The CBE Scroll

Comment by Anca

July 30, 2009 @ 5:00 am

Titus 2:3-10

3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.

Women, Authority and the Bible. pgs.142-143

When we further link this with Paul’s principles in Titus 2, we see a wider pattern. Women should “be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God” (Tit 2:5). Titus was also to instruct the young men to be self-controlled “so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us” (vv.6-8). Finally, slaves were to be “subject to their masters in everything…so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive” (vv.9-10) Clearly Paul puts the subjection of women and that of slaves in the same category in that passage. The reason for that subjection was to avoid social criticism that might hinder the gospel. Those interpreters who say that culture has nothing to do with such instructions have missed the thrust of these verses. They would certainly not say Paul was teaching that slaves should, as a universal and permanent theological principle, live in subjection. The subjection of slaves-and of women-was to communicate the value of the gospel to their society. This is also made explicit in 1 Peter 3:1-2 (see all 2:13-20). If this impinged on the equality taught in Galatians, it was for the cause of the gospel.

What do you think about Liefeld’s take on Titus 2? What do you agree with, and what do you disagree with? Share your own thoughts on this Scripture.

If the above is correct, then what do we do when asked if all the other instructions in the Titus2:3-10 passage are not, as Wiefeld said, a universal and permanent theological principle?

We are also told – Older women be reverent. Do not be slanderers or addicted to much wine but to teach what is good. Young men to be self-controlled and in your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech. Younger women love your husbands and children, be self-controlled, and pure. Are these also just cultural? Are they also time sensitive in order not to offend society and make the Gospel attractive by complying with the social culture of that time? Where do we draw the line and make the distinction? Who gets to decide? And how do we know which christian principles are for all time, and which are just cultural?

I am an egalitarian and I don’t necessarily disagree with Liefeld, but I am confused about the subject and would genuinely like to know which way is the right way to slice it and dice it? I see other passages in scripture that call for the full equality of both men and women in all spheres of life. But I’m not sure if we can faithfully come to that conclusion by saying that the Titus 2:3-10 are just cultural without also disregarding all the other good things that those vs instruct us to do.

I want to introduce my family to egalitarianism, and they will eat me alive if I don’t have all my bases covered! So when I ask questions like these I am thinking like they as complimentarians would think. I would greatly appreciate any helpful responses.

Comment by Charis

July 30, 2009 @ 6:19 am

Not sure if this will be helpful or not?

I don’t agree with him that they are “just cultural”.
We could take the “slave” passages and apply them today in an employer/employee context. The teaching to wives, older women, and younger men, etc. is still valid today.

Women are naturally more inclined to be submissive (“subject to”) IMO. Its built in. Whereas for (some) men, it takes a great deal of dying to self for him to submit to his wife.

I found this clip from a respected marriage researcher whose research confirms that without MUTUAL submission, a marriage is at high risk for divorce:

From Gottman “The Marriage Clinic”

This observation led me to formulate the hypothesis that marriages work to the extent that men accept influence from, share power with women. Next I applied this to a longitudinal study of 130 nonviolent newlywed couples and found that, amazingly, those in which the men who did not accept influence from their wives wound up divorced. The prediction rate was very good, 80% accuracy, and it did not work the other way around: Most wives accepted influence from their husbands, and the acceptance predicted nothing.

Comment by Charis

July 30, 2009 @ 12:51 pm

BTW, Paul teaches the revolutionary concept that the slave/master relationship is to be characterized by vice/versa mutuality:

Eph 6 (YLT) 5The servants! obey the masters {snip etc, etc, etc list of instructions to slaves}
9And the masters! the same things do ye unto them

Comment by jlp

July 30, 2009 @ 8:54 pm

When we further link this with Paul’s principles in Titus 2, we see a wider pattern. Women should “be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God” (Tit 2:5). Titus was also to instruct the young men to be self-controlled “so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us” (vv.6-8). Finally, slaves were to be “subject to their masters in everything…so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive” (vv.9-10)

Paul is encouraging Christians to do the expected cultural behavior required of them for the purpose of winning people to Christ.

Today anyone who would encourage a slave to be obedient would turn people off Christ. Back then if slaves didn’t obey they would turn people off Christ.

The behavior was a missionary endeavor intended to win people over to Christ. But the same behavior today would have the opposite effort and turn people off Christ – at least as it concerns slaves and women.

And I’ve been like a slave to bosses in the business world, and it was pure hell.

Comment by jlp

July 30, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

As a Christian I played the part of a slave to my bosses. It didn’t turn anyone on to Christ. And it destroyed a large part of my life.

Before people the slave part in Titus and apply it to employees – they need to go through it themselves. They will soon learn how destructive their advice is. I know, I lived it for 30 years and I truly regret it. It harmed me more than anything else. I recieved no blessing from it.

Comment by Liz

July 30, 2009 @ 9:21 pm

There are other comments re slaves/employees on the original post – see below

Comment by Charis

July 30, 2009 @ 10:21 pm

JLP, I agree with you. BTDT in marriage.

My point is that Paul is teaching something which is revolutionary, but veiled.

Comment by jlp

July 31, 2009 @ 11:06 am

Charis,

I think I know what you mean. But you could explain “revolutionary, but veiled.”

Comment by codepoke

July 31, 2009 @ 1:05 pm

I second the thoughts on the slave paradigm not applying to modern American work life. Being a slave was a different thing 2000 years ago.

Comment by Charis

July 31, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

While I agree that the slavery of 2000 years ago bears little resemblance to modern American work life, I disagree with dismissing Paul’s teaching as “just cultural”.

Here is what Paul instructs slaves/servants in Titus 2:

“be subject to their masters in everything,
to try to please them,
not to talk back to them,
and not to steal from them, but to
show that they can be fully trusted,
so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
… say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to
live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age”

Which items on that list would you suggest modern employees dismiss and ignore as “just cultural”?

Comment by Charis

July 31, 2009 @ 5:31 pm

But could you explain “revolutionary, but veiled.”

I looked up the Greek word here translated “obedient”:
“[Exhort] servants to be obedient unto their own masters” Titus 2 It is a conjugation of hupotasso as is the exhortation to wives in Titus 2:5. Hupotasso is better translated “Submission” which is not the same thing as “obedience”.

When Paul uses the stronger “OBEY” word to servants/slaves in Ephesians 6, he makes it a vice versa situation with the masters. WOW! He brings the slaves right up to the same plane as the masters and tells the masters- “you heard what I just told those slaves?” Can you see them nodding and smiling? (some of them, anyway). Then he lays on the shocker:

Eph 6 (YLT) 5The servants! obey the masters {snip etc, etc, etc list of instructions to slaves}
9And the masters! the same things do ye unto them

Whoa!
MUTUAL servanthood!
Revolutionary!

Comment by Charis

July 31, 2009 @ 5:44 pm

Here are links to BLB to look at the words and and the Strong’s entries:

[Exhort] servants to be obedient (ὑποτάσσεσθαι from hupotasso) unto their own masters Titus 2:9

Servants, be obedient (ὑπακούετε from hupokouo) to them that are [your] masters Eph 6:5

The first is the “softer” word elsewhere translated “submissive”.

Should modern Christian employees have a submissive spirit toward their employers?

Comment by Lin

July 31, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

I agree with the part on slaves not applying to employee/employer relationship.

Had I followed that passage, I would have never seen my daughter, have worked 80 hours a week and traveled all over the country. They did not want me to leave and if I followed that passage, I would not have been pleasing them by refusing assignments that took me out of town for weeks and for resigning.

The other aspect is our civil laws protect us to some extent.

We have the freedom to change employers. Slaves did not have that freedom.

Comment by Anca

July 31, 2009 @ 11:11 pm

If Wiefeld is correct, then what do we do when asked if all the other instructions in the Titus2:3-10 passage are not, as Wiefeld said, a universal and permanent theological principle?

We are also told – Older women be reverent. Do not be slanderers or addicted to much wine but to teach what is good. Young men to be self-controlled and in your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech. Younger women love your husbands and children, be self-controlled, and pure. Are these also just cultural? Are they also time sensitive in order not to offend society and make the Gospel attractive by complying with the social culture of that time? Where do we draw the line and make the distinction? Who gets to decide? And how do we know which christian principles are for all time, and which are just cultural?

I am an egalitarian and I don’t necessarily disagree with Liefeld, but I am confused about the subject and would genuinely like to know which way is the right way to slice it and dice it? I see other passages in scripture that call for the full equality of both men and women in all spheres of life. But I’m not sure if we can faithfully come to that conclusion by saying that the Titus 2:3-10 are just cultural without also disregarding all the other good things that those vs instruct us to do.

I want to introduce my family to egalitarianism, and they will eat me alive if I don’t have all my bases covered! So when I ask questions like these I am thinking like they as complimentarians would think. I would greatly appreciate any helpful responses.

Comment by Charis

August 1, 2009 @ 6:05 am

Lin,

I don’t think this passage (Titus 2 to servants/slaves), taken in context and weighed against other scriptures denies anyone- 2000 years ago or now- the right to personal boundaries. God is not cruel.

Eph 5:6-9 discussed above

Luke 6:31- the Golden Rule- if the relationship was reversed, would you want your employee to allow you to trample upon your family life? Then you should not allow that of him. (Its not good for him to allow him to get away with exploiting his workers!)

Luke 5:15-16 our ultimate role model had healthy boundaries- “crowds of people came to hear him and to be healed of their sicknesses. But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed.”

Comment by Charis

August 1, 2009 @ 6:08 am

correction:

If the relationship was reversed (and you are the boss), would you want your employee to allow you to trample upon his family life?

Comment by jlp

August 1, 2009 @ 10:53 am

be subject to their masters in everything,
to try to please them,
not to talk back to them

That’s what made my life a living hell and has almost destroyed me financially and mentally. In addition I have no retirement except social security because of this.

You are supposed to do the things above to “so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.”

Guess what, submitting to my employers in everything, not disagreeing with them even when what they were doing to me was destoying me, and always trying to please them did not win anyone to Christ or make the gospel attractive to anyone.

None of my employers were turned on to the gospel because of me, none of my other employees were turned on to the gospel either. If anything it turned them off because they saw me taking stress that was destroying.

Those Christian who taught I had to follow the instructions in Titus 2 ruined my work life and career, and massively endangered me financially.

Comment by jlp

August 1, 2009 @ 10:55 am

When Christians take scripture and apply it to situations for which it was not written, as in the case of the slaves in Titus 2 and employees – they should consider first whose life they are going to destroy in the process.

Comment by jlp

August 1, 2009 @ 11:01 am

Because applying Titus 2 to my life destroyed it over and over again – I want to be a witness that it does not work in this culture. In that culture it turned people on to Christ, in this culture it turns people off to Christ.

I am happy being a teacher because I have a union, and as much as it is able, it protects me. I like being protected. It’s such a relief. It makes me feel like I’m a human being. Before I felt like a dog.

Comment by Lin

August 2, 2009 @ 7:33 am

“Luke 6:31- the Golden Rule- if the relationship was reversed, would you want your employee to allow you to trample upon your family life? Then you should not allow that of him. (Its not good for him to allow him to get away with exploiting his workers”

I understand where you are coming from but I still say that it does not fit the master/slave passage. Women with careers in the corporate world have seen it all too often. There are plenty of folks in high level positions who have neglected family (or do not have children)to get where they are and have no sense of balance and expect the same from their direct reports. Unless one does the same, they would not be pleasing them. (Usually described in that context as not a team player) It is hard to understand if one has not seen it in play over and over.

And it is one reason why so many women are teachers instead of corporate executives.

Comment by jlp

August 2, 2009 @ 8:18 am

The master/slave connection in and of itself is a sinful relationship. For one person to own another is evil. But at that time slaves had no chance to go free, so Paul is telling them to return good for evil.

The employer/employee connection in and of itself is not a sinful relationship. To compare an intrinsically sinful relationship with one that is not sinful, doesn’t work.

Comment by Sonnet

August 3, 2009 @ 12:10 am

Anca,
You wrote: “And how do we know which christian principles are for all time, and which are just cultural?”

I believe that the following verses reveal God’s heart regarding bondage and slavery of His people:

“The word came to Jeremiah from the LORD after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem to proclaim freedom for the slaves. Everyone was to free their Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold another Jew in bondage. So all the officials and people who entered into this covenant agreed that they would free their male and female slaves and no longer hold them in bondage. They agreed, and set them free. But afterward they changed their minds and took back the slaves they had freed and enslaved them again. Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I made a covenant with your ancestors when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. I said, ‘Every seventh year each of you must free any other Hebrews who have sold themselves to you. After they have served you six years, you must let them go free.’ Your ancestors, however, did not listen to me or pay attention to me. Recently you repented and did what is right in my sight: Each of you proclaimed freedom to your own people. You even made a covenant before me in the house that bears my Name. But now you have turned around and profaned my name; each of you has taken back the male and female slaves you had set free to go where they wished. You have forced them to become your slaves again. “Therefore, this is what the LORD says: You have not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom to your own people. So I now proclaim ‘freedom’ for you, declares the LORD—’freedom’ to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth.” (Jeremiah 34:8-17 TNIV)

It took many centuries after the new covenant went into effect for slavery to be recognized as evil and consequently, outlawed throughout most of the world. (In the United States, freedom for slaves in the South came at the cost of much bloodshed and destruction.) It has taken even longer for many within the church to recognize that gender hierarchy places women under a form of bondage to men. While I don’t think any Christians today would approve of slavery, many still see nothing wrong with giving men a privileged status and control over women. The parallel remains veiled to their minds. And in the same way that slave holders once used scriptures like Titus 2:9 to endorse the continuation of slavery, some within the church still use Titus 2:5 to endorse keeping wives under a form of bondage to their husbands.

But in many cultures around the world now, wives are no longer under a legal form of bondage to their husbands and were raised with gender equality in their society. So a “Christian” gender hierarchy places a woman under a new “spiritual” type of bondage to her husband when she marries. This, however, would contradict what Christ has done for us under the new covenant.

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” Galatians 5:1 (TNIV)

This contradiction is one of the things that, for me, made following the gender role expectations and functions a new form of legalism. This legalism was a heavy burden to bear. Also, I felt like I was trying to serve two masters.

I believe that these instructions are timeless and cross-cultural for ALL believers:

“You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Galatians 5:13-14 (TNIV)

We are told to be filled with the Spirit. The Spirit will produce in us the following fruit as we yield and submit our lives to God:

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” Galatians 5:22-23 (TNIV)

Anca, you wrote: “We are also told – Older women be reverent. Do not be slanderers or addicted to much wine (sounds like examples of self-control) but to teach what is good. Young men to be self-controlled and in your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech. Younger women love your husbands and children, be self-controlled, and pure. Are these also just cultural?”

I don’t think so. These show love and honor to others through help from the Holy Spirit. They follow timeless principles.

But in contrast with the cultural issues:
How can a believer “serve one another humbly in love” and “love your neighbor as yourself” and at the same time continue to lord over, enslave, and keep in bondage another person? Again, I think that the Holy Spirit indwelling a believer would transform the “soil” of their heart and mind. Softening it up. Making it rich in nutrients. As a believer continues to be filled with the Spirit and growing in faith and maturity, the Spirit will be planting seeds of good works into that soil that will grow up and produce much fruit. I don’t see how the fruits of kindness and gentleness can be compatible with keeping another person in bondage to you whether that’s through slavery or gender hierarchy.

Anca, I hope this offers you some help in answering your question. I remember reading in “Why Not Women?” something about scripture verses written for a specific time and situation and those that are timeless which I thought was informative; however, I’ve lent out that book so I can’t go back and refer to it right now.

Comment by Liz

August 3, 2009 @ 5:14 am

Thank you Sonnet for such a clear answer. I’m sure there are many of us reading your comment who would say ‘Amen’ to all you have explained so well.

Comment by Charis

August 3, 2009 @ 6:05 am

be subject to their masters in everything,
to try to please them,
not to talk back to them
…
Those Christian who taught I had to follow the instructions in Titus 2 ruined my work life and career, and massively endangered me financially.

I understand. Those christians who represented marriage as a context where I was not allowed to do or say anything contradicting my husband likewise massively endangered my health, sanity, safety, and that of our children.

However, I maintain that women and workers felt the same way then as we feel now, and that it would be a cruel God who would tell them, “you shut up and do what you are told! You are never allowed to object to the way you are being treated no matter how harsh!”

Because I don’t believe in a cruel God, I don’t believe that any interpretation of His word which is cruel, oppressive, and stifling is accurate. If I am hearing His word that way- whether its for me, or for slaves 2000 years ago- I’m hearing it wrong.

Freedom of conscience was for Christian slaves 2000 years ago every bit as it is for me, and if their master is doing something cruel and oppressive, then its OK with God for them to be a change agent. IMO God’s Word has a lot to do with the slow development of more humane working conditions- which came about through quite a bit of Civil disobedience and even war.

“Civil disobedience and even war” also characterizes how my marriage went from intolerable wife slavery to tolerable and much safer for me and our children, and I feel God’s approval- “YOU GO GIRL!”- not His condemnation.

Comment by Joanne

August 3, 2009 @ 8:07 am

I think that in much of Paul’s writing, Titus 2 included Paul was making application of the gospel implications to the problems and issues within that world. We must do the same. We must carefully examine the gospel and it’s implications for human relationships and carefully with great discernment apply the gospel to such things.

I think we need to be very careful in how we apply the scripture so we do not become oppressive in our applications. I think there is more heresy in applications. It is often obvious what the scripture says and means–but it takes discernment to apply it in a 21st century world. And that is our task.

I think it would be fascinating to take Gottman’s research and apply the gospel as he has highlighted areas of growth that are needed within marriages.

If we took his conclusions about contempt and critical communication patterns, stonewalling, and others and apply the gospel… we might show the world that the gospel of Jesus Christ is powerful to transform lives.

Comment by jlp

August 3, 2009 @ 9:54 am

We have to realize Paul was not supporting the power structures of the society he lived in. He knew he couldn’t change the way things were. So he was telling those who were forced into bondage, wives and slaves, to use their bondage in a manner that would impress others for the gospel. In essence, he was telling them to turn the other cheek. For both wives and slaves in that period, death would be the only freedom they would ever know.

On my jobs I was not forced into bondage as wives and slaves were in the time of Paul, but by listening to the advice of the Christian community I made myself into a slave in the workforce. I thought it made me a witness for Christ because that’s what I was being told. So I put myself into bondage, not my employers. But many of them (not all) and many of my fellow co-workers (not all) took advantage of the bondage I put myself in, and exploited me to the max. Had I not put myself in that position, they could not have done to me what they did. They would have had to treat me with at least some respect.

There were other people around me that were hard working and honest, yet they didn’t put themselves into bondage as I did.

One of the things I did was to do everything the bosses told me to do, without questioning whether what they were asking was someone else’s work. As a result, I always got stuck doing the grunt that no one else wanted to do. I was always the garbage can of the department, doing the high stress demanding work no one else wanted to do. I remember one man telling me he thought it was unfair what was being done to me. He always felt sorry for me. Another man told me I should make a charge of sexism for the way I was being treated. He didn’t mean it in terms of sexual abuse, it’s just that I was the only woman in the department and I was being worked the hardest. Another man told me to stop working so hard. He said “You know what the reward is for hard work? More hard work!”

These men were warning me that I was being overworked, but as a Christian, feeling I had a duty to do whatever the bosses asked no matter how unreasonable or unfair, I ignored them. Again, I thought it would glorify Christ. Honestly, I don’t think Christ was glorified at all; all I did was to encourage the exploitative side of some of my bosses and co-workers.

Comment by jlp

August 3, 2009 @ 9:56 am

Sonnet,

I was not aware of the verses in Jeremiah. I bet the slave holders in previous times ignored those verses.

Comment by jlp

August 3, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

Here’s the advice I believe Paul would give to employees today:

Work hard. Give an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay. Be on time, and keep your days off within reasonable limits. Do your job as well as you can. Be kind to your boss and your co-workers. When you have a disagreement with them, find the nicest way possible to express your feelings. This will glorify our Lord and Savior to them.

Comment by Charis

August 3, 2009 @ 3:29 pm

On my jobs I was not forced into bondage as wives and slaves were in the time of Paul. But by listening to the advice of the Christian community I made myself into a slave in the workforce. I thought it made me a witness for Christ because that’s what I was being told. So I put myself into bondage, not my employers. But many of them (not all) and many of my fellow co-workers (not all) took advantage of the bondage I put myself in, and exploited me to the max. Had I not put myself in that position, they could not have done to me what they did. They would have had to treat me with at least some respect.

Insightful post, JLP. I identify very much with your words, only my parallel experience was in my marriage.

My reservation about dismissing Paul’s advice as “just cultural” is that I think women and slaves then shared common humanity with me and I know how painful it is to interpret Paul’s “be subject in everything” and “please your husbands”, etc to mean that I must not challenge his decisions which affect me deeply and intimately and I have no freedom to make decisions for my own life.

I just cannot believe that GOD meant it that way for them 2000 years ago either! That would be cruel of God toward my fellow human beings living in another century. God is not about crushing people and robbing them of personal authority, God is about lifting them up to sit with Him in heavenly places. And Paul was too.

I haven’t studied “civil disobedient” slaves in Scripture, but as far as wives go:
Sapphira (Acts 5- an example of how NOT to be!) was not “commended” for going along with Ananias.
And Sarah- who is the only named human role model given in scripture of a “submissive wife”- was very VERY assertive (see Gen 21:9-12)

Comment by Liz

August 3, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

Comment 89640 – thanks Joanne. It has long been my firm belief that if we as Christians could get along with each other in peace and love, the world would sit up and take notice.

Comment by Anca

August 4, 2009 @ 3:36 pm

Sonnet said;
“But in many cultures around the world now, wives are no longer under a legal form of bondage to their husbands and were raised with gender equality in their society. So a “Christian” gender hierarchy places a woman under a new “spiritual” type of bondage to her husband when she marries. This, however, would contradict what Christ has done for us under the new covenant.”

Sonnet,
Excellent, excellent point!
Since slavery and male hierarchy are now done away with within our culture, Paul’s advice has already run it’s full course. Slavery and male hierarchy in marriage were never a spiritual issue but a cultural one, and Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, gave them an opportunity to return good for evil as a reflection of the Gospel message! But now neither slavery nor male hierarchy are a cultural bondage anymore, so why make them a spiritual one? Why go from one frying pan to another?

Sonnet said;
“Anca, you wrote: “We are also told – Older women be reverent. Do not be slanderers or addicted to much wine (sounds like examples of self-control) but to teach what is good. Young men to be self-controlled and in your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech. Younger women love your husbands and children, be self-controlled, and pure. Are these also just cultural?”

“I don’t think so. These show love and honor to others through help from the Holy Spirit. They follow timeless principles.”

That totally answered my questions! Thanks Sonnet! :-)

Comment by jlp

August 4, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

I’m glad Sonnet was able to help you, Anca!

Comment by jlp

August 4, 2009 @ 4:03 pm

You know I think male hierarchy and slavery are like the Old Testament law. We were freed from it in Christ, and in Christ we are freed from male hierarchy and slavery.

Comment by Anca

August 4, 2009 @ 4:03 pm

JLP Wrote;

“We have to realize Paul was not supporting the power structures of the society he lived in. He knew he couldn’t’t change the way things were. So he was telling those who were forced into bondage, wives and slaves, to use their bondage in a manner that would impress others for the gospel. In essence, he was telling them to turn the other cheek. For both wives and slaves in that period, death would be the only freedom they would ever know.”

I agree JLP!

I also want to point out something practical that I think we sometimes miss when only looking at things through a spiritual glass and not a practical one. Slaves were there only to make their masters money! They did not get to choose their job profession, rate of pay, nor employer! This is precisely because they were slaves. Very different than the definition of employee! A slave did not reap the benefits of his toil, but rather the fruit of his labor was given to another! Slaves had no self serving interest in what they did other than to keep their lives by obeying and pleasing their masters! This is why Paul gave them more to live for! They were now to be living examples of the Gospel to their oppressor! Likewise, masters do not share in the same definition as an employer! Unlike an employer, a master’s only prerogative was to serve himself by benefiting of his slaves forced free labor in order to generate wealth for himself! Masters did not have to fear losing a worker or civil punishment for exploiting and abusing his slave!

In this day and age however we get jobs to generate income for ourselves. Every person first and foremost has their own agenda. No one does it just for kicks! They both have the same thing in common, to make money! In order to do this we have the choice to choose a profession and then get the skills we need to qualify. We go into that profession with something to offer in exchange for an income. Both employee and employer now reap the benefit of their toil! Both employer and employee are now mutually dependent on each other for income. There is a verbal agreement that both employer and employee agree to in advance in exchange for compensation. Whether that compensation is work in exchange for money or money in exchange for work. Basically in lay terms it’s,” You scratch my back, I scratch yours!” Since employer and employee are now mutually dependent on each other for income there exists a normal fear of negative consequences when breaching the agreement from both sides. The employee can get fired, or the employer can lose the employee and face possible civil judgment. Therefore there has to be a level of respect from both parties! Of course the boss is in authority over the employee to supervise and should be respected, but he does not have the right to lord it over the employee! The employee also has authority in the very right to leave a job if he or she is not treated with respect and there exists disregard for the agreed upon contract by their boss! If it’s not of benefit anymore for you to be working there, then it’s ok to address the situation, or leave! You are not bound! Notice how Paul did not go tell people who were free to go and become slaves as a way to win people to Christ! Instead, he told the ones who had no other choice to turn their bondage around as an opportunity for good! Since you are free, do not make yourself a slave!

In business today there are no double standards! It would be just as ridiculous to say that it is sin to not allow yourself to be abused and taken advantage of as an employee as it would be to say that it is sin for an employer to fire an employee for not doing their job right! And as far as winning employers over to Christ by being humble, kind, and submissive, is it only employers who need this? Don’t employees also need Jesus? Who will be an example to them?

Comment by jlp

August 4, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

Well said Anca!

Comment by Charis

August 5, 2009 @ 5:22 am

In the US, the process of moving from slavery to the working conditions Anca described above involved a Civil War in the 19th century, and Civil Disobedience in the 20th century.

Were the Christians who engaged in such activities defying Paul/God here?

“be subject to their masters in everything,
to try to please them,
not to talk back to them” Titus 2

I don’t think so.

Whether at work or within marriage, Paul’s writing in Titus 2 and elsewhere is NOT an instruction of how to remain in bondage while maintaining a sweet disposition. Paul’s writing plants the seeds of Freedom, and validates that every human being has value, dignity, and freedom of conscience. It’s not “just cultural”. It’s for every person in every age.

Comment by jlp

August 5, 2009 @ 1:16 pm

Whether at work or within marriage, Paul’s writing in Titus 2 and elsewhere is NOT an instruction of how to remain in bondage while maintaining a sweet disposition.

I agree with you totally, Charis. The problem is that some people mistakenly equate bondage as being for the benefit of the one in bondage.

Comment by em

August 6, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

Sonner, thank you for including the (Jeremiah 34:8-17 TNIV) – great passage against slavery, its unbelievable that some have used scripture in the past to support slavery and still support the subjugation of women.
You wrote in 89635“It took many centuries after the new covenant went into effect for slavery to be recognized as evil and consequently, outlawed throughout most of the world. (In the United States, freedom for slaves in the South came at the cost of much bloodshed and destruction.) It has taken even longer for many within the church to recognize that gender hierarchy places women under a form of bondage to men. “
I am doing a little research on this matter- the results I feel are rather than things taking time for people to grasp it seems more likely that the church has done a little backsliding. The gospel was radical, not alot of passive’s in the pew- but talking out of turn in church- imagine all the questions – the most radical thing was that Jew, Gentile slave and free men and women shared a common meal together which celebrated the Lords death until he was to come again. Gordon Fee states “No wonder the early Christians were called the ‘haters of humanity’ by the Romans because they so broke the structures by making them irrelevant.”
Paul and his churches continued to exercise discernment in moral reflection about the relationship of Jew and gentile, slave and free, male and female, rich and poor, church and state. These judgments were not timeless truths, ideals or abstractions in the style of the philosopher, but timely and concrete applications of the gospel to specific problems in particular contexts. For women, Hans Dieter Betz explained “possession of Spirit filled prophecy and wisdom which was the expectation of Jewish restoration theology (Acts 2:17-18) enhanced their social status and was not merely a theological notion, these women regarded themselves free from this evil world with its repressive social religious and cultural laws and convention( no wounder there was speaking in church!) They had left behind such cultured social distinctions between Jews and non Jews, the social systems of slavery and the subordination of women.” Ben Witherington notes a correlation between the church’s acceptance of Hellenistic ideology and the marginalization of women. Witherington states “as Christianity gained acceptability in the Empire and moved toward becoming the dominant religion, increasing numbers of (Hellenistic) men joined the faith and the favorable gender ratio for women declined, thus roles for women became more limited.” Charlotte Von Kirschbaum reminds us that Gal 3:38 “There is no longer male and female; for all of you are one on Jesus Christ, “has nothing to do with a movement for the emancipation of women because what they are actually doing is responding to the summons and of Jesus.” This is a matter of grace not a dively instituted social program. See also that Christianity was introduced to the slaveholders in later centuries for Acts 8 indicates Christianity was introduced to the African leader, the Queen of Ethiopia who thus began the African church. Yet, the social and economic life of the early Christians seem to have existed in tension with the central aspects of the faith of these Christians.

Comment by Sonnet

August 7, 2009 @ 12:15 am

I’ve just started reading Gilbert Bilezikian’s book “Community 101.” In his preface he wrote:

“With a mighty prophetic voice, the whole Bible registers God’s opposition to injustice and unrighteousness. However, for the major part of its history, the church has identified itself with institutional evils such as slavery, segregation, racism, sexism, and apartheid, often by misusing texts from Scripture to justify such practices. The church’s proven capacity to deviate from the teachings of the Bible is reason for consternation. It also calls for continual reformation.” (pg. 11)

I see CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality) like a small David engaging in a battle for the truth against a large Goliath. Just as Goliath and the Philistines wanted to enslave the Israelites, a “Goliath” within the church keeps trying to enslave women who are free in Christ- who have been purchased by His own blood.

Anca, I really like the point you made:
“Slavery and male hierarchy in marriage were never a spiritual issue but a cultural one, and Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, gave them an opportunity to return good for evil as a reflection of the Gospel message! But now neither slavery nor male hierarchy are a cultural bondage anymore, so why make them a spiritual one? Why go from one frying pan to another?”

Comment by jlp

August 7, 2009 @ 10:39 am

but timely and concrete applications of the gospel to specific problems in particular contexts

Amen to that!

Comment by Frank

August 11, 2009 @ 11:49 am

I just now have had the opportunity to come back to the discussion on Titus 2, it looks like it has come to a complete and satisfactory conclusion. There was a good deal of material in Dr Johnson’s article that I had hoped to share, since it was pertinent to various matters being discussed. But now, other than urging it to be read and utilized as a valuable resource for understanding the connection between “mutual yielding, or mutual deferrance” and the mission of the Church in hostile, pagan cultures, I think my final contribution will be to quote some questions Johnson raises for complementarians:

Just as God’s word might have been dishonored in New Testament times, could it not be dishonored today when outsiders come into male-dominated church services and organizations and perceive that women seem to be silenced and suppressed? If we are determined to perpetuate a patriarchal male dominant sub-culture in the evangelical church when the broader culture has largely shifted to a non-patriarchal system, may not this invite shame and discredit upon the gospel mission, as the opposite did in Paul’s day?