It's Father's Day, a day set aside to honor fathers. Now, you'll likely admit that Father's Day isn't nearly as important as Mother's Day. On Mother's Day, moms everywhere are treated to dinner, given gifts, pampered and praised. Father's Day is typically a barbecue in the backyard (you know, where Dad is doing the work) and maybe, if he's lucky, a bad tie or handkerchief as a gift. I know, I know ... oversimplification, and too much of a stereotype, but I'm sure you get the idea. We just don't make as much of fathers as we do mothers.
Part of that, I suppose, is the fault of fathers. Again stereotyping, everyone knows that mothers raise the kids while fathers tolerate them. Everyone knows that moms make the home while dads go off to work to pay for it (typically, these days, with the added income of mom's job). Everyone knows that when families break up, Dad leaves the kid with Mom because dads are not responsible for being fathers. This, as I said, is stereotypical, and not entirely accurate, but I think there's enough of it that dads have gotten a bad rap for it.
The other part, I am thinking, is ... sin. Well, perhaps "sin" isn't the right word. We modern Christians in our enlightened day have decided that God's ideas of what it means to be a father isn't quite right. We know now, for instance, that mothers are the much better parent. We figured that out when, apparently, God couldn't. We immediately discount the Old Testament preponderance of "fathers" as an archaic, patriarchal system, no longer relevant today. (The fact that it carried into the New Testament is equally irrelevant, a nasty byproduct of a failed culture.) We read quickly over such nonsensical passages of Scripture as "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Eph 6:4). That's simply telling dads not to make their kids mad. Surely it's not telling them to "bring them up". That's the mom's job. And, seriously, that whole "Wait 'til your father gets home" thing is so outdated. I mean, just because Hebrews references "earthly fathers who disciplined us" (Heb 12:9) is no reason to think that fathers should do discipline. And who really thinks that "God the Father" should bring any influence to our view of "fathers"? So, we wise moderns completely discount the singular perspective of the Bible that fathers are the primary responsible parent.
Well, I'm personally of the opinion that it's a mistake. I am incapable of reading the Bible and coming away with anything but the firm conviction that God has made husbands the head of their wives (1 Cor 11:3, etc.) and fathers the head of their families. God has designed the family to be led by fathers. Fathers are responsible for the education, discipline, and training of their children. They are responsible for seeing to it that their children are prepared for life. Now, I'm not saying that they need to do everything, but from what I see in the Bible, they are the ones responsible for everything.
Guys, the biblical perspective on men is really quite intense. Responsible for the family, responsible for the wife, responsible as the priest of the family, we have some phenomenal tasks laid on us by God. I intend to make very sure today that I thank my father for having done his part of those tasks so well. I also intend to pray to my Father for the strength to do them myself, especially in the face of a society that is so willing to discount fatherhood.
Dad, if you read this ... Happy Father's Day!
29 comments:
I agree with much that you've written. Fathers should certainly be there for their kids (you should see the fine group of dads at my church - they'd make you proud in that regards).
But where you say...
So, we wise moderns completely discount the singular perspective of the Bible that fathers are the primary responsible parent.
I would have to ask, WHERE do you get the "singular perspective of the Bible," that fathers are the PRIMARY responsible parent?
That seems to be wholly made up, so far as I can tell. I would suggest that the Bible suggests that both parents are to be there for their kids, along with the community of faith and "the village," I don't know that the Bible anywhere indicates anyone is the "primary" responsible person.
What's your source for this opinion?
If it is just your opinion, that's fine - you're welcome to it - but would you make that clear and not suggest that it is God's or the Bible's opinion your pronouncing.
I answered that question in the paragraph that I made the statement. The Bible repeatedly places "fathers" as the primary responsible parent in the same way that he makes the husband as the primary responsible spouse in a marriage (1 Cor. 11:3). Now, don't mistake "primary responsible parent" for "only responsible parent" or "the only parent that needs to do anything" or any such thing. It doesn't refute that mothers need to be there for their kids or that the community has a God-given role to play.
If you read "primary responsible parent" to mean "mothers are not important" or to demean mothers in some way, you misunderstood. Given the role of godly mothers in Scripture, I would never claim such nonsense.
Dan Trabue, do you take issue with this because you know of some gay or lesbian couples in your congregation (or elsewhere) who have children and these things about which Stan writes just don't jive, work well, or "fit" for them?
I always wonder what DO same sex couples who are "married" or are living together and wish to be married DO with all the scriptures that specifically address husbands and wives and fathers and mothers???
These must be a real problem for them!
I take issue with it because that is not what the Bible says. Stan cites 1 Cor 11, which says...
But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.
Setting aside how apt a literal reading of this might be or what it means for us today, there is simply nothing there that says "the father is the primary responsible parent." So I raise the question not because of how it fits or not with gay married folk (that did not actually cross my mind, fyi), but because I'm concerned that we too often "hear" the Bible saying stuff that it doesn't say.
"Well, it SEEMS to me to be suggesting..." That's fine if that is how it SEEMS to you. But let's not presume to speak for God what God has not said, nor even represent the Bible having said something that the Bible hasn't said. When we move from direct quotes and thoughts to extrapolations of what we THINK a passage might mean, we ought to be careful not to represent our opinions as God's voice, seems to me.
Sherry, as to your question about what gay married folk "do" with the passages that talk about marriage, they do much the same as anyone else. They read it and see that God has a high respect for marriage, for family, for fidelity, for community, for mutual love and respect and they strive to apply it in their lives.
My lesbian friends who happen to be parents are some of the best and most Godly parents I know, thanks be to God.
So, no, no real problem for my gay friends in reading the Scripture and applying it to their lives.
So, Dan Trabue, you reject patriarchy out of hand. Patriarchy is the single construct in all of Scripture. It appears to be the design by God (based on His design of males and females).
Oh, and I referenced more than 1 Cor 11. But since you have an "internal sense of justice" that allows you to mitigate Scripture so that it no longer applies, this entire patriarchal structure is easy for you to dismiss.
Also, you didn't apparently understand Sherry's question regarding homosexual couples. In a two-male couple, who meets the requirements of the mother? In a two-female couple, how do they do the job of the the father?
What "job of the father" is it you refer to? Doing sports? In my family, we both (my wife and I) do some of that because neither of us are especially sports oriented. With my friends with two mom parents or two dad parents, the one who is more sports oriented tends to do that, or they share that job, sort of like with my wife and me.
What "requirements of the mother" and "job of the father" are you speaking of? Whichever it is, I would suggest that the one who has the strengths in that area, they are the ones who do it, or they share the role. Not unlike in my family and probably not unlike in your family.
So far as I know, there is no biblical basis for "job of father" or "requirement of the mother." Sort of like how the Bible does not say the father is the primary responsible parent. Can we agree on this much?
As to this:
Patriarchy is the single construct in all of Scripture. It appears to be the design by God (based on His design of males and females).
Isn't it possible that because some of us are more traditionally comfortable with patriarchy, it becomes easy to find and then justify a patriarchal system in the Bible, rather than patriarchy being God's Will?
For me, I find that the Bible clearly teaches that in Christ, there are no male and no female. I find that Jesus upset the rules of patriarchy, setting aside human traditions in favor of a more egalitarian approach.
And, while there ARE rather patriarchal passages in the Bible, that does not necessarily promote patriarchy as a Godly system, any more than the existence of polygamy passages in the Bible promotes polygamy as the best approach to marriage.
Seems to me.
Dan Trabue: "I would suggest that the one who has the strengths in that area, they are the ones who do it, or they share the role. ... there is no biblical basis for 'job of father' or 'requirement of the mother.'"
And there you have it ... exactly my point. There is no distinction between male and female. Gender in this brave new world is irrelevant. Any attempt to make it relevant is outmoded, outdated, and ignorant.
Silly me. I forgot that we are operating from different bases (plural for "basis"). You begin with "My sense of justice -- right and wrong -- is right, therefore if the Bible contradicts it, there is reason to doubt the Bible." I begin with "The Bible gives commands to mothers and commands to fathers and, therefore, there are specific commands to mothers and to fathers."
Dan Trabue: "Isn't it possible that because some of us are more traditionally comfortable with patriarchy, it becomes easy to find and then justify a patriarchal system in the Bible, rather than patriarchy being God's Will?"
And this is not unrelated to the above. Isn't it possible that God designed men and women to be different with different strengths and different weaknesses and together they form a better whole than apart, that the reason for a partriarchy in Scripture (deny it if you will, but that has been one of the big complaints from skeptics regarding the Bible) is that God designed us that way?
Anyway, you make my point. I'm saying that God has ordained specific roles and responsibilities for fathers that our modern society has decided are no longer applicable. You agree with our modern society. I'm calling on fathers to fulfill a biblical role that you believe doesn't exist. Since you've chosen to view it that way, please feel free to ignore this post and its subsequent arguments because, once again, we're starting from different positions.
(And, oh, by the way, perhaps you ought to revisit that whole "in Christ there are no male and no female" thing. It is true that male and female are not significant factors when it comes to being in Christ, but that does not mean that male and female are insignificant. That notion would contradict a large body of Scripture -- you know ... all that stuff that references "men" and "women" specifically.)
Like Stan said, you didn't understand my question, Dan. Also, as he said, there IS no husband or father in a 2 woman "marriage", so how could 2 wives/2 mothers married to each other possibly read all the scriptures that address marriage and family relations "much the same as anyone else"? How? Who are thinking of when they read such passages ~ their own parents? Everyone but themselves?
Maybe you could ask this question of the lesbian friends you mentioned and get back to those of us who wonder how they deal with/disregard/dismiss such passages. It would be interesting to know.
Concerning 1 Cor. 11, when it says, "I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife...", do they just create new rules? Obviously this doesn't work for this new definition of marriage they've come up with.
There is no provision in scripture for 2 men, both being the husband. One must take on the role of the wife in order for things to go most smoothly according to God's order. Would you agree? I would think most men would not wish to be "the wife", but.....
We just had a parade in our city where a pack of men wore dresses while riding bikes. They wanted to do that. Nobody forced them to look girly. I guess there was some thrill for them in temporarily looking like women (or one could say wives) out in public like that. I doubt this would have been anywhere near as titillating to them if they knew it was just fine with God and everyone else. But, just like little kids, if Dad says not to touch something, then it becomes "forbidden fruit" and therefore often even MORE enticing. I wonder sometimes how much thrill would disappear from some sinful acts if they were commonplace? But that's another topic. I'm sure some people think they would LOVE it if most all distinctions between men and women were eliminated and "anything goes"!
Perhaps we are mistaken, but I believe many of us think we can often "pick out" the most effeminite or most masculine of a same sex couple, which may be beside the point. But, Dan, do these couples ever sit down and actually decide which is going to "play the part" of the woman/wife and which the man/husband? I doubt it. They probably attempt to be complete equals in everything.
"Equals"... that sounds great, doesn't it? Most of us tend to buck at relinquishing control to others we consider our equals (unless of course it's someone like a pilot of a plane we do NOT know how to fly).
I'm not talking about equality in worth or value as human beings though, but in roles and responsibilities, and all the wonderful differences between men and women.
Without assignments, things generally just don't run as smoothly. In an organization or business, there is usually someone who wields at least slightly more control than the others. If that person is a jerk and you're under him/her, that's unfortunate. But, if this person loves you and is under the headship of Christ, then you should have little to worry about. Right? And if you are not silenced and can state your case and share your valued opinions, all the better.
As a wife, with a loving husband who desires and strives to be under the headship of Christ, I don't mind trusting him be the head of our home most (but not all) of the time. If there was a dispute with an angry neighbor, I could say, "You can talk to my husband about this." I don't have to carry the weight of all I do PLUS defending my spouse, my children, and my home. I will when I have to, but ultimately that is his job. It's a tough job but somebody has to do it! And, unless I've picked up some kind of extra-Biblical, man-made beliefs, didn't God give that (the role of headhship) to husbands and fathers?
So, Dan.... what do you do when there IS no husband or 2 husbands? I guess they must fight or talk it out or decide for the duration of their relationship which one will be the dominant male or female? (I realize how ludicrous some of this sounds. But, hey, it is not me trying to redefine marriage.)
I guess maybe "opposites attract", even in relationships where the sex of the two people is not opposite, so there is probably a more dominant personality who can "play the part" of the man/husband and who might be apt to take on the responsibility of being the head of the house. However, obviously when you've got 2 men or 2 women, there are no clear distinctions, no easily recognizable assignments from God Himself as to who shoulders what and is "the tie breaker".
I'm almost surprised someone hasn't come up with a GLBT translation of The Bible which removes all those pesky passages. The Jehovah's Witnesses made their own New World Translation, which works quite well for them! Any time you want to point something out to them in scripture that you think will show them the truth, they just say your version was translated incorrectly. Handy.
