The CBE Scroll

Comment by Donald Guffey

November 9, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

I found this post very informative one doesn’t always realize the power and effect words have on others. These lyrics can indeed seem like a glorification of patriarchy. The scary thought might be that the writers are totally unaware of what they are encouraging. I look for a day when mutuality and equality are the focus on the many songs about marriage and when both parties in the marriage are seen as entering into a covenant on their own choosing and not one being given away.

Comment by TL

November 10, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

Perhaps it is time some started some new traditions. I’ve heard of both sets of parents giving away their son and daughter as part of the ceremony.

Comment by Liz

November 10, 2009 @ 4:45 pm

Yes…most Christian weddings we have been to in the last several years (inc. our own sons’ of 15yrs and 13 yrs ago) have both sets of parents standing to affirm they are happy for the marriage which is great……but still the bride is walked down the aisle. Traditions are very strong and most don’t even think about why things are done. I was ‘given away’ 43 years ago and not even by my father as we married away from home. I remember thinking I would like to just walk down the aisle together but the people I was staying with wouldn’t hear of it. Now…if I had known some good biblical reasons I would have insisted!

Comment by TL

November 10, 2009 @ 6:03 pm

Walking down the aisle together would be great! The mutuality in it would lay a good foundation for the marriage. At least I think so.

Comment by Larry S

November 10, 2009 @ 7:53 pm

when my daughter was married, my wife and I walked her down the aisle. hug and kiss then she was met by her fiance. And the new couple were introduced as by both of their first names rather than mr and mrs ___ ___.

we enjoyed the walk down the aisle. I suppose the symbolism could have been construed to be my wife/I handing her over to her new husband.

i suppose we thought of it as us walking and supporting our daughter into a new way of life.

Comment by jlp

November 11, 2009 @ 6:35 pm

When my cousin and her husband got married about 40 years ago they both walked down the aisle together. That was totally unheard of that time.

Comment by TL

November 11, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

Must have been a very unifying moment for them.

Comment by Liz

November 11, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

There are 2 issues here – one is that the woman is ‘given away’ and there is no corresponding ‘giving away’ of the man.

Secondly, it is a sanitised version of what happens throughout most of the world. even now, where young women are sold/given/traded to their husband’s family where most often they are treated as servants.

It’s another example of a tradition which is carried on without much thought of what it all meant originally. Maybe we should examine such traditions to see their origin and how we might better display the totally ‘other’ way of Christian marriage.

Comment by Lin

November 12, 2009 @ 8:45 pm

“Compare these cultural traditions with Genesis where we are told that “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24 TNIV)”

In light of this passage perhaps the parents should give the son away. :o)

Comment by Sarah Jenkins

November 13, 2009 @ 11:32 am

What interesting comments! I married twenty years ago this year and my parents totally disapproved of my husband (not the right kind of Christian family). My father refused to give me his “blessing” even though I didn’t seek it or felt I needed it. As I look back I would particularly like to change the part of the ceremony -”who gives this woman..” It was a horrible moment given my parents’ views. I would so love to have had the courage to say “actually I have chosen to give myself”!

Comment by Gloria

November 13, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

Ugh, all I can think of is back before I was married to my husband and my mother (somewhat angrily/huffily) stating that “Sons marry, daughters are given in marriage!” as an explanation of why they were not going to let me get married at that time.

Now, in retrospect, it WAS a good thing that we didn’t get married earlier than we did, but at the time I was very hurt by this concept that my parents thought they “owned” me just because I lived in their house, even though legally I was an adult. It felt like such a victory when we finally got them to agree to it.

