his children as Muslims and this is what he tells his wife is his decision - ought that wife acquiesce submissively or ought she express an opinion and strive to work out the difference?
I vote in favor of the wife making up her own mind and standing for her own position and coming to some compromise position with her husband. You?
Beyond that sort of instance and on the other extreme, we have minor decisions. I'm guessing you agree that the husband need not make the final decision on dinner each night ("cook roast beef tonight, regardless of what you want to cook..."), that the thousands of minor decisions a couple make daily are indeed okay to make independently. I am sure you agree on this point.
That leaves some other issues more in the middle - the husband wants to move to Hawaii and the wife wants to live in Kentucky. Your opinion appears to be that is THESE sorts of decisions that the husband makes the final call. I would suggest such a marriage that does in fact devalue a woman's opinion is not a healthy marriage.
For what it's worth, it's not that hard to have an egalitarian marriage. For nearly 25 years my wife and I have made decisions together. We have had differences of opinion and worked it out without my having to "lay down the law," and make a patriarchal decision in spite of her view.
It's just not that hard and I would suggest it is much more in keeping with the Spirit of Christ, in whom there is no male nor female, no boss and slave.
One more clarification, you said...
Perhaps you can clear things up for me. In the Bible there are clear passages... that you find ... repulsive.
I find some passages un-Godly and unbiblical, those would be the terms I might tend to use for passages that suggest God commands the killing of children.
Dan Trabue: "I don't believe God commanded people to slaughter children or to use capital punishment against children."
Yeah, that's what I figured. You chose option #2 ("the Bible never actually said any such thing"). Okay, now that we're clear, is there anything else you'd like to discuss? Clearly there is no room to discuss this topic. Again, I assume the Bible is accurate and correct and you assume that your "inner sense of justice" is accurate and correct, invalidating those passages of the Bible that disagree with your views. Okay. Fine. As always, you're free to hold whatever perspective you wish. But there really isn't much point in discussing it further, is there? Again, we're coming from totally opposite positions. For instance, you said, "It is my position that the death penalty for such an offense is and has always been wrong, regardless if the gov't instituting such a law was a democracy or a theocracy." In other words, if God had instituted the death penalty ("a theocracy"), then He would be wrong. If it could be shown that God actually commanded what the Bible says He commanded, then God would be evil. Now, I'm not saying that you believe that God is evil. I'm just saying that I come at it 180° from that. If God said it, it's good. If I disagree, it's my failure to comprehend, not God's failure to be good.
So, you have your opinion and I have mine and never the twain shall meet in regards to these types of topics.
For the purpose of clarification (not defense, dialog, discussion, argument, whatever):
Dan Trabue: "My using an extreme example was for a point, to show that at least at some point we agree that women ought NOT be submissive to their husbands."
The Bible gives the response on these extremes. "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge" (Acts 4:19). Any authority requiring a believer to sin will have to be resisted. I wasn't talking about sin in the husband/wife relationship.
Dan Trabue: "That leaves some other issues more in the middle - the husband wants to move to Hawaii and the wife wants to live in Kentucky. Your opinion appears to be that is THESE sorts of decisions that the husband makes the final call. I would suggest such a marriage that does in fact devalue a woman's opinion is not a healthy marriage."
So ... whose opinion shall we devalue? I mean the question purely to make a point. A husband would be an idiot to consider his wife's opinion of no value (or little value). In your scenario the husband could very easily be forced to give up job in Hawaii serving as a missionary where he can do God's calling and move to Kentucky so his wife will be happy. Who decides? Who knows? The problem seems to be that you are taking an "all-or-nothing" approach where a husband can only make all the decisions without listening to his wife or give up leadership of the family. Since this, again, is commanded in Scripture, does this fall, again, under the "only attributed to God -- He didn't actually command it" category? (Rhetorical question, again.)
Dan, it's been, as always, a pleasure. I won't discuss this with you further because, once again, I don't have the Bible to stand on. I can point out all the passages that say all the things I'm saying and tell you all about why I believe them, but it bears no weight with you. If we have no common basis of authoritative information, we have no grounds for settling a disagreement. Now, if there is something in this post that has been unclear or vague somehow, feel free to ask. Otherwise, I'm done here.
Stan said:
Yeah, that's what I figured. You chose option #2 ("the Bible never actually said any such thing"). Okay, now that we're clear, is there anything else you'd like to discuss?
Brother, we are brothers in Christ. We both value the Bible as God's Word. We both use our logic to sort through it.
Clearly the Bible DID say "kill children," it's right there. What we're discussing is what that means to/for us and as the body of Christ, we do well to discuss these sorts of things especially when we disagree. Or at least that's my opinion on the matter. You are free to disagree, of course.
But just because we BOTH agree that sometimes the Bible has teachings that are not currently applicable and yet we don't always agree on which passages ought to be taken literally does not mean we're not discussing the same Bible or, more to the point, both seeking God's Word and Will.
For instance, I believe you said you spiritualize Luke's Sermon on the Plain - where Jesus said, "Blessed are you who are poor." Period. And "Woe to you who are rich." Period.
I believe you suggested that Jesus did not LITERALLY mean, "blessed are the poor," and I see NO valid reason NOT to take that literally - still, we are both seeking God's will, even though you don't accept that literal teaching as meaning what it says...
Even though all that is true, we still do well to strive to learn from one another and hear what the other has to say, even if we don't agree. For instance, you said that you didn't even know that Luke says what it says, so it was a learning opportuniy for you.
On my end, it seems you are saying that you literally think that if you were in a theocracy, it would be morally correct to kill cursing children and I didn't think there was anyone who thought that, so I've learned a bit myself. It's these sorts of exchanges that help us at least understand one another a little better and know the Body of Christ that is different than our particular little congregations.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion and if you'd like to continue, I'm up for it and if you want to quit, that's fine. As to WHY continue? Well, for one thing, I still have questions about your position. DO YOU actually think it would be right to kill children in a theocracy, for instance.
Our grounds for settling differences can be God's Holy Spirit, not the Bible alone. For the Bible says, if you have questions
As I've said before, if we only discuss issues with those who read the Bible as we do, we won't have very many conversations.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." ~Heb 10
You know, Dan, there is another reason that we are unable to make any headway in these conversations. You don't actually read what I say. When I said you chose option #2 ("the Bible never actually said any such thing"), I clarified what I meant by that: "I mean that like the way you approach the commands to kill an entire race of people." That is, "Sure, it's in the book we call 'the Bible', but it's not accurate."
You suggest I spiritualize Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount without cause. I suggest you don't take it as seriously as you claim. If you actually believed that the poor are blessed simply because they're poor and the rich are cursed (the biblical term "woe" means just that) simply because they're rich (as the text would seem to say from your perspective), then you would be divesting yourself of all wealth (instead of being "middle class") and urging others at all costs to become poor. Instead, you urge people to help the poor to no longer be poor. Now ... what's up with that?
I'm not saying people need to read the Bible like I do. However, when I point out "Here's what it says" and you point out "It's no longer applicable" and I point out "Here's what it says" and you assure me "That is not an accurate representation of God's Word", where are we to go?
And if I did actually believe that God commanded the death penalty, on what possible grounds could I be held as anything but monstrous from your view? Showing you, verse by verse, why I think it's the case isn't valid to you. They aren't applicable anymore. So until we have a Bible that marks the applicable verses for you and I to discuss, what's the point?
where are we to go?
To at least a deeper understanding of what the other actually believes. To an understanding that someone may not read the Bible like I do and yet they are still my brother/sister in Christ and, like our actual families, we have a responsibility to try to get along regardless of our differences ("by their love for one another, you will know them...").
Too often, we all find it too easy to dismiss the "others" as NOT actually being Christian simply because they read a passage differently than we do. We need to find ways to lovingly deal with these differences. I don't have any great answers but I DO believe that ignoring the differences won't solve anything and that demonizing the "other" won't solve anything and that at least trying to engage in conversations on difficult topics is at least one way of striving to find a way to be the body of Christ. It seems to at least be a starting point to me.
(and my apologies for not successfully reading your "option #2" and including your full response in my response...)
Stan: "Where are we to go?"
Dan Trabue: "To at least a deeper understanding of what the other actually believes."
Nice thought. Not practical, but nice thought. Let me explain.
I was raised to believe in "believer's baptism", so when I came across "infant baptism", I was appalled. I argued against it and explained why it was wrong. Someone asked me, "Do you know why people believe in it?" I realized I didn't. So I learned why people believe in infant baptism. It was possible, due to a mutual respect for the authority of the Bible and its clear interpretation, for me to come to not only an understanding, but a respect. In fact, in one forum I took up the defense of the position. Mind you, I still believe in believer's baptism and think that infant baptism is a mistake, but I have a great deal of respect for those who believe in infant baptism because I respect their view of Scripture and Church history, even if I don't understand them the same as they do or find their arguments compelling.
Flash back to you and I. We do not share a mutual respect for how the other views Scripture (I believe you've called my approach "lazy" and simplistic) or Church history (I see it as significant and you see it as outdated). We don't even share a mutual respect for the rational processes we each hold (you and I start from radically different basic assumptions). It would, then, be impossible to come to a place of understanding or respect ... as demonstrated by your approach on the whole Original Sin thing, where you decided to make it a crusade issue against me on your blog. There was no "deeper understanding", and when I attempted to say that, you denied it. Since you're quite sure you're clear already, I ask again ... where are we to go?
Dan/Stan: I'd love to see you guys discuss the verse (or verses) that Dan keeps bringing up about God ordering the killing of children. I don't know what those verses are. The only ones I can think of dealt with God ordering the people of Israel to wipe out a city/nation, killing even the women and children. If those are the verses, they should be read in context (why would God command that?); maybe it had to do with the fact that allowing some of them to live would mean that their "religion/Gods" would negatively influence the Israelites, or maybe the children allowed to live would grow up and war against them. Okay, you two cna deal with that one (or not!).
Dan T. said:
(You hold your position undoubtedly in violation of clear Scripture and I'm sorry about that. Still, you'll one day answer to Christ for your position, as I will for mine.) Starflyer says: "Ouch! and one of you will be terrified on that day.
Stan,
If you were an Israelite soldier, and Moses handed you a sword, stating, “Cut the head off that one-year-old Midianite baby and then kill his mother because God ordered it”—would you have done it?
Numbers 31:1-17
DagoodS! Long time no "see". Hope you've been well. (I figured you weren't visiting anymore.)
DagoodS: "... would you have done it?"
I'd love to be able to spit out a clear answer for you, but I can't. I am not nor have I ever been an Israeli soldier, never lived in the Sinai desert, never experienced a true theocracy, never experienced life under Moses, never been handed a sword or told to kill ... anyone. I believe today that the death penalty for murderers is a just penalty ... but I can't tell you if I personally today would be able to perform the deed. I can't possibly give you a reasonably truthful answer about what I would do under all those unknown circumstances.
I know I won't win friends (or influence people), but I do believe that Israel, under direct command from God, was right in doing so. (Sorry, that's the best I can do.)
Starflyer, I actually gave an original answer here about the concept. It was, of course, thoroughly dismissed out of hand (illustrating that Dan Trabue and I come from radically different starting points). If humans are sinners from birth, then it's no surprise that God might choose to judge them immediately. If humans are initially pure, then God would be judged unjust for the act.
Stan,
Yes, thank you. I have been very well indeed.
It’s really not different. According to the story, at the time a human (Moses) told other humans such as yourself that God commanded them to do something. In this situation, it happened to be slitting the throat of a one-year-old baby.
As you acknowledge, it was the “right” thing to do. (I am presuming, perhaps dangerously, your use of the word “right” is synonymous with “moral.”) To fail killing the baby would be the “wrong” thing to do. It would be immoral to let him live.
Today humans--consisting of various writers, copyists, transcribers and translators, who other humans—church fathers, councils and other individuals involved in canonizing the Protestant Bible—tell you God has commanded you to do something.
The Israelite soldier had no direct command from God either; he had Moses telling his officers telling his captains telling you: “God said to kill babies.” You have no direct command from God; you have Ephesian’s author being copied, then determined to be canon by popularity, then translated, telling you, “Wives submit to husbands.” Another author, that of 1 Timothy is copied, determined to be canon, then translated, then by tradition, is claiming this is God’s command, since it is theopneustos. (Something another human claims makes Ephesians God’s command.)
Humans telling humans what God says. And the human listeners blindly following it. Doesn’t matter what the command is—it can be killing babies; could be kidnapping virgins and forcing them to wed the kidnappers who killed their baby brother, it could be sacrificing your own daughter, it could be stoning a child who curses. Or it could be slavery, ostracization, long hair, or patriarchy.
The moral determinative boils down to “If God says it (according to this human)—I must do it.” Luckily for the human race, theists do not adhere to such a moral precept in a rhadamanthine manner. (New word! New word!)
No, theists, most times unkowningly, insert, “If I believe..” as in “If I believe God says it (according to this human)—I must do it.” The sole difference between theists is what each believes God says.
The difference, Stan, between you and Dan Trabue (as near as this observer can tell) is what and how each of you is convinced within believing what your God says. It is THERE the discussion can be had. Why do you two believe differently? What method can either propose on determining what God said? Is there a way to agree on a method?
If no method can be agreed upon, frankly your discussion may as well be:
Stan: I believe God says…
Dan Trabue: I believe God says…
And be done with it.
P.S. Stan, you won’t get in trouble with me for saying it was the right thing to do. As a Christian, I said the same thing. I made it to FSTDT with a similar comment, believe it or not! Now, as a non-Christian, I can see why such a statement may be scary to the rest of the world—but as a Christian we never believed we would be faced with such a possibility ourselves.
Ooo, thanks! I love new words. Let's see ... rhadamanthine: Strictly and uncompromisingly just. No, I don't think that's your use. Let's see ... oh, here! "inflexible in the application of the law". Yeah, that's likely what you intended. Thanks again. New word.
DagoodS: "Humans telling humans what God says."
Yes, of course, to the atheist that is the only option. Can't fault you there. Of course, to the believer, it's not so. To the believer, we believe that we are led to the truth by the Holy Spirit, that the Bible is indeed theopneustos ("God breathed", for the rest of the readers who got lost on that). We can benefit from humans (teachers) and from history (tradition), but it's not as simple as that. It's not, as such, "human listeners blindly following it". The Bible itself tells us to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God". So the commands we would follow would need to be commands that fall in line with the entire Bible and are confirmed by the Spirit. (I know, there are blind followers who don't care about that, but I'm not talking about the outlyers.) And despite your certainty that the human race is fortunate that Christians don't follow the commands of Scripture, surely you'd have to admit that in general the commands of the Bible are good things to do. I mean, even Ghandi said something to the effect that he liked Christianity; it was Christians he couldn't stand. Most people realize that the overarching commands (Love God and love your neighbor) are good things to do. So you're really talking about more of the periphery here ... right? And while I believe that Israel was right for following the clear command of God (I think it was abundantly clear that it was God, given the texts, the signs, and all), I would find it likely impossible to find the same thing occurring today. That just doesn't happen anymore. God has changed methods of communication from "prophets" to "the Word". (I know; that's not convincing to you. I'm just saying.) Someone coming up to me assuring me that God has demanded that Christians join up and go kill all Iranians (as a silly example) would meet a cold shoulder because it cannot by any means be backed up at all with the Bible.
DagoodS: "Why do you two believe differently? What method can either propose on determining what God said? Is there a way to agree on a method?"
You're right about Dan Trabue and I. We believe differently because we start from different positions. Right or wrong, he starts from "My inner sense of justice is right ... so now let's evaluate what we see in the book we call 'the Bible'" and I start with "The Bible is right, so now I can evaluate my inner sense of justice." I don't know if you agree, having watched any of the dialog, but I have come to the conclusion that as far as Dan and I are concerned, there is no way to actually agree upon a method to determine what God said. We're left with "I believe God says ..." versus "Well, I believe God says ..." and we're done with it.
Ooooh, ooooh. I wasn't paying attention and missed this!
Oh well, Stan has pretty well said much of what I would have said.
/sigh/
Stan: Someone coming up to me assuring me that God has demanded that Christians join up and go kill all Iranians (as a silly example) would meet a cold shoulder because it cannot by any means be backed up at all with the Bible.
Thank you. Exactly my point. Why wouldn’t you start killing all Iranians? Because you don’t believe God commanded it. The reason for your disbelief may be cultural, or study, or even emotional—but there it is; at the very root of the reason: You are not convinced God ordered it.
Understand, it is NOT because God couldn’t make such an order. (Sorry for the double negative; I’m going to flesh this out.) God has ordered genocide before. If one believes everything God done is moral (as compared to immoral) then it is logically possible, even quite conceivable that another genocide would equally be moral. So if God ordered genocide of Iranians, the Christian who holds everything their God does is moral is NOT in a position to respond, “Wait—that would be immoral.”
Secondly, it is not as if God is logically barred from doing it. Christians tell me (over and over and over) how God’s ways are not entirely conceivable. “His ways are not my ways.” “Finite cannot understand infinite.” Further, there is nothing in the Bible that says God is barred from making direct contact with humans. He could, if he chose, appear and talk face-to-face.
(Worse, you even allow a more indirect contact by claiming a “leading by the Holy Spirit.” A way in which God is communicating directly today. [This is still a human telling humans what to do, by the way. It just happens to be the same human. There is always, always, always a human element in the God contacting. Always.])
So if someone said to you, “God has told me--”[perhaps even “God has led me through the Holy Spirit’]—“you must kill all Iranians” you must agree it is morally possible. It is logically possible. It is even based upon precedent.
Yet you still wouldn’t do it; you are making a judgment call on your belief as to what God would/would not do. (A grand discussion for another time as to who are YOU to make the determination as to what a God would or would not do?)
The question is Why? Why are you making that particular judgment call?
The interesting phenomena surrounding the question of killing Midianite Babies (I’ve watch this discussion many times on iidb) is that Christians respond in three primary ways:
1) Obfuscate with “I wasn’t under Mosaic law, I didn’t see God’s Miracles like the Jews, I wasn’t living at that time, I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t know.”
2) Obfuscate with “God wouldn’t order that anymore, so I don’t have to think about trying to answer the question.”
3) “I must do what God says; hand me the sword and I will hack away.”
Curiously, Stan, you managed to land on all three! *wink* (Sorta on that last one.)
What Christians don’t get, is that it is not the response we find so interesting…it is the manner OF the response. Think of this old humorous story:
Attorney: Did you have an affair with Helen?
Witness: I don’t remember.
Attorney: Did you have an affair with Jane?
Witness: I don’t remember.
Attorney: Did you have an affair with Susie?
Witness: Never!
Now, even though all the answers are favorable (no admission of an affair) the manner in which they were answered is revealing as to reality. We see the same thing here:
Skeptic: Do you have to love my neighbor?
Christian: Of course, God ordered it.
Skeptic: Do you have to give freely to those in need?
Christian: Of course, God ordered it.
Skeptic: Do you have to kill a baby?
Christian: Oh…er…uh…um…I wasn’t there…yeah…and God wouldn’t do that…yeah…and those times were different…and I would hope I wouldn’t…
Why? Why the difference? Why, when it comes to whacking off baby’s heads, Christians get squeamish and begin to hem and haw? God can’t order something immoral, could He? What is it that makes one start to cough?
One’s inner justice.
We could debate at length where that justice comes from. Natural law. God. Society, heredity, evolution, etc. Whatever the reason, in the American society, we start talking about killing babies and we begin to revolt.
The reason I bring this up, Stan, is that, as an observer (you rightly state I don’t think there is any God at any part of moral discussions) I see you doing the same as Dan Trabue. I see more room for similarity than you may think. I, too, see you using an inner sense of justice as to what is right, and then applying the Bible.
Otherwise your first response would have been, “If God ordered it, I would kill a baby. Line ‘em up.” Instead your inner justice started to hedge at this. Yes, you may adhere more strictly to the literal words of the Bible--but the underlying methodology is the same! You both are making judgment calls as to what parts apply, and what parts do not.
Do you forbid your wife from wearing Gold? (1 Tim. 2:9) Or do you make a “judgment call” that was cultural? Do you support slavery? Or do you make another judgment call?
Again, you may make less judgment calls; but you are still making them as near as I can tell.
All theists do. Heck, all humans do! It is part of our nature.
Here, I’ll give you one that is more tame. You asked if I figured in general the commands of the Bible are good things to do. My answer: Depends on the theist and their “judgment call” as to what the commands of the Bible are.
One you mentioned was “love your neighbor.” Sounds nice, right? Sounds like a “good thing to do,” true? I have had Christians inform me that it is most loving indeed to call me an ass. Because “ass” is in the Bible, and Jesus called Pharisees’ names, and Jesus always loved his neighbor, so calling me an “ass” is clearly loving.
I have had Christians inform me that “lying” is loving me, because I am the “enemy” and we are “at war” and Jesus lied, and Jesus always loved his enemies, so lying to me is clearly loving.
Christians have suggested my wife divorce me, because we are “unequally yoked.” “Loving me as a neighbor”—but just not married to my wife. My friends no longer speak to me and fear what I may say to their children. Loving me as a neighbor, I presume.
So on the one hand; you are right. There are some good moral suggestions in the Bible. Sadly, as I watch people apply their own “judgment calls”—those moral suggestions begin to pale.
Do you allow your wife to wear gold? Or is that cultural? Can a person be correct that God ordered the killing of all Iranians? Or was that a different time; a different culture?
If you say “cultural” or “different time”—I would hope you see how similar your method becomes to Dan Trabue’s.
So ... on the whole you would say that Christian morality is something we need to lose?
If I appeared to say, "I make no judgment calls", then I have not adequately communicated. Of course all humans make judgment calls. I say, "Oh, that makes perfect sense" or "Hmm, I don't understand that at all" or "Now I have to figure out how that makes sense given the rest". Lots of logical analysis. I just don't retain the option of "throw it out".
DagoodS: "Do you allow your wife to wear gold? Or is that cultural?"
False dilemma. "Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness -- with good works (1 Tim 2:9-10)."
What is he saying? "Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel." Okay, Paul, fine. We got it. Women should do their hair nice, where good jewelry, put on nice dresses. That's "respectable apparel". "No, no," Paul replies, "I'm talking about character qualities, not outward appearance. I'm talking about modesty, self-control, godliness, good works." Now, isn't that what Paul is saying? Does it even make sense that in the midst of the context Paul would be giving fashion commands?
I answered as fully as that for a purpose. Dan assumes "culture" when it violates his sense of justice. I assume my sense of justice may be wrong ... so what is it saying? Do I support slavery? Not what we saw in the 18th and 19th centuries ... but that is nothing at all like what we see in the biblical version. So I don't know if I'd support a biblical version. It's not the same.
DagoodS: "I see more room for similarity than you may think. I, too, see you using an inner sense of justice as to what is right, and then applying the Bible. Otherwise your first response would have been, 'If God ordered it, I would kill a baby. Line 'em up.'"
It isn't an inner sense of justice that precedes my response. It is a sense of "What will people think? They will stop listening before any satisfactory explanation can be offered, and, in truth, to the vast majority there is no such thing as a 'satisfactory explanation'." It isn't an inner sense of justice; it's an inner sense of pride. "They won't like me."
So ... I dance. God won't (and He won't) make that command again. Those circumstances won't arise again. The Bible says that times have changed (Heb 1:1-2). And I really want to say that I will do without question what God commands me to do ... except that I fail at times. But it isn't an inner sense of justice that makes me say, "God didn't say to kill Iranians." It's all the evidence presented in the Bible -- times have changed, the coming of the Word, a different process of communication, and so on.
And, oh, by the way, your point about "There is always, always, always a human element in the God contacting" is moot, isn't it? I mean, we are humans, are we not? However God chose to communicate with humans, it would have to be with humans. Audible, visible, mental, however He might do it, it goes through human reception methods. So ... what's your point? That's your way of concluding there is no God? It's like saying, "There is no radio station on the other side of that radio because the only way you can pick up that radio station is with a radio! See? Proof! No radio station!" Or, to put it another way, if God communicates with humans and there are no humans around, does God communicate? (You know, a little twist on the tree falling in the forest ... oh, never mind.)
Good to know, Stan, if I ever need to know what God will or will not do, I can come to you. *wink*
Honestly, you are in no position to say what your God will or will not do in the future. Not even genocide. Not even Christian theology allows that. You can hope…but never know. (I might caution you on the use of “times change” as to different actions being morally allowed or not. Dangerously close to moral relativism. In fact, by definition, that IS moral relativism!)
What I mean about humans and God—every single communication about God is through humans. Not every claimed communication with God. Obviously a communication claimed between a human and a God necessarily requires a human. What I am talking about is every claim about God involves a human. Even that “inner voice” you think is communicating something about God. It is a human (you) telling a human (also you) about God.
Every book in the Bible—written by human. Every determination of a book’s canonicity—human. Every determination of a phrase once canon; now no longer—human. Every church father—human. Every translation—made by human. Everything you know about your God came through a human. And every theist makes a determination as to which humans to believe and which ones to not.
The same way everything the Israelite soldier learned about God came through a human. No difference.
Doesn’t mean there is no God; it means we must come up with a method to determine which humans are accurate and which are not. To use your radio analogy; it doesn’t mean there is no radio station; we just have to determine a means to “hear” the station.
Ah well…I see more common ground to be had here between Dan Trabue and you. I see both “filtering”—and if you don’t want to see it, who am I to try to rectify the situation?
Star said...
I'd love to see you guys discuss the verse (or verses) that Dan keeps bringing up about God ordering the killing of children. I don't know what those verses are.
If Stan doesn't mind my pointing it out...
The Bible has capital punishment that is commanded for God's people for a variety of "crimes," including children who curse, hit or disrespect their parents...
"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense." (Leviticus 20)
"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21)
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die..." (Deut 21)
And, as you noted, there are the times where Israel is commanded by God to slaughter the children of the enemy, such as here...
"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. (Jer 51)
This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.' (1 Sam 15)
That's a quick sampling.
Now, Dagood adds another interesting (horrifying?) wrinkle: In many cases, the person "hearing" God command the slaughter of children is just the leader. The leader then tells the people "I have heard God and God says slaughter babies..." and the people do! Now, in the real world, if someone says, "God told me to tell you to slaughter babies," the correct answer is always always always, "NO! God did no such thing!" followed by getting this person some psychiatric help.
We KNOW that God does not order the slaughter of babies because the Bible tells us so. The Bible repeatedly condemns the shedding of innocent blood and babies are certainly innocent. Why would the Bible command us NOT to shed innocent blood if there were no such thing as "innocent blood"?
But beyond what the Bible says, our own logic (and "God's law written upon our hearts") would shout to us, "NO! We ought not shed innocent blood!" And there is nothing wrong with embracing doing what we intuitively know is right. The Bible is quite clear that we have God's Word written upon our hearts, we DO know some things intuitively. Now, this knowledge is not perfect, so we must be cautious and conservative in listening to our God's word written upon our hearts, so that we don't confuse it with our own wants and wishes.
Dagood, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting it's a good thing to listen to people who say they heard God command them to kill?
Stan said...
Right or wrong, he starts from "My inner sense of justice is right ... so now let's evaluate what we see in the book we call 'the Bible'" and I start with "The Bible is right, so now I can evaluate my inner sense of justice."
You misunderstand my position. (And, by the way, THAT is at least one reason why it is good to have these discussions. Sometimes we don't "get" the others' position correctly...)
I emphatically do NOT say, "My inner sense of justice is right..." I CAN ALWAYS BE WRONG. My "inner sense of justice" CAN be wrong. However, our God-given reasoning IS what we use to evaluate and read the Bible. You just gave an example of suggesting Paul ought not be taken literally about the wearing gold, because HIS POINT was something else. My point is that IT IS YOUR LOGIC that Paul's point was something else. The passage literally says, "Don't let the women wear gold."
Now, I agree with your logic, that Paul's greater point was about attitude, not the specifics (is wearing gold wrong, but bronze and diamonds okay?). But that is a point you reach using your "inner sense of justice," using your logic. And this is a good thing.
So, right or wrong, you and I start with evaluating the Bible using our logic and God-given reasoning. We start from the same point in that regards.
Along those lines...
Dan assumes "culture" when it violates his sense of justice.
No, Dan reads the Bible and if I see something that doesn't square with multiple measures - the Bible itself, God's Word written upon our hearts, our God-given reasoning, simple logic, etc, etc - then I might raise a red flag.
I don't blindly accept each line in the Bible literally, nor do you, by your own admission. We evaluate based on multiple measures and rightly so.
DagoodS: "Good to know, Stan, if I ever need to know what God will or will not do, I can come to you."
Glad we got that cleared up. Oh, wait ... I bet that "wink" meant you were kidding ...
No, I jest. Sadly, there seems to be a universal communication gap. It is my fear that it is me, but it is my suspicion that it's the medium.
For instance, I already said that I believed that Israel was right for obeying God, but that times have changed and God wouldn't use that technique anymore. You hear "times change" as if I'm suggesting that it is no longer moral. Not what I intended.
Let me ask you this. If there was a God, what means can you imagine that He could interact with humans without involving humans? I ask because it seems as if you're ruling out human interaction with God as a viable event ... simply because humans are involved. I only say that because otherwise it would be a non-issue.
Dan Trabue: "The Bible repeatedly condemns the shedding of innocent blood and babies are certainly innocent."
Please note that the first phrase is true, but the second is an assumption. You do not find a statement in the Bible that "babies are certainly innocent." This has been at the heart of that disagreement from the start.
And, for DagoodS's sake:
Dan Trabue: (to DagoodS) "Are you suggesting it's a good thing to listen to people who say they heard God command them to kill?"
DagoodS is an atheist. You are asking him if he thought listening to an imaginary being would be a good thing. I think you'll find the answer obvious. (Less obvious to me ... I'm not entirely sure, but it looks as if he would also like to eliminate Christian ethics.)
Dan Trabue: "The passage literally says, 'Don't let the women wear gold.'"
Sigh. No ... it doesn't. "Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness -- with good works" (1 Tim 2:9-10). The passage literally says "not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." The phrase is an incomplete sentence ripped entirely out of context without any regard for what is actually being said. "So, Suzy, how did you dress today?" "Not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." Okay, so Suzy commanded that women not wear their hair in braids, right? No, Suzy answered a question. Paul is clarifying his statement regarding "respectable apparel". He clearly says, "It's about character, not clothes." Somehow you and DagoodS read "It's about clothes."
And we're back to the universal communication gap. I fear that I'm not as clear as the writers of sacred Scripture and that I'm not listened to as carefully as they are, either. Since they seem to be poorly heard, I can only imagine how little of what I intend to say actually gets across.
I am using my logic to read my Bible. Given. My logic is "What did the writer intend to convey?", not "Is it possible that the writer was wrong?" My logic is "How does this correspond to the rest of the Bible?", not "How does this correspond to what I know to be true?" Well, never mind ... it seems to be an impossible task to communicate this stuff. And if I do, it's ... what were some of your words? ... "violation of clear Scripture", "lazy", "horrifying"? Makes for good reading, I guess, but really puts a clamp on the dialog.
Dagood said...
Ah well…I see more common ground to be had here between Dan Trabue and you. I see both “filtering”—and if you don’t want to see it, who am I to try to rectify the situation?
I agree, we both DO filter the Bible through our logic. Being human and not having God directly speaking in our ears, our logic is what we have. That's been my point for a while, now.
Please note that the first phrase is true, but the second is an assumption.
True, but it is a sound assumption based upon basic semantics.
IF someone is NOT guilty of anything, they are innocent;
IF babies are not able to commit a wrong, they are factually not guilty of anything;
Babies are NOT able to commit wrong;
Therefore, babies ARE innocent.
I believe the innocent blood passages extend beyond babies, but that's a good starting point, if we can at least acknowledge that babies can't commit wrong.
I must say I'm still not clear on your position on that point. DO you believe that babies can't commit wrong?
(I understand that you think babies have inherited a sinful nature, I'm not disputing that. I'm talking about actual wrong committed by an infant, do you think that happens? If so, I would suggest logic works against your position.)
So, yes, I suppose one could suggest that my second phrase is an assumption, but it is an inescapable assumption as we understand the English language and basic word usage.
Dan Trabue: "it is an inescapable assumption."
Interesting. "Inescapable". Reminds me of The Princess Bride. One character kept saying "Inconceivable!" (about things that were actually occurring) to which the other finally replied, "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." But, I'm not reviving that debate. It got way too ugly -- too much heat without any apparent light.
DagoodS: "I see more common ground to be had here between Dan Trabue and you."
So, I'm intrigued. If you could come up with a way ... what was it you said? ... "What method can either propose on determining what God said? Is there a way to agree on a method?" -- if you could suggest a way we could agree on what God said, I'd be very interested because you seem to think we're not very far apart and I definitely think there is an unbreachable gap.
Dan Trabue: "I agree, we both DO filter the Bible through our logic."
I tried to let this go without comment but can't. I really have to know. Is it your impression that I have been arguing all along, "You use your inferior 'logic', earthling, but I use a superior direct connection with God" or something like it? Have you somehow gotten the idea that I actually claim that I don't use my brain when I read Scripture?
My point (all along) has not been "You use logic and I don't", but "We are starting from different premises as we reason through Scripture." Did you actually think I meant something different?
I understand that your point is that "We are starting from different premises as we reason through Scripture," I'm just not at all sure that is the case.
Because I love the Bible and its teachings and because I take it seriously as a source for God's revelation to us, when I read the Bible, I interpret it something along these lines...
1. Compare the individual verse to the whole Bible;
2. Evaluate the individual AND whole through the teachings of Jesus;
3. Strive to understand context and language and the nuances these bring to our exegesis;
4. Use the obvious and oft-repeated and clear to understand the less-obvious, less-clear;
5. Give consideration to traditional understanding(s) on the topic;
6. Use your own God-given logic to consider the implications of the teaching/point;
Is this (or something close to it) the approach you use to reading the Bible, Stan?
Well, it's pretty close ... except for the original premise before #1: The Bible is the Word of God without error. Not included in your list but necessary to mine is "The Bible is always right."
The Bible is the Word of God without error. Not included in your list but necessary to mine is "The Bible is always right."
1. The Bible does not make that claim, nor does God (ie, that the Bible is without error). Are you suggesting then that you are using your reason to reach that opinion? If so, then fine, I just want to make that clear.
2. Since the Bible nor God make the claim that the Bible is without error, I don't think that to be the case.
3. A problem with this "inerrant, always right" language is (aside from being extrabiblical) it is hard to pin down exactly what it means.
You begin with the assumption that the Bible is always right, you say, but when the Bible says that the Poor are blessed and Woe to the rich, you suggest that it does not mean what it says. If that passage is "right" and "Inerrant," then why does it not mean what it plainly says?
The Bible is always right, you say, but when Paul says, "Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire..." you suggest that it does NOT mean that women ought not wear gold or pearls, and yet, that is exactly what it says.
What does it mean "without error," if you merely explain away the parts you don't think apply today?
From my point of view, it SOUNDS like you're saying, "When Dan explains something away, he is rejecting the Bible's inerrant authority, but when I explain something away, I'm merely using my logic to suggest it doesn't mean what it literally says..."
Yes, it is true I don't believe in an inerrant Bible and you suggest you do, but from a practical standpoint, I don't see how what you do is any different than what I do.
Allow me to clarify something, please...
When I say that I don't think the Bible is inerrant, I should note that it's not so much that I think the Bible is "errant," or full of errors, or even containing errors.
It's that I don't think "inerrant" is a correct word to use in reference to a book of Truth. The Bible is a book of Truth. It contains some stories, some histories (although not necessarily written in the way that WE would write histories today, with a concern for factual accuracy), some poetry, some mythology, some analogy, etc, etc.
The point of the books of the bible are its stories that lead us to Truth and to a deeper understanding of God. The point is NOT to teach science as we understand science, nor to relay histories the way that we write histories today, nor to give an answer to everything, nor to provide a perfect list of what is and isn't a "sin..."
The greater point of the Bible, it seems to me, is to relay essential truths. Truths about God, truths about the creation, truths about people, truths about the human condition.
That being the case (in my opinion, anyway), I simply don't find "inerrant" to be an appropriate way to think about the Bible, any more than we would think about Aesop's Fables being inerrant. (And I fully realize that some people may swallow their tongue that I would mention the Bible in the same sentence as Aesop's Fables - if so, relax, it's not blasphemy to call the Bible a book of Truth).
So, when the Bible uses mythological instead of scientific language to describe the Creation, I don't leap up and say, "LOOK! It's erroneous!!" Rather, I think, "It IS true that this is a wonderful and blessed creation. Hallelujah..."
For what it's worth...
Dan Trabue: "The Bible does not make that claim..."
And so it goes. You explain why you don't start where I start. Fine. Then you agree that we don't start from the same place. Since the Bible is not simply "inspired" in our sense of the term ("Now that was truly inspired writing"), but "God breathed" (not my word -- the biblical word), then I am left with one of two possible conclusions. God breathed accurately or inaccurately. He superintended what He intended to have written or He did not. He is capable of transmitting what He intended to transmit or He is not. Logic? Sure. But simple logic. Nothing complex here. So you're fine with "Those claims are made about God, but they're actually false" and I can't even begin to imagine how God would breathe that. "Oops! Sorry, folks. I intended for it to be truthful, but, hey, you can't manage everything, right?"
It seemed as if we were so close, you know? We were on the cusp of beginning to come to a possible resolution in the future. But when I explain the transparent meaning of the text of 1 Tim 2:9-10 as not even reasonably a reference to women wearing gold, you assure me "that is exactly what it says". No, it's not. The only reason you think it is is because you choose to, not because it's 1) rational or 2) textually required (or even textually relevant). Bottom line, of course, is that we cannot come to a possible resolution because you consider me lazy, horrible, and dishonest. You're quite sure I relegate stuff willy-nilly to "it doesn't apply today". And if I say that the Bible says that certain things from the Old Testament have been changed in the New, you're quite certain I'm crying "Error" without admitting it. (Look, if a driving instructor says, "Turn left down this road" and then, after you turn, he says, "Now turn right", does that constitute error?)
Since I cannot be taken at face value, by what possible means could we come to an agreement about God's Word? When you agree that you don't believe in an inerrant Bible, by what possible means could we come to an agreement about God's Word? And if the Bible cannot be taken in the way in which it's written, there's very little chance that we could come to an agreement about God's Word
In other words, we're back to Stan says "This is what I believe" and Dan says, "This is what I believe" and we're done. No careful explanations will clear it up. You will dismiss me out of hand. ("He's not being truthful about taking the Bible literally and believes horrendous things.") I'll return the favor. ("He doesn't believe in an inerrant Bible and therefore doesn't have the same basis as mine.") End of conversation.
Ah well….we were so close.
Dan Trabue gave a list of how he interprets the Bible. Stan, you indicated you would put an original premise before #1, that the Bible is the Word of God without error; “The Bible is always right.”
When pressed, however, it turns out that even for you, Stan, there is premise before that—being the English translation of the Greek word theopneustos is “God-breathed” meaning without error.
How do you know theopneustos means “without error”? The ONLY way to derive that is by external knowledge, reason and interpretation! In other words, behind your premise behind Dan Trabue’s premise #1 is your own interpretation!
I watch this happened throughout this conversation. When 1 Timothy literally says woman should not wear gold—you avoid the literal and look to “the meaning:”
Stan: But when I explain the transparent meaning of the text of 1 Tim 2:9-10…
Stan, YOU are making determinations as to when the Bible is to be interpreted literally, and when it is to be interpreted by “meaning.” Same as Dan Trabue. This is what I mean by both using the same methodology. What I wish to see is who can explain what method we use to determine things literally or “by meaning.” Or is it based up to each individual?
Here, let’s dig into this a bit more.
2 Tim. 3:16 starts off: ”pasa graphe theopneustos…”
Pasa means “all” as in inclusive. graphe means “writing.” Notice that it does NOT use the word “Scripture.” Any writing can be a “writing.” The plague over Jesus’ head was a graphe.
However, in reading Early Christian writing, we note the term “It is written…” is utilized when making specific reference to Scripture. If a person wrote, “As Paul said….” This is an indication they did NOT believe it to be scripture. If they said, “It is written…” they did.
It is a valid logical inference the author of 2 Tim, when looking at the context, was referring to “Scripture.” But note, and note carefully—we only KNOW that by reasoning, and other knowledge.
There is a problem, though, in what is pasa graphe--“all Scripture”? If one holds to Paul being the author, then the only writing would be the Tanakh. Worse, it could have included the Apocrypha, for all we know! A strict interpretation of the author’s intent (assuming Paul) would be that any subsequent writing would not have been considered part of “all Scripture.”
We have started down the road of interjecting meaning and interpretation if we attempt to extrapolate that beyond the author’s intent.
Of course, if it was NOT Paul, it would be easier to include the rest of New Testament (being written later) but Christian non-scholars shy away from that…
Secondly, the grammar of the sentence reads, “All scripture that is theopneustos…” implying scripture existing which is NOT theopneustos! Dr. Wallace argues (perhaps persuasively) that there are some exceptions to the rule, and this verse would fall under these exceptions allowing for the translation to be “All scripture is theopneustos…”
Look what we have done. We have interjected our own definition of “Scripture.” We have interjected an exception to the grammar.
Are you starting to see how behind your premise behind Dan Trabue’s premise is MORE interpretation? It is not as cut-and-dried as claimed.
It only gets worse…
Theopneustos is a manufactured, unique word. It does not appear in any other Greek literature. It does not appear in any other canonical work. We have no relational base as to determine what, specifically, the author was intending.
It consists of two words--theo meaning “God” and pneuma meaning spirit. Pneuma can also mean wind or breath, as these are vital to a human; to the Greeks contained the human essence or spirit.
So theopneustos could be translated, “God-spirit,” or “God-wind” or “God-breath.” The translators look to the context, and choose “breath.”
The import is astronomical—we don’t know WHAT this word exactly was intended to mean. Look, imagine I said something was “watermelonwacky.” You won’t find that word anywhere else, all you can do is look for the meaning of “watermelon” and “wacky” and derive some conclusion from it.
Get that? We derive the meaning of theopneustos! You may claim it logically makes sense to say it means “God-inspired”—but this requires a logical argument underlying the claim!
So we don’t know what “all scripture” would entail, we use an exception to the grammar rule, and we insert our own definition to the word…
Stan, you are using individual reasoning to make claims. This is the same as Dan Trabue. Using your mind, in addition to the actual written word. I am glad you do so—I just wish you could recognize that you are.
Sigh ... my mother taught me "Communication is tenuous at best." We seem to keep proving how wise my mother is over and over.
DagoodS, did you somehow get the impression that I believed I was not using my mind? Did I convey to you that I was using zero logic, zero reasoning, zero intelligence? So why do you feel the need to impress upon me that I am?
I agreed (over and over, but, hey, who's listening?) with Dan that I use an almost identical process that he outlined. The difference is the basis.
The amusing part is that it's the atheist arguing that, in the final analysis, we can't actually know anything about the Bible as truth. It's all human invention, all human reason, all individualistic. Now that's a surprise, isn't it? An atheist who doesn't believe the Bible?
In truth, DagoodS, is there any approach at all that a believer might take that would qualify as "reasonable" and "reasonably reliable"? Or is the only possibility in your view that the Bible is wholly unreasonable and unreliable?
No, Stan. I do not live in a solely two-dimensional world. It is not as if the ONLY two POSSIBLE choices are:
1) The WHOLE Bible is WHOLLY unreasonable and WHOLLY unreliable
OR
2) The WHOLE Bible is WHOLLY reasonable and WHOLLY reliable.
I developed a method (gee, what an amazing concept) to ferret out what is reliable on a very large scale, ranging from not reliable, to partly reliable, to we don’t know, to very reliable, to extremely reliable, and about all points in-between.
Curious, if you understood you were using logic and reasoning as your premise, why you didn’t list it as your base premise…
And yes, I find many believers (mostly scholars) who approach the Bible in a reasonably reliable fashion. Udo Schnelle, Bruce Malina, even (at times) Daniel Wallace.
Finally, I never said we “can’t actually know anything about the Bible as truth.”
Once you start putting [straw] words in my mouth, making ridiculous claims of parody atheists, the conversation has truly ended.
Hey, for my own personal benefit, at least this conversation reminded me why posting here is so futile.
DagoodS: "Curious, if you understood you were using logic and reasoning as your premise, why you didn’t list it as your base premise."
Curious ... did you actually think I thought I was using no logic or reasoning?
But to answer your question, Dan listed 6 points:
1. Compare the Bible to the Bible.
2. Compare the passage to Jesus's teachings.
3. Account for context.
4. Use the obvious to understand the obscure.
5. Consider tradition
6. Use reason
I agreed with those. (I hope my shorthand does Dan justice.) Surely it is obvious that all of this requires logic and reason. The difference between Dan and I is not "He uses logic and I don't."
I apologize for misrepresenting your view. I don't expect an equal apology from you for assuming I somehow believe I think without thinking, reason without reason. I don't take it personally. But ... you don't believe the Bible, right? :)
Unfortunately, this medium occurs in brief "soundbites", so to speak. We (both you and I) read quickly, assuming facts not in evidence, detecting intent and motivation that may or may not be accurate, and responding. Not quite right. As always, I'm quite sure a face-to-face conversation between us would be much friendlier, much clearer, and much more productive. At times I despise this medium.
Stan, would you mind terribly describing what the difference is (in your opinion) between how you and I read the Bible? You suggest we "use different premises" to reason our way through scripture. What are those premises? I have to admit that I'm not clear on that point and it's probably my fault for not reading closely enough, but if you don't mind...?
One other thought, where you said...
So you're fine with "Those claims are made about God, but they're actually false" and I can't even begin to imagine how God would breathe that.
This is why I interjected the clarification about what I think about "inerrant" - it's not so much that I believe claims are made about God that are false, but moreso, that we need not take every claim about God to be perfectly correct.
The Bible claims that God created the world in six days. Now, it's not the case that I think people deliberately falsified Genesis and God was unable to prevent this falsehood in God's "breathed" document. Rather, it is the case that I think that explaining the Creation to a people six thousand years ago using mythological language makes a great deal of sense. In fact, it would be nutty to have presented a scientifically factual representation of the Creation four-six thousand years ago.
The creation story presents a Story to explain Creation that was suited to the people of the time. Now, I don't think the Bible is a magic book that would transform itself magically to reflect current understandings and norms. Rather, I think it is a snapshot of a revelation of God at that time.
To call such a snap shot a "falsehood," or "errant" would be missing the point. To point to historical stories told in the Bible and to presume that they ought to be written in the style and manner of a history today would I don't think is reasonable. So, if some stories don't present perfect revelations of God, that's okay.
Paul tells us that we see through as through a glass darkly now. That is just the way it is. We don't have perfect understanding and neither did the people then. Revelation, it seems to me, would always be done in a way that makes sense to the hearers, or at least potentially.
So, even though I think some stories in the Bible don't hold what I would consider perfectly historically accurate representations of God does not make them "errant" in my mind. Just a product of their times and we ought to be able to use our reason to understand that (indeed, generally, we do).
Why? Seriously, do you not see the difference between your approach and mine?
Honestly, after 52 iterations of discussion here, are we any closer to coming to a conclusion or even an understanding? Do you feel now like you're really close to getting what I'm saying? (Not even agreeing, but "getting"?) And, in the end, does any of this have anything to do with the entire concept of biblical patriarchy?
I'm tired. I don't see progress. Can we take this up some other time?
Why? Seriously, do you not see the difference between your approach and mine?
No. That is why I ask. From what you've said thus far, I don't believe there IS a significant difference between how we read the Bible and you seem to think so, and so I have asked.
I'm sorry if I don't understand the difference, but I don't. Is it a hard question to answer?
I'm sorry if it is and if you're too tired to try to answer, I'm glad to take it up some other time.
But, if it is an easy question to answer (it SEEMS to me like it would be an easy question to answer - "our difference is ..." - but maybe I'm missing something) and you don't mind, I'd love to make at least as much progress as for me to understand what you believe we're doing differently.
Do you feel now like you're really close to getting what I'm saying?
Well, I DO see that we use a very similar criteria for reading the Bible, so yes, in that regards, I'm further along to getting what you're saying than I was before. What I'm "missing" is what you think we're doing differently.
I suspect that it has to do with our difference here...
Stan:
"The Bible is always right."
Dan:
"The Bible is a book of Truth."
And then we have our roughly six other criterion.
And so, we read Jesus saying, "Blessed are the poor... Woe to you who are rich..."
And DAN thinks the Bible is a book of Truth, I see that this is a direct teaching of Jesus, I compare the single verse to the whole, I try to understand the context and I use my logic/reasoning throughout all of that (as well as pray) and come out believing that Jesus meant simply what he said and acknowledge that in the Bible God DOES repeatedly "side with" and look out for the poor/marginalized. I see that in the Bible there ARE repeated warnings about the trappings of wealth and how it can be quite the curse and think that this is what Jesus is talking about.
STAN reads that passage and (if you'll allow me some guessing, feel free to correct me) and thinks the Bible is always right AND YET does not think that we need to take that line literally to be right, but rather, that we need to evaluate it using our agreed upon criteria and decide that it must mean something other than its literal meaning, primarily reaching that conclusion using your reasoning along with comparative readings to the rest of the Bible.
The thing is, we both at times think that a literal reading is the "wrong" reading. Neither of us think the Bible is lying or deliberately spreading falsehoods in those occasions when a literal reading must be set aside, we just don't think (using our logic and comparative reading to the whole of the bible, etc) that it is rightly understood literally, but rather there is some other explanation.
Now, in this case, I don't reach the same conclusion you do. I don't think a fairly literal reading of the passage is undeserved and, indeed, I think NOT taking it fairly literally would be missing the point. But, I don't begrudge you your process of thinking sometimes, some passages ought not be taken as "right" literally read.
And that is why I'm not seeing the difference.
I'm not sure if that was a good explanation, but I gave it a shot. Correct me where I'm wrong, if you so desire, or let it go for now if you're tired. That's perfectly fine.
I understand being out of time and energy.
Peace.
Why you would think that I "spiritualize" or "marginalize" or whatever the "blessed are the poor" comment I'm not sure. Biblically, blessings and curses have specific meaning. The concept of "blessed" is found in the classic "The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make His face to shine upon you ..." "Blessing" is "God's face on me" and "cursing" is "God turned away. It was this concept of the curse that Jesus expressed when He cried out, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" So ... I see that, just as God has His eye on the sparrow, He has His eye on the poor. So ... where was I not taking it literally?
So ... when do I not take something at face value? Well, I don't get to question texts because they disagree with my perspective. I don't get to assume that "this is a misrepresentation of the truth" because of an "inner sense of justice". (I do have an inner sense of justice. I just don't get to use it for that purpose.) No, I only get to question "face value" texts when they stand in direct opposition to other clear texts. And (this is a big "and"), I don't get to assume "That text isn't quite accurate." No, I have to make sense of it, not assume it is not an accurate representation. I can't set one aside in favor of the other. I have to make them fit.
You read "The LORD spoke to Moses, saying ... Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death" and, based on an unknown quantity (to me), assume, "Well, no, God didn't actually say that to Moses." Then you assure me that it's not an error; it's just ... wrong. I don't get that option. That's the big difference.
Well, I certainly see a difference (speaking as a totally non-neutral observer, but one who occasionally has a small difference with Stan).
The difference I see is this:
Dan believes that Scripture forbids women to wear god, and says they should wear it anyway.
Stan believes that women may wear gold, because he doesn't believe Scripture forbids it. If he did believe that Scripture forbade it why, then, he wouldn't believe that they should wear gold.
Thanks, Von. That says it quite clearly. (Better than I was.)
I have to say, though, that I was a little disappointed that you had nothing to add on the concept of biblical patriarchy. I find it hard to believe I covered it adequately (you know, as far as I covered it).
Von said...
Dan believes that Scripture forbids women to wear gold, and says they should wear it anyway.
Stan believes that women may wear gold, because he doesn't believe Scripture forbids it. If he did believe that Scripture forbade it why, then, he wouldn't believe that they should wear gold.
Interesting that Stan is okay with this explanation. Okay, let me start from there, then. (Von misunderstood my position on the point, but I'll come back to that).
So, Stan, you're suggesting this...
"Stan believes that women may wear gold, because he doesn't believe Scripture forbids it. If he did believe that Scripture forbade it why, then, he wouldn't believe that they should wear gold."
...is correct?
Okay, then consider this:
"Dan believes it is always wrong to kill children because he believes God (as evidenced in Scripture and in our very hearts and minds) forbids it. If Dan DID believe God endorsed it, then that might be different, but that is not the case."
In both cases, there are strict literal lines that suggest just what we oppose (there IS a line that says plainly "Women ought not wear gold or pearls, there IS a line that says God commands the slaughter of children). But in BOTH our cases, we don't think a literal interpretation is a good representation of God's will.
Again, I don't think we're approaching this in different ways much at all.
As to Von's summary of my position...
"Dan believes that Scripture forbids women to wear gold, and says they should wear it anyway."
My position would actually be closer to...
Dan sees that Paul forbids women from wearing certain jewelry. He does so in the context of warning about modesty and self-control. Dan thinks it fairly clear that Paul was speaking to a specific situation and was probably correct in his suggestion. Dan thinks that there may well be times when people should refrain from jewelry and it might be a good thing to avoid all together. Dan does not think the prohibition of jewelry should necessarily be a leaden, universal teaching, but it is probably a general good thing.
(Dan is just anabaptist enough not to care much for jewelry as a waste of money and a way of buying into consumerism rather than Godly pursuit of a simple lifestyle).
I have to make them fit.
Why? The Bible does not tell you so. God has not told you so (I presume).
Beyond that, I don't know that you do this (make them "fit") any more than I do. When you suggest that Paul's command to not wear gold or pearls doesn't REALLY mean not to wear gold or pearls, you are not making that "fit," so far as I see. Rather, you are using your reasoning to suggest why it's not necessary to take it literally.
As I do with a passage that says "God says, 'kill those children.'" (Although, in my case, I also have what I believe a strong biblical case for dismissing a literal reading of that sort of passage).
You read "The LORD spoke to Moses, saying ... Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death" and, based on an unknown quantity (to me), assume, "Well, no, God didn't actually say that to Moses."
Actually, I have not said that God did not say that to Moses (and I have not talked about this passage at all, so I will switch to another passage I have talked about). Rather, what I have said is, when a passage says, "God says, 'kill those children,'"...
1. A red flag jumps right away because my own reasoning says, "Whoa! It's wrong to kill children!!"
2. Of course, my reasoning is not infallible, so I don't rely on that alone, but it is a very legitimate red flag and something that ought to be reckoned with in the equation.
3. I see many other passages in the Bible that dictate against the notion of slaughtering children.
4. I can safely reason (I believe) that God does not command us to commit wrong. In fact, there is biblical support for this - although I'd have to look it up (and will if you doubt me, but I don't think you do).
5. So, since I have two passages, one commanding killing children and one forbidding shedding innocent blood, I have a quandary - what to do???
6. At this point (and our legitimate difference, I suppose), you suggest that BOTH have to be right and must be reconciled somehow with both statements being factually true. Myself, having no biblical nor reasonable nor Godly reason to assume that both have to be factually correct, I feel no compulsion to strive for that.
7. So, at a minimum, I use our agreed upon biblical exegesis criterion and reason that God does not command evil and therefore, the "correct" answer to the question "Does God sometimes command the slaughter of children?" is No. I feel no great compulsion to have to explain the passage that suggests that beyond saying, "that's not a literally correct description of how we understand God to work. Suffice to say, God does not command us to do evil and slaughtering children IS evil."
8. However, IF I were to try to explain it, I can offer some opinions (the Bible is a book of Truths. The Truths in this passage is that God is opposed to oppression, to evil acts, to whatever the nation in question is described as doing... that such serious sin has serious consequences... that God is looking out for God's people, for the poor, the oppressed... THOSE sort of truths. I can understand that this is a way of demonstrating all of these Truths, but that I need not take the suggestion that God commands slaughtering children literally, in fact, it would be wrong to do so, since the Bible tells us that God is opposed to such action and our own reasoning confirms this.
9. I don't believe that my ways of "explaining it" (as in #8) is that different than your way of explaining it when you disagree with a passage. You don't THINK that Paul is suggesting we literally can't wear gold or pearls. Rather, there was another point to that passage.
10. That's EXACTLY how I tend to explain the child slaughter passages. We don't need to take them literally. There is another point to that passage.
How is that different than what you're doing (other than I acknowledge that I'm not taking every line literally and you're holding on to the suggestion that you believe "the Bible is right" while you dismiss part of the Bible)?
Dan Trabue: "Why? The Bible does not tell you so."
You see, Dan, this is why I'm exhausted from this "conversation". I answer your question ... I tell you the difference and you don't acknowledge the difference, you just suggest that I'm wrong. You do so ignoring the fact that I already told you why. The Bible tells me that Scripture was breathed by God. (I didn't say your Bible told you that; I said it tells me that.) The Bible tells me that "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit". Now, you are free not to take that to any logical conclusion, but I I have to conclude that a Bible that is "God-breathed" must be ... divine, not human. You will tell me, "The Bible doesn't say that!" and we're back to circles.
Oh, and, I could be wrong, but I thought you had commented on whether or not God demanded death for certain crimes. I understood you to say that you believed that the death penalty was never the right penalty.
In your attempt to demonstrate how we approach Scripture the same way, you explained that "At this point (and our legitimate difference, I suppose), you suggest that BOTH have to be right and must be reconciled somehow with both statements being factually true. Myself, having no biblical nor reasonable nor Godly reason to assume that both have to be factually correct, I feel no compulsion to strive for that." Yes, I am forced by my reading of the Word to conclude that both have to be right, to be understood properly in some sense so as not to simply dismiss one or the other. (I do have reasons to question your "innocent blood" point, by the way. But that's a later post, I'm sure.) So, you are free to conclude that the text is wrong and feel no compulsion to even make sense of it. When (your point #8) you do offer some sort of explanation ("God is looking out for God's people"), it makes no sense. (How does "Slaughter everyone" teach us that "God is looking out for God's people"?) That, as you say, would be our fundamental difference.
1) The Bible is "God-breathed" and, as such, is a unique, divine book.
2) I must read the Bible as written. That means that a historical narrative (like the texts in question) should be taken as a historical narrative, and that God superintended it ("God-breathed") to insure its accuracy.
Well, I won't go on from there. The post (that now has 62 comments ... the most ever) was about Biblical Patriarchy. We have long since stopped discussing the post. We've gone a long way down this rabbit trail and now we're just running around in circles. "I believe this about the Bible." "We believe the same things!" "No, we don't, I believe this." "Why would you believe that??! You're wrong!" "We don't believe the same thing about the Bible." "Yes we do!" Sigh. And not a millimeter closer to Biblical Patriarchy.
Well I am willing to discuss Biblical patriarchy. Indeed I am willing to discuss many of Dans original points:
1) Yes I believe that women shouldn't vote. Indeed not all men should vote. the founding fathers believed the same thing.
2) Yes I believe that women should not be in civil leadership.
3) I believe that that husband/father is to be the leader in his home. However the wife is the manager of *the house*; which implies a dramatic number of decisions. The weapons officer of a ship makes decisions... but the captain is still in charge.
4) The word 'chattel' is not (I believe) in Scripture. I do believe Scripture teaches the correct way to treat women.
5) Women should work, and work hard. They should not be involved in jobs which take them out from under their husband or fathers authority.
Oh, and (I missed them):
6) Where Scripture teaches gender roles in the house, those should be followed. (cooking and bills are not mentioned).
7) A wife should obey her husband in every area where he has jurisdiction.
(I am also willing to discuss slavery or polygamy.)
Fine, we can end. But if I may clarify yet again, where you say...
you are free to conclude that the text is wrong and feel no compulsion to even make sense of it.
I conclude that YOUR TAKE on the text is wrong, just as you conclude that those who say "women can't wear gold...," that THEIR take on it is wrong.
We do the same thing, seems to me.
Dan Trabue: "I conclude that YOUR TAKE on the text is wrong"
No, Dan, that's not what you say. You say, "the correct answer to the question 'Does God sometimes command the slaughter of children?' is No. I feel no great compulsion to have to explain the passage that suggests that beyond saying, 'that's not a literally correct description of how we understand God to work.'" Your answer is "I feel no compulsion to explain." That is based on the notion that the Bible contains Truth, but is not actually a divine book. You feel no compulsion to explain because you see no reason to think that it can't be ... wrong in its description of how we are to understand God to work. You have specifically said that you can't see any reason to correlate Scripture, to make if fit.
Nor is it what I do. If I conclude that there is sufficient reason not to take it at plain literal face value, I explain why and offer a logical, clear cut alternate understanding that fits with the context of the passage and the language used. You feel no compulsion to do that. If I did not do that, I would have to conclude I do not have a valid, divine book and be free to do whatever I pleased with the thing ... except use it as a foundation for Christianity.
Yes, you are correct. I do not think the book is divine. Only God is divine. We worship God, not a book.
I fear that sometimes people try to make a god of the Bible and treat it as magical and divine in and of itself. It's not. It's a book of divine revelation, but it's not divine.
Perhaps that is what you mean. If so, we agree. If you think the Bible itself is divine, then we disagree.
And yes, I see no biblical, Godly or logical reason to try to make two contradictory statements within the Bible to BOTH be literally true. And I don't believe you do, either.
You don't believe that it is literally true that women ought not wear gold.
Again, I don't see the difference. I'm not sure the fact that you feel a need to explain how both can be be "right" and yet both aren't literally "true" and that I don't feel that need is a marked difference in how we read the Bible.
It IS a difference in how we explain the Bible, but not so much in how we read it.
I have to say, though, that I was a little disappointed that you had nothing to add on the concept of biblical patriarchy. I find it hard to believe I covered it adequately (you know, as far as I covered it).
Hey! I just didn't want to interupt the... well, whatever you would call it, on the question of Scripture. It is foundational to Biblical Patriarchy.
I am fully willing to discuss the other. I go to work tonight, I will look at the original post then and comment.
Not a chance, Dan, not a chance in the world. We will never come to an understanding. If you somehow understood me to say, "The Bible is God", we're completely without hope. No ... my Bible is not God. Sigh.
It is God-breathed. That is much, much more than "inspired writing" or even the cavalier "divine revelation" that you seem to think it is. (I see the words "divine revelation" and have no problem with them, but then you blithely discard passages and I'm baffled.)
Dan Trabue: "I'm not sure the fact that you feel a need to explain how both can be be 'right' and yet both aren't literally 'true'."
That's because you didn't understand the premise. They must both be right and literally true. (You seem to be confusing "literally true" with "at plain, face value".) I don't believe it's "literally true" that women are commanded not to wear gold because that's not what the text says. At face value it says that women should adorn themselves properly. The rest of the text explains what that adornment means: "Not outward, but inward." I believe that because the text doesn't make any sense any other way. Seriously? Paul has decided to make a fashion statement? That's reasonable?
But, you see, since you might think that when I say "The Bible is a divine book" I mean "The Bible is God" and since when I say, "I understand that I need to find the entire Bible to be true, without contradiction" you say, "I don't believe you do", what possible hope is there for any progress? (Rhetorical question.)
I believe that because the text doesn't make any sense any other way. Seriously? Paul has decided to make a fashion statement? That's reasonable?
Yes! It is entirely reasonable that Paul would offer an opinion about ostentatious jewelry and clothing.
There was a serious problem in at least some of the churches with disparity of wealth. Recall James' admonitions?
For if a man with gold rings on his fingers and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and a poor person in shabby clothes also comes in, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say, "Sit here, please," while you say to the poor one, "Stand there," or "Sit at my feet," have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil designs?
Listen, my beloved brothers. Did not God choose those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that he promised to those who love him?
But you dishonored the poor person. Are not the rich oppressing you? And do they themselves not haul you off to court?
Is it not they who blaspheme the noble name that was invoked over you? ~James 2
That's just one excerpt, but if you'll recall the early church stories and letters, there are more (do you recall the reason for starting the office of deacons? It was to fairly distribute resources, another example...).
I don't know that this was the problem in this Timothy text off hand, but given that it had been a problem in some churches, I can definitely see how Paul would think it reasonable to admonish people not to wear gold or pearls or costly garments, to behave modestly and discreetly.
And so, yes, it DOES make sense literally and yet you don't take it that way. You dismiss it as "not right" in its literal sense. In much the same way that I dismiss the "kill children" passages as "not right" in their literal sense.
Again, I don't think we're that different in that regards.
Stan said...
Not a chance, Dan, not a chance in the world. We will never come to an understanding. If you somehow understood me to say, "The Bible is God", we're completely without hope. No ... my Bible is not God. Sigh.
Stan, look at what you said...
"That is based on the notion that the Bible contains Truth, but is not actually a divine book."
That LOOKS like to me that you're suggesting the Bible is a "Divine Book," or, a book that is divine. But I didn't think you meant that and that is why I asked my stated the clarifier... "It's a book of divine revelation, but it's not divine. Perhaps that is what you mean. If so, we agree. If you think the Bible itself is divine, then we disagree."
And now, you have clarified yourself - you don't think the Bible is a god, just "God-breathed," a point with which I can agree, since that is what the Bible says about "scripture."
So, why are you saying, "Not a chance that we'll come to an understanding?" We just did!
That, to me, is an example of why I think these conversations are helpful. I was unsure of you're meaning. You clarified. Understanding!
It seems to me that you are finding much more disagreement than I am finding and that you find this more exasperating than I do.
What I believe about Scripture (since we still seem to be on that subject) is hinted at here:
Psa 19:7 The Law of Jehovah is perfect, converting the soul. The Testimony of Jehovah is sure, making the simple wise.
Psa 19:8 The precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart. The commands of Jehovah are pure, giving light to the eyes.
Psa 19:9 The fear of Jehovah is clean, enduring forever. The judgments of Jehovah are true, they are righteous altogether.
Psa 19:10 They are more precious than gold, even much fine gold, and sweeter than honey and drops from the honeycomb.
Psa 19:11 Also Your servant is warned by them; in keeping of them is great reward.
The key word in the other verse is:
G2885
κοσμέω
kosmeō
kos-meh'-o
From G2889; to put in proper order, that is, decorate (literally or figuratively); specifically to snuff (a wick): - adorn, garnish, trim.
Thus women are not to 'put themselves in their proper order' using gold, but using modest apparel, good works, silence, and subjection.
I myself find Stans protestations against 'fashion statements' a bit foreign to the text. But again I make the claim (based on his other writings) that if Stan did believe that was what it meant (and was not driven by sin to disobedience) then he would follow that command.
Whereas Dans statement of 'While clearly the bible is written from a patriarchal point of view, I don't find it avoidable at all that we must assume patriarchy is right and good.' seems to imply that Gods point of view, as the author of Scripture, could somehow fail to be 'right and good'. Perhaps he misspoke.
I missed this earlier... On topic, Von said...
4) The word 'chattel' is not (I believe) in Scripture. I do believe Scripture teaches the correct way to treat women.
Women were, as a matter of history, treated as chattel in biblical times. They were owned by their husbands and fathers. Are you disputing this history or are you merely making a note that the term, "Chattel" does not appear in the Bible?
I'll assume you were just making a note, correctly, that the term does not appear in the Bible.
For a little historical perspective, though, here's one source that gives more details about how women were treated at the time...
Women's behavior was extremely limited in ancient times, much as the women of Afghanistan during the recent Taliban oppression. They were:
* Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father.
* Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband.
* They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.
* They could not testify in court.
* They could not appear in public venues.
* They were not allowed to talk to strangers.
* They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes.
Actually, I'm addressing Von's comments as if he were actually serious, but perhaps he's not. Surely not.
Women shouldn't vote? Women shouldn't be in civil leadership?
Sorry I was slow on the uptake, I guess that's some sort of joke that I'm not getting, or stated to make some point?
I'm still trying to process this and I'm just not quite sure I understand what you're saying. A little help?
They must both be right and literally true. (You seem to be confusing "literally true" with "at plain, face value".) I don't believe it's "literally true" that women are commanded not to wear gold because that's not what the text says. At face value it says that women should adorn themselves properly.
You "don't believe it's literally true that women are commanded not to wear gold?"
You don't believe that Paul literally told women not to wear gold, pearls or expensive clothes?
When Paul said...
Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works
You DON'T think Paul was telling women not to wear gold? But that is what is literally there.
"I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing... NOT with ... gold or pearls..."
Are you saying that you don't think Paul is literally saying not to wear gold?
I believe what you're saying (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) is that, while Paul DOES say literally, "don't wear gold or pearls," his main gist was to dress modestly. Or are you actually saying that Paul's words don't literally mean, "don't wear gold..."?
That IS the literal meaning of the text, you know. Quite literally Paul is saying "Wear proper clothing. Dress modestly. Don't wear gold or pearls." That IS the literal meaning of those words, right?
I'm sorry if I'm confused on your meaning.
At what point do you admit that you are just not going to understand me (or take me at face value)?
Dan Trabue: "Are you saying that you don't think Paul is literally saying not to wear gold?"
Yes, that is what I'm saying. Here, try it from this direction:
"Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness -- with good works" (1 Tim 2:9-10).
Okay, now, from your perspective this is a literal command not to ... what ... braid hair, where gold or pearls, or wear anything that costs very much. So here's what I read when I read it your way:
"Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel. By 'respectable apparel' I mean no braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire. Instead of those things, women should wear only modesty, self-control, godliness, good works." In other words, women should go naked but have good character.
Now, of course that's not what you are saying, but that's what I would see if Paul was explaining "respectable apparel" as "nothing expensive". So the idea, I guess, is that God doesn't like women to dress up. Okay. I think it's ironic, however. In this case, God looks on the outward appearance, but Stan looks on the heart.
Further, if I believed that this was a clear command not to wear gold or braided hair, I would believe it to be a sin to do otherwise. (For instance, I believe that 1 Tim 2:12-15 is a clear and direct command not permitting women as pastors, etc. You don't.)
Dan Trabue: "You don't think the Bible is a god, just 'God-breathed,' a point with which I can agree, since that is what the Bible says about 'scripture."
Two people separated by a common language. To you, "God-breathed" seems to mean something like "God-suggested", like "truly inspirational writing", but not any sense of "God breathed it into the human authors and what they wrote was accurate -- God-breathed.
And still we're way off course regarding the post.
Look, why don't you go to your blog and argue with people about whether or not the Bible is inerrant. You know ... make a post about the topic and have people discuss it. Because we're now 78 comments into "How are we to regard the Bible?" with nearly nothing on the topic at hand - patriarchy.
Oh, and Von is very serious about his views on men and women. He wasn't being sarcastic.
Okay, I give up on this topic with you.
Peace.
Von thinks women shouldn't vote? What century is he from?
I guess there may be no talking with some people. I don't know what to say to that sort of talk. Perhaps if he elaborated it wouldn't sound as Neanderthalic as it did at first blush.
.Women were, as a matter of history, treated as chattel in biblical times. They were owned by their husbands and fathers. Are you disputing this history or are you merely making a note that the term, "Chattel" does not appear in the Bible?
I was saying that I am perfectly willing to defend the Biblical law and resulting patriarchical practice; but that the word 'chattel' merely combines dozens of issues, some Biblical, some not.
Cross posted to my blog (or it will be in a second).
Stan has written an excellent article on Biblical Patriarchy, and he asked me for my comments.
The first thing I noticed, which he commented on but I would like to emphasize, is on how our earthly patriarchy is so often used as a reflection of Gods patriarchy. We read for example:
Heb 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? Heb 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
And we see God using our earthly fathers as an example for what He is like. His discipline, His chastening, are related back to the discipline and chastening that we receive from our fathers. This makes any denigration of that example a denigration of our metaphor for Him.
We also see God choosing to operate through the mechanism of the patriarchs. Speaking to Moses, for example:
Exo 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
Here God introduces himself to Moses via his ‘fathers’ Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. A fascinating concept, and a real challenge to us.
Von,
Not disagreeing at all with your comment about "the word 'chattel' merely combines dozens of issues". I just wished to point out that, to me, it carries the same sort of problems as the word "sodomite". :)
Von thinks women shouldn't vote? What century is he from?
I guess there may be no talking with some people. I don't know what to say to that sort of talk. Perhaps if he elaborated it wouldn't sound as Neanderthalic as it did at first blush.
A small history lesson: Women were 'given' the vote late in the 19th and early in the 20th century. And had the women been given the vote about being given the vote it is quite likely the vote would have lost.
Is there something about this particular century that changes the truth about male/female relationships?
Do you remember what CS Lewis said?:
… as to putting the clock back, would you think I was
joking if I said that you can put a clock back, and that
if the clock is wrong it is often a very sensible thing to
do? But I would rather get away from that whole idea
of clocks. We all want progress. But progress means
getting nearer to the place you want to be and if you
have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does
not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road,
progress means doing an about-turn and walking
back to the right road; and in that case, the man who
turns back soonest is the most progressive man. We
have all seen this when we do arithmetic. When I have
started a sum the wrong way, the sooner I admit this
and go back and start over again, the faster I shall
get on. There is nothing progressive about being
pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake. And I
think if you look at the present state of the world, it is
pretty plain that humanity has been making some big
mistakes. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so,
we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.
I guess there may be no talking with some people.
Now, I ask you... what have I done to deserve that?
Stan will bear me witness that I don't give up on conversations.
Not disagreeing at all with your comment about "the word 'chattel' merely combines dozens of issues". I just wished to point out that, to me, it carries the same sort of problems as the word "sodomite".
Well, as I don't use the word chattel I won't bother to defend it :)
Man, Von, I don't know what to say.
Why should women not have the right to vote? Self-determination is a God-given reality in the human soul.
What men shouldn't be allowed to vote? Yes, some of the founding fathers believed that only "landed" men should vote and some believed black folk to be savage, subhuman things and women were not equipped to make decisions for themselves. But those who believed thusly were wrong.
All such opinions have long since been consigned - righteously - to the dustbin of history.
Who all do you wish to deny the right to vote to and on what basis?
(Despite what Stan says, I'm not entirely sure that Von is serious. How could he be? If taken seriously, I'd be concerned for his mental health. I suspect it is a gag of some sort at least to some degree...
Stan, YOU aren't advocating disenfranchishing women or others, are you?)
Stan, if Von IS serious, do you feel comfortable associating his view of patriarchy with yours? Or his view a horribly deviant view of patriarchy?
(Although, I suspect that Von's supposed view IS closer to being the correct definition of patriarchy - at least from a dictionary definition point of view - which is why some of us would reject it out of hand as being amenable to either modern liberty or Christianity...)
Dan Trabue: "Self-determination is a God-given reality in the human soul."
Yeah, Von! Take that! Look it up! It's right in the Bible: Hezekiah 5:3!
No, Dan, I'm not to the extreme that Von goes. He has a lot of ideas I can't follow or agree with. He takes patriarchy somewhat farther than I do. On the other hand, I don't see his views as nearly as outside Scripture as yours, so who's to say who is farther out there?
Man, Von, I don't know what to say.
Well, you've started well... in discussing the role of Scripture. Of course, you rather blew it after that when you elevated your own reason above Gods Word.
Anyway, Stan points you in a good direction: show me in Scripture where your ideas come from.
Oh, and stop with the name calling. I mean, I'm not offended or anything (I'm hard to offend), but it seriously clouds your ability to reason and argue. So far you have called me Neanderthal, mentally disturbed, my ideas as consigned to the dustbin of history, etc.
Have you heard of what Peter Kreeft calls 'chronological snobbery'? One does not tell truth by the clock. For almost all of human existence, over practically all of the globe, what you denigrate as 'patriarchy' has been believed and taught. And indeed still is in much of the world.
So you and your upstart ideas of the last 100 years or so really bear the burden of proof (and a heavy burden) of showing why all those people and all of Scripture are wrong.
Oh, and as for my seriousness, you could follow any of the various links and read what I write:
Http://ChristianBetrothal.blogspot.com
Http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
http://sites.google.com/site/vonsscifi
Oh, and if you wish a Scriptural start on the discussion you could check out:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx
I don't agree with all of it, but it is a good start.
Von said:
So far you have called me Neanderthal, mentally disturbed, my ideas as consigned to the dustbin of history, etc.
My apologies if you misunderstood. I did not mean to sound like I was calling YOU a neanderthal, just that the idea that women can't vote as neanderthalic, and of course, that was mostly a joke (since neanderthals knew nothing of voting, so far as we know).
Such ideas, though, in fact, HAVE been consigned to the dustbin of history (well, except for some places like fundamentalist Muslim nations). They are ideas whose time has come and gone. They are ridiculous.
I'm not name-calling in all of this, you'll note. I'm describing in what I think are extremely civil yet correct terms what those sorts of ideas are.
And, yes, I reckon I do tend to question someone's mental status who believe that women ought not vote (and some men?). That's perhaps not fair, since (as noted) some fundamentalist Muslims ALSO believe as you do. It's just hard to believe any enlightened Western person holding such a view who isn't mentally ill. Perhaps that's unfair. I apologize and will strive for a better description.
Now, having said that, I would like to know on what possible basis you would deny voting to women and some men? I would also like to know which men you're denying votes to?
Have you heard of what Peter Kreeft calls 'chronological snobbery'?
Yes, and it CAN be a problem. I see it all the time when I suggest that moving away from the personal auto-as-norm would be a healthy and wise thing to do or when I say we need to reduce our massive consumptionism and otherwise promote simple living. People suggest I want to return to a "more primitive" time and they do so as an insult, failing to recognize the elegant simplicity that had many advantages in primitive times.
I understand the concept.
And yet, clearly SOMETIMES (oftentimes) earlier times had it wrong. Slavery was wrong. Jim Crow laws were wrong. Racism is wrong. Denying the franchise to women, folks of color, the poor, these are WRONG, immoral ideas.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among People, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
And Stan, I must say I find it a bit disturbing that you find someone who'd deny the franchise to people as being closer to your belief system than someone who merely disagrees with you on some specific sins and has a very slightly different way of reading scripture than you do. Von appears (although I'm still waiting verification) to have some severe human rights problems much greater than the simple disagreements we've had.
It is interesting which posts you choose to respond to, or perhaps you merely haven't had time to respond to the others (or Stand hasn't yet had time to post them).
Your particular response, so far, is pure Chronological snobbery. It gives no Biblical arguments, it just states. You write:
And yet, clearly SOMETIMES (oftentimes) earlier times had it wrong. Slavery was wrong. Jim Crow laws were wrong. Racism is wrong. Denying the franchise to women, folks of color, the poor, these are WRONG, immoral ideas.
Are you saying that these are ideas are wrong merely because you say so? Because our culture says so? Because the clock has turned?
Racism is a fairly new variant of that age old (and still continuing) fear called Xenophobia, fear of the other.
Our modern society still continues slavery, just in a different form... a much more virulent form, much more horrid than what we had before the civil war or throughout history.
And as for the question of the franchise, you know well enough that the whole question of representation is a new idea, let alone the question of universal franchise. A new idea, and one that is rapidly being proved unworkable... it has failed utterly in Africa, is not doing so well in Latin America, and is dying in Europe and the United States. (Indeed, on many issues, our country has a franchise of exactly nine, nine men in black robes.)
The question of franchise is tied up into the very nature of patriarchy. When one looks as Scripture one sees God dealing with family units, patriarchical family units. These are the units that should be dealt with in any issue of government.. be that a republic, democracy, or whatever.
Remember what is written:
Isa 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
And Stan, I must say I find it a bit disturbing that you find someone who'd deny the franchise to people as being closer to your belief system than someone who merely disagrees with you on some specific sins and has a very slightly different way of reading scripture than you do. Von appears (although I'm still waiting verification) to have some severe human rights problems much greater than the simple disagreements we've had.
Poor Stan. Did you ever imagine that you would get accused of being like me? You've got Dan a bit disturbed.
Better repudiate me, quick.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among People, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
I know the Declaration of Independence, actually.
And I presume that you know that the people who wrote it would agree with me on this particular issue.
Oh, no, Von, I won't be repudiating you. I'll let someone else do it. At least, for the moment, I'm out of the limelight.
Dan, Von and I are more alike because Von and I both read the Bible, say, "This is what it says and, therefore, I must do it," even if it doesn't suit our culture, our personal preferences, etc. Neither of us are free to simply say, "Well, that's not an accurate representation of truth" and let it go.
So denying the right to vote to something over half the people, denying the concepts of egalitarianism and democracy, you find that not so bad as differing slightly in how we read the Bible?
Would it be not so big a deal if he supported slavery or sexual exploitation of women? "Well," would you say, "we disgree on that point, but still, we're pretty much alike..."?
Yes, Von, I know that many of the founders were sexist and patriarchal in the worst of ways. They were wrong. They were wrong because God has created us all in God's image. They were wrong because we are free in Christ. They were wrong because it is a form of oppression to deny the right to self-determination to people, to deny people (a whole GROUP of people) the right to representation of THEIR choice.
It is wrong and you have no biblical, logical or moral leg to stand on in disagreeing with that.
You still haven't answered, which MEN would you deny the vote to? Africans (you raised the problem of voting in Africa)? The poor (again, your African example)? Who?
Why haven't you answered this question?
Despite your best efforts, Dan, we don't differ "slightly" on how we read the Bible. You and I read different books entirely.
Now, if you could, please, tell me in your Bible where you find the right to vote, egalitarianism, or democracy. (Please don't use Gal 3:28 unless it is your intent to prove once again a radical misunderstanding of clear Scripture.) I'm not commenting for or against them. I'm just asking what biblical passages you use to assure us that the last 60 years in America was the only right time in the universe.
You see, I don't find that stuff in my Bible, so we're clearly reading different Bibles. I defend what I see as commands from God in the Bible. I like what I see in democracy and such, but I don't see them on par with Scripture. You, on the other hand, dismiss Scripture in favor of culture. Different people; different Bibles.
Okay, to both Dan Trabue and Von, I'm putting an end to this conversation. Von has posted a brief post on patriarchy at his blog. Dan is free to comment (debate, rage, whatever) there. But I'm done continuing this discussion here. I will not post comments from either of you on this topic here anymore. It's not personal in the least. It's just ... fruitless and not relevant to the post. (So little of this dialog has been relevant to this post.) Feel free to take your discussion elsewhere.
For reference, Von can be found at The Practical Theonomist (to start, although I'm sure his other blogs like the betrothal one will get even more of a rise out of Dan). Dan also has a group of blogs, but I think this one is the one with the most ... content. Have fun, you two.
Post a Comment