Please keep in mind that some of this may come across as unloving, but I truly just want to try to understand these things. Remember, I have a lesbian sister-in-law who I love very much but unfortunately, I don't feel very comfortable discussing such things with her. She is somewhat hostile toward Christianity yet will ask those of us in the family who aren't if we will please pray for her friends dying of AIDS and other such very difficult things she encounters. I think she feels unworthy to approach God herself with any requests but still believes in Him and His power and thinks we may have some sort of "in" with Him.
Okay, my verbosity today has now sufficiently embarrassed me. I'll hush up now. :o)
Look, Sherry, if you don't have anything to say, then why bother. LOL
No, seriously, I understand where you're coming from and have similar questions. (I wondered, for instance, in a "gay wedding", how do they finish the standard conclusion, "I now pronounce you ..."? I mean, the whole concept puts the breaks to my brain, and I don't get it at all.)
Stan said:
There is no distinction between male and female. Gender in this brave new world is irrelevant.
Just to be clear, this is not what I said or think. Clearly, there are differences between men and women. Rather, I was speaking of the reality that some women are better at sports than some men and some men are better at cooking than women and I suggested that families (gay or straight) do well to have the parents play to their strengths.
Further, I was asking:
"What "job of the father" is it you refer to?" The Bible does not, so far as I know, suggest there is a specific "job of the father," and I was wondering what you were suggesting WAS the job of the father.
Before going on about this, could we just clarify that we agree on what the Bible does and doesn't say?
We DO agree, don't we, that the Bible does NOT
1. Suggest a specific "job of the father"?
2. Describe a specific "requirement of the mother"?
3. Say that "the father is the primary responsible parent?"
OR, conversely, if you have some biblical support for those specific suggestions, could you make that clear? Thanks!
Sherry said/asked:
Concerning 1 Cor. 11, when it says, "I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife...", do they just create new rules? Obviously this doesn't work for this new definition of marriage they've come up with.
1 Cor 11 talks about mutually respect and love for one another in a marriage system. Neither I and my wife or my married gay/lesbian friends feel a need to "create new rules" - rather, we live out the spirit of 1 Cor 11 by striving to treat one another with mutually love and respect.
Sherry also said...
There is no provision in scripture for 2 men, both being the husband. One must take on the role of the wife in order for things to go most smoothly according to God's order. Would you agree?
There is also no provision in the Bible for the liberation of all slaves or for driving at a reasonable rate of speed. We all manage to struggle through the best we can nonetheless. I don't know that in a gay marriage, one man MUST assume the role of the husband and one must assume the role of the wife. For more information than that, you'd have to ask a gay or lesbian couple.
If you're really interested, I'd suggest you do so with a spirit of love and respect (not suggesting you wouldn't, I'm just saying our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters get too much grief from religious folk and as ministers of Christ's love, we don't need to add to that grief).
I'm wondering what specifically you mean when you say "the role of the wife?" Perhaps by answering that, we could better understand one another. I mean, if you are merely talking about stereotypical roles, I would suggest that in Christ, there are no male nor female. We need not buy into stereotypical roles.
For instance, I like cooking more than my wife so I probably cook slightly more often than she does (although we both cook at times). Is THAT a "female role"? The Bible does not say so, so on what do you base that? Just human tradition and western culture? That's fine, if so, but I'm not bound by human tradition and so, if I want to cook a meal, I shall and there is clearly nothing wrong with doing so.
So, you can see my problem. I have no idea what you (or Stan) mean by "roles" of husbands or wives. If you could clarify that (and WHY you think those roles are specific to a spouse), we could make better progress.
Sherry also said:
Without assignments, things generally just don't run as smoothly. In an organization or business, there is usually someone who wields at least slightly more control than the others.
I have no problems with assignments. My wife is better at money matters, so she typically pays the bills. I'm better at computer stuff, so I mostly deal with computer stuff (which includes paying some bills, so there's some cross-over there).
Neither of us likes mopping or vacuuming, so we assign that to the kids (ha! okay, we all fight over that one...).
It sounds like to me that you're not talking about any biblical teachings, but rather, do our gay and lesbian married friends behave in ways fitting with human traditions. For me and my friends, we strive to remember that we have been liberated in Christ, hallelujah! We are not bound by human traditions or by cultural limits.
Stan, when our church has blessed the union of a gay or lesbian couple, the vows may change from one to the other, so I don't know if there's a typical conclusion and I don't recall what's been said. It's not that big a problem, though. I imagine it tends to be something like, "and may God's blessing be upon your love," or "I now pronounce you, Loving Wives," or something along those lines.
No big deal.
If you really want answers, you can try a place like this or pflag.org.
If you don't have a chance to talk to gay folk much and even if you have no intention of "changing your mind" about the sinful nature of homosexuality, it is still helpful to have information to better understand our gay brothers and sisters - especially you, Sherry, since you know you have a beloved family member with whom you're not comfortable speaking about the topic.
Unfortunately, because of the way that many in the church (including me, not so long ago) treat the topic of homosexuality, many gay folk will keep themselves "in the closet" in the presence of religious folk - the spirit of judgmentalism and bitterness is too much to want to deal with. As Stan notes in his next post, too often, the Spirit of Love is not evident to our gay brothers and sisters in most Christians. Knowledge is helpful.
Let's see ... I'm reviewing ... oh, yeah, here it is:
Stan: "Anyway, you make my point. I'm saying that God has ordained specific roles and responsibilities for fathers that our modern society has decided are no longer applicable. You agree with our modern society. I'm calling on fathers to fulfill a biblical role that you believe doesn't exist. Since you've chosen to view it that way, please feel free to ignore this post and its subsequent arguments because, once again, we're starting from different positions."
Why go on arguing the point when we don't have common ground?
Look, when people like Sherry or me read a passage that says, "Fathers ..." and tells fathers what to do, we think, "Fathers are supposed to do something". We think "biblically assigned job". You don't. Fine. When we read "Wives, ..." we think "biblical role of a wife". You don't. Fine. When we read "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every husband, and the husband is the head of the wife, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor 11:3) we see "God-assigned roles for husband and wife" and you see "mutual respect and love for one another in a marriage system". My point is this. We are reading the same Bible, but not seeing at all the same things. How, then, can we come to a common understanding? Why argue the point? If we are reading the same Bible and I simply misunderstand something that you clarify, I can be "fixed". But you read out stuff that I cannot. Then you say, "You're making stuff up and it's just your opinion." End of conversation, don't you see? When I list verse after verse that says "Fathers do this and that" and you assure me that we agree that the Bible does not list specific jobs of the father, we have zero chance of communication, don't you see? Very clearly, then, there are certain topics -- hot buttons, I suppose -- in which any chance of dialog between us will be totally impossible because, in essence, your Bible and my Bible aren't the same.
You are wrong in your view of how I read the Bible. IF I read a passage where Jesus says, "Fathers, here's what you should do.." I listen to what it says and weigh it against the rest of the Bible and against what we know of the context of the time and of our context, earnestly seeking God's will.
So, I am asking, does the Bible - in your mind suggest some specific roles for husbands and wives and if so, what are those specific roles. Yes, you and I agree that the Bible does, in fact, say "husbands are head of the household, as Christ is head of the church," but that's not a specific role.
I'm asking a very specific question: DOES the Bible say "fathers are the primary responsible parent" or is that your opinion? I think we both know that it is your opinion, since we both know that the Bible doesn't say that. Rather, it is what you read into the Bible. And that's fine, I'm just saying let's be straightforward about what the Bible does and doesn't say.
You and Sherry seemed to suggest that there are specific tasks/roles for the mother and the father. I'm asking very specifically, WHAT are those roles/tasks? And, I'm also asking what does that look like?
Again, it is my contention that you all are speaking about cultural norms, not biblical ones. I'm very interested in what you think the Bible actually says and if you recognize the difference between western cultural norms and BIBLICAL norms and teachings.
You have not listed "verse after verse where the Bible says 'fathers do this and that'." You have listed a passage that talks about husbands being the head of the household, but that's pretty vague. I'm asking you what that means to you.
Are you suggesting it is wrong for a husband to cook or a wife to do bills? Are you suggesting it's wrong for spouses to focus on their areas of strength? If not, then I don't know there is any disagreement on that front.
If you're saying, on the other hand, "husbands ought to do the bills and wives ought to cook," then I AM disagreeing with you and rejecting your roles as not being based on biblically sound reasoning.
So, again, what roles and responsibilities are you speaking of? Please?
Let me rephrase what I've just said. You said:
I'm saying that God has ordained specific roles and responsibilities for fathers that our modern society has decided are no longer applicable. You agree with our modern society.
I don't know that this is the case. I am asking you what "Specific roles and responsibilities" you are speaking of. If you could answer that, then we could see if 1. your answer is biblically-based or culturally-based and, 2. if we agree or disagree.
Thanks again!
I won't. I'm done. I've given multiple references multiple times that command fathers and husbands to do multiple things. They are specific commands given to fathers and husbands that differ from specific commands given to mothers and wives. Since you haven't been able to see them every time I've given them thus far, why would I think you'd see them now? We disagree. Apparently, though, you're asking me only about specific words Jesus used, so when I reference specific roles Paul commands for husbands/fathers, for instance, you don't much care.
We disagree. There should be no question. I see plain, unavoidable, clear-cut biblical commands that outline tasks and roles for specific genders. You don't. End of discussion. I classify my view as biblical because I see it throughout the Bible and you classify my view as "opinion". Fine. We disagree. End of discussion. Please ignore this post, since it doesn't actually apply to your reading of the Bible.
Umm, okay, I'll be glad to ignore it if you wish. But if you don't mind, I'll sum up your position in your words. You believe, apparently, that fathers are the primary responsible parent and that there are (as yet undefined) specific roles for each parent
Eph 6:4 says...
"Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord".
...and "because Hebrews references "earthly fathers who disciplined us" (Heb 12:9)
Given that, I suppose you are suggesting that it is the father's primary role to discipline? But you recognize, I am sure, that it does not say that? That it only says that fathers should discipline, NOT that mothers should not discipline are that disciplining is the father's primary duty?
Really, this is aside from how I read the Bible or don't read the Bible. This is a question of you reading things that aren't there into the text. Isn't this the sort of thing that you would normally warn people not to do?
Beyond that, I'm curious if Sherry had some suggestions of ANY specific roles that she finds in the Bible that are gender specific.
I don't think the Bible says (even by YOUR way of reading) what you think the Bible says. And since the Bible tells us to be prepared to give a defense of our positions, I thought you might want to clarify and help us come to some agreement at least on what is and isn't in the actual text of the Bible.
I fully understand that once we read the text of the Bible, we may and will disagree on how to interpret that, but at this point, I'm suggesting that as far as I know, what you are talking about is simply not in the text of the Bible. It is made up, I'm guessing, based on cultural traditions.
If you're not prepared to answer, perhaps Sherry would be interested?
So ... despite the fact that one of the big complaints from skeptics is that the Bible is so patriarchal and despite the fact that everyone else sees patriarchy as the biblical norm and despite the references to fathers and husbands that are specific and unique (as in different than the references to mothers and wives), you are going to maintain that "it is made up". And you believe that this approach will engender dialog?
I disagree with patriarchy and it certainly was a cultural norm of the day. I don't believe that God advocates patriarchy (ie, "Patriarchy is the structuring of family units based on the man, as father figure, having primary authority over the rest of the family members. Patriarchy also refers to the role of men in society more generally where men take primary responsibility over the welfare of the community as a whole.").
Is that your contention? That family units have the father as "primary authority over the rest of the family members" and a society ought to have men take "primary responsibility"?
I disagree. I don't believe that to be a biblical or Godly contention. Certainly, the Bible contains mention of patriarchy, just as it contains mention of polygamy. It doesn't mean that either is endorsed by God.
But I am still curious: What does this look like to you? Are you suggesting fathers should make all the decisions? Most of the decisions? Are you suggesting that fathers pay the bills and mothers cook and anything else is wrong?
I am not at all clear what you think this "patriarchy" means and it would help if you would answer some questions so I can understand your position better.
I'm not meaning to be insulting by suggesting that it is made up that the Bible does not say men can't cook or that the Bible does not say that men are the primary responsible parent. It is the case that the Bible simply does not say that. Is that your contention that this is what the Bible means in 1 Cor 11?
I'm just looking for some understanding of your position.
To answer an earlier question...
We are reading the same Bible, but not seeing at all the same things. How, then, can we come to a common understanding? Why argue the point? If we are reading the same Bible and I simply misunderstand something that you clarify, I can be "fixed". But you read out stuff that I cannot. Then you say, "You're making stuff up and it's just your opinion."
I reviewed and saw that I never said that you were making stuff up. Rather, I simply said "that isn't in the Bible," and asked "on what basis, then, do you form this opinion?" The point of continuing is to at least get to a point of understanding where you're getting your opinion, since it isn't in the Bible.
OR, if it's the case that you think it is in the Bible, what are you reading to draw your conclusions, since the actual wording isn't there.
For the purpose of understanding seems like a legitimate reason, even if we disagree. At this point, I don't understand where you're coming from or even what you mean by "roles of men..."
When I speak of "patriarchy" (in biblical terms), I reference not so much "men are only allowed to do these tasks and women are only allowed to do those tasks" (a serious misunderstanding of the concept). What I said was that men "are the ones responsible for everything" (emphasis in the original). It does not mean that women need to stay at home, barefoot and pregnant or any such foolishness. It means, for instance, that the father is responsible for teaching the children (although certainly the children are taught by their mother, others in the church, etc., etc.). He oversees it. He superintends it. He sees that it is correct and adequate. The same with discipline. And so on. (For instance, the "perfect wife" of Proverbs 31 isn't the "wife of the 1950's" at all. She is much broader in her tasks and skills and such. No simple "stay-at-home" distortion, "barefoot and pregnant", "kept stupid and mind the kids" kind of woman.)
Look, I realize that this is a big concept and I realize that you reject patriarchy and I realize that a large portion of society today considers it a false notion. Fine. So I've written another post (to be released in the near future) to better document and explain the position. How about if you wait until then?
Dan T. - Your posts to this blog always seem to be bent towards disproving the Bible. I'm just curious, are there other blogs where you try to build up and strengthen the case for the Bible, or do you really not believe most of what the Bible says? Again, just curious, this is not meant to inflame. Thanks.
Disproving the Bible? Heavens, no! I am just opposed to what I consider bad biblical exegesis or poor representations of God. I love the Bible.
I would suggest that when I talk about the Bible at my blog (fairly often), it is always building up the Bible. Even here, where I disagree with Stan on his (apparent) take on patriarchy, I do so out of love for the Bible and, more specifically, love for God.
What in the world have I done here to suggest I'm trying to disprove the Bible? Haven't I, instead, asked Stan what biblical basis he has for his reasoning and haven't I asked Stan to explain his position (which is not an attack on the Bible, just a question to Stan seeking understanding)?
I'm honestly curious: What have I said that you have taken to be an effort to disprove the Bible? I'm not seeing it.
Dan T said:
I'm honestly curious: What have I said that you have taken to be an effort to disprove the Bible? I'm not seeing it.
It seems like you take verses with very clear meaning and apply your own reasoning and logic to assign it a different meaning. For example, your views on homosexuality. I won’t give specific verses as examples, and I don’t want to go into lengthy debates over it – you and Stan do that all the time! And I suppose I should just sit in the stands and watch you and Stan, and not say anything. I do happen to agree with his point of view, that the Bible is the truth, not our logic. If we happen to not agree with something in the Bible, it is our understanding that is off, not the Bible. It doesn’t seem like you give the Bible that kind of credit – the Bible can be wrong, and not the inspired word of God.
I believe 2Tim. 3:16, 17 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. ALL Scripture, not just the ones I understand, or accept to be true, or jive with today’s culture, or…
Okay, back to the stands for me…
Thanks for the help in understanding, Starflyer. Try to realize, please, that when I, for instance, disagree with Stan or others on the issue of gay marriage, it is not because I reject the Bible, just the traditional understanding of the passage. I once did believe as Stan does, but after more research and prayer, I have decided that what WAS so "obvious" to me is not so obvious anymore.
I'm not rejecting the Bible when I say "men should not lay with men," does not preclude gay marriage. Instead, after reading the Bible and striving to understand the context, I no longer accept the traditional teaching as the most biblically apt or Godly position.
In short, at least on that point, I don't agree that what is obvious to some is what is biblical. Just as many disagree with the Peace Churches on what is obvious to us (Christians ought not engage in war) from the Bible is not obvious to you. Just because some disagree with the Mennonites and Amish on peacemaking does not mean that they reject the Bible, just our interpretation of it.
Fair enough?
Post a Comment