My parents also kind of insisted on a pretty traditional wedding – which honestly didn’t bother me because I dislike weddings anyway and I just wanted to get it over with. XD

But my parents’ patriarchal indoctrination did a number on me in other ways and it took a few years for me to come to terms with what my marriage relationship WAS – as opposed to what I was still trying to believe it SHOULD be based on the silly things my misguided and self-contradictory mother insisted were true. I’m glad my husband is so loving and patient, because there were times when I treated him downright horribly because of the false expectations that I learned from my mom. >_>

Bleh. Why would anybody want to have a marriage that was anything BUT an equal partnership? Why would a strong, intelligent woman like my mother WANT to live “in submission” to someone else? Is she just lazy and guilty? Why does she insist on (ironically) trying to force my dad into “headship”-type roles he was never really cut out to play? Why can’t people just be themselves? : (

Comment by TL

November 13, 2009 @ 1:40 pm

“Bleh. Why would anybody want to have a marriage that was anything BUT an equal partnership? Why would a strong, intelligent woman like my mother WANT to live “in submission” to someone else? Is she just lazy and guilty? Why does she insist on (ironically) trying to force my dad into “headship”-type roles he was never really cut out to play? Why can’t people just be themselves? : ( “

I suspect that some of it is that she is obtaining her sense of righteousness through the actions of her husband. Since she has been sold the lie that she must give her will to her husband, then her wholeness must come through him and his actions.

Comment by Donald Guffey

November 18, 2009 @ 9:36 am

I so wish Christians would come to the realization that they are complete within themselves through Jesus Christ, and that a marriage is a wonderful union of two equally complete persons who have chosen to share their lives together and share one another’s unique gifts and talents and have this beauty that only comes in mutuality and complementarity without hierarchy.

Comment by .elise.anne.

November 18, 2009 @ 12:57 pm

bless you all. this godly discussion is such an encouragement!

if i had kids, i would encourage them and their fiances to both walk down the aisle and meet each other, and then the pastor ask something like “who supports the joining of these two to one?”

i guess the parents and/or everyone could stand up then.

the aisle walking / man not being given away was a fight i 1)didnt have the theology to fight yet and 2) didnt have the energy to fight when we got married (we had to fight a lot of our pastor’s traditions, gets tiring).

i wrestled with the name change. now that i have more solid opinions on it, i have to be careful not to wish i had done it differently, back when my mind wasn’t made up.

thanks for the parrallel to women being sold/given around the world…hadn’t thought that through.

Comment by Eppie

November 20, 2009 @ 3:36 am

Thank you for highlighting this tradition. When our daughter was to be married her father and I expressed our wish to her that (i) her father did not want to walk her down the aisle to be “given away” and (ii)we did not want to answer that we were “giving her away” as she was not ours to give away but that she belonged to God. So at the ceremony my husband and I walked into church together at the beginning followed after a few moments my daughter walking down the aisle on her own (which was stunningly beautiful!). And to the changed question “Who gives their “blessing” to this marriage?” my husband and I answered” We do!”.

Comment by Liz

November 20, 2009 @ 7:49 am

Eppie – that is just wonderful! Your daughter is so blessed to have parents who have that attitude. May your example be an inspiration to many.

Comment by Donald Guffey

November 20, 2009 @ 10:51 pm

What a wonderful tradition eppie. You know I was thinking the other day as well about the end of a wedding ceremony – you know where the minister tells the groom to kiss the bride. I thought a wonderful way to show the mutuality of their commitment to each other would be for the minister to say something like ” I now pronounce you husband and wife ( I now pronounce you life partners would be even better) seal the covenant you have made to each other with a kiss.”

I thought this would be a wonderful way to end an egal wedding. What are y’all’s thoughts?

Comment by TL

November 21, 2009 @ 10:49 am

Interesting thought Donald. I like ‘husband and wife’, but adding something about being partners would be nice. And then sealing it with a kiss is a great idea. :)

I bet we are going to have some new traditions on marriage ceremonies in the future.

Comment by Donald Guffey

November 21, 2009 @ 9:24 pm

Thanks TL I think so too
I mean just look at how traditions have changed already I seldom hear Love Honor and Obey in marriage vows even in comp churches which is a good thing so hopefully we are moving in the right direction.

Comment by Blank Slate

November 22, 2009 @ 9:38 am

Interesting, I always thought that the tradition we have used for years is a beautiful symbol of God, after having sanctified His Church, bringing the pure bride and presenting her to the groom – Christ, and they live happily ever after, thanks for setting me straight… it’s all about who “owns” the bride… uh-oh, there’s that symbolism again – we are the sheep of his pasture – He owns us… this is getting me confused again…

Comment by Liz

November 22, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

Interesting……I have never heard that idea before. I think it’s a bit like some of the Christmas traditions which originated in paganism and later people thought of some Christian symbolism to match the tradition. (Please let’s not start a discussion on Christmas traditions) There is nothing biblical about that comparison, however Christian it might sound.

Your comment, Blank Slate, shows that you are not aware of from where the ‘giving away’ idea came from and that it is still practised today in far too many countries. In these places the bride is sometimes dressed in finery and the couple are surrounded by friends and family with all the attendant pomp and ceremony.
In most situations the bride is ‘traded’ for money and/or or given away to be a virtual servant to her husband’s family. The thought of a woman being property is nothing new and is how so many cultures have always perceived the whole marriage relationship.

It’s very sad that within the so-called Christian world this tradition has persisted and been sanitised to be a sentimental happening. Even in the ‘nicest’ way, it is still the thought of a young woman going from the care of her father to the care of her husband without the corresponding thought of a young man going from the care of his mother to the care of his wife.

Comment by TL

November 22, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

“Interesting, I always thought that the tradition we have used for years is a beautiful symbol of God, after having sanctified His Church, bringing the pure bride and presenting her to the groom – Christ, and they live happily ever after, thanks for setting me straight… it’s all about who “owns” the bride… uh-oh, there’s that symbolism again – we are the sheep of his pasture – He owns us… this is getting me confused again…”

Actually, Christ presents the Bride to Himself after He has sacrificed Himself for Her. Without His sacrifice, there could be no bride.

“25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. “

Thus our modern and not so modern traditions are not based upon Scriptural principals, but upon various cultural practices.

Also, any reference to God ‘owning us’, comes from the fact that He is our creator. Husbands are our fellow humans. They do not represent God to their wives. Rather, they are our brothers in the Lord, and together both husband and wife should be honoring God and Christ as their Lord, Savior and Creator.

Comment by Blank Slate

November 24, 2009 @ 9:21 am

weren’t we “bought at a price…” (1 Cor 6:20)? OK, so Paul went back to creation to establish his reasoning for what he said in 1 Tim 2:11-14 about authority etc, let’s look to creation to see the beginning of the wonderful tradition of the father (God) giving the bride (Eve) to the groom (Adam)… isn’t it a great foershadowing of Christ and His bride (the church)?

Comment by TL

November 25, 2009 @ 11:23 am

I don’t know. I think a fuller shadowing of Christ and the church would be for the husband-to-be to do something sacrificial for the bride-to-be. Her father wouldn’t have anything to do with it.

Comment by Naomi

November 25, 2009 @ 11:53 am

Why is it that we assume that the Bible’s metaphor for Christ’s marriage to the Church is an example of how we are to pursue marriage? I think it is more likely that human marriage was used as an example to explain God’s relationship with us. Using the framework of human marriage (in a historical context) gives us something solid to grasp when trying to understand God’s relationship with the Church. The husband does not represent Christ and the wife does not represent the church, so their roles do not need to be based off of this metaphor. It is more plausible that the Bible uses our understanding of marriage to explain his relationship with us.

Does this make any sense?

Comment by Naomi

November 25, 2009 @ 11:55 am

I’d like to add that our understanding of marriage is usually very flawed. God uses our flawed understandings, however, to reach us with his truth.

Comment by Sonnet

November 25, 2009 @ 2:21 pm

I agree with Naomi (comment 90431)“the husband does not represent Christ and the wife does not represent the church.” It is together that both male and female believers represent the Bride of Christ or the Church. It is through Christ alone that our sins are washed white as snow. No husband is able to purify and sanctify his wife. Only Christ!

A believing husband might be able to win over his non-believing wife by his actions just like a believing wife might be able to win over her non-believing husband. Yet neither one is able to sanctify their spouse. That is the job of our great High Priest.

But there are some within the complementarian movement who teach that the husband is the priest of the home. What this conveys to me is that husbands are seen as somehow more sanctified than their wives purely because of their maleness. Which then leads to the following questions for complementarians. Why wasn’t Christ’s atonement fully sufficient for women? Since the veil was torn in the temple to the Holy of Holies at Christ’s death, why do “comps” still believe that women are not permitted the same level of access to the Father as men? Or why do women still need male intercessors to tell them what God’s will is for them?

As believers we are referred to not only as the Bride of Christ but also as friends, adopted children, and ambassadors. Christ’s sacrifice for us elevates us up. He left his heavenly home and took on the form of a lowly servant to help us and to reconcile us with God. I believe that God wants far more than an impersonal master/slave relationship with us, but instead, that He draws us into a close, personal, loving relationship with Him.

Comment by Sue D.

November 26, 2009 @ 3:02 pm

weren’t we “bought at a price…” (1 Cor 6:20)? OK, so Paul went back to creation to establish his reasoning for what he said in 1 Tim 2:11-14 about authority etc, let’s look to creation to see the beginning of the wonderful tradition of the father (God) giving the bride (Eve) to the groom (Adam)… isn’t it a great foershadowing of Christ and His bride (the church)?

This comment by blank slate comes across to me as typical of complementarianism. Complementarianism likes to take a concept that demeans women, maintain it by putting a spiritual spin on it, and then try to make the concept look acceptable. For instance, they try to make marital hierarchy look palatable by first proclaiming women to be “equal.” Their idea of equality seems like spiritual spin.

The same thing is happening here. There is no denying the reality that the tradition of the father giving the bride away stems from the idea of the transfer of the father’s authority to the husband. Many complementarians openly acknowledge this is the purpose for the father doing it. When women say they feel demeaned by the “transfer the title” concept, their feelings are once again marginalized by complementarianism.

There is no validity to the idea that this tradition is a reflection of the original creation account–blank slate made that up!!! There seems to be a sarcastic tone to his view that women find the tradition demeaning. To hold women’s negative feelings about the tradition in disrespect is to remain insensitive to the fact that many women all across the world are given away to men like property and are still very much oppressed. There is no way to make respectful, through spiritual spin, the idea in which a fully functioning female human being is transferred from the control of her father to her husband on her wedding day.

There have been a lot of good ideas of how to handle it offered here. When my daughter got married during the summer, her father walked her down the aisle, but we made sure the pastor asked “who presents (rather than gives) this woman to this man?” She wasn’t ours to give; she’s a grown woman.

Comment by Liz

November 26, 2009 @ 5:04 pm

Good points Sue and another reminder of how traditions are carried on without being examined for their origin and original meaning.

An aside…..I didn’t pick up from Blank Slate’s comments whether it was a man or a woman speaking but you thought the person was male. I find this interesting as one factor about a blog of this nature is that we learn to listen to people without knowing their gender. When I read Blank Slate’s reasonings, I assumed it was a woman speaking…..no particular reason, that’s just what I thought. I’m not expecting BS to reveal his or her gender but it shows that we can’t tell a person’s gender by what they say.

Comment by Kamilla

November 26, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

“When women say they feel demeaned by the “transfer the title” concept, their feelings are once again marginalized by complementarianism.”

Funny, but all I can hear running through my head right now is the song, “Feelings. Nothing more than feelings.”

One of the hardest things I had to learn when I was coming out of Egalitarianism and learning to embrace a biblically orthodox view of the sexes was that my feelings didn’t determine the truth. Sure, we all *know* that, but sometimes it’s hard to really grasp. I had to learn to give the right answer to the question I asked Doug Groothuis in class once (when he was role-playing a pagan). The question was this: “What do you seek — happiness or truth?”

When I began giving the right answer to that question, I found that the sort of deep, deep contentedness I had never known before was the payment for following the truth. It wasn’t easy at first, but nothing worth having ever is.

Kamilla

Comment by Sue D.

November 27, 2009 @ 9:06 am

The act of the father walking the bride down the aisle to the groom waiting at the church altar is a tradition; not a Biblical mandate.

Egalitarians would say that the ceremony belongs to both the bride and groom, and the bride and groom would be free to design their marriage ceremony in such a way that gives cherished memories for both of them. The feelings of the bride would come before human-made tradition.

It sounds like Complementarians would uphold a mere tradition over the objections of the bride’s feelings if it is what the husband wants to do. The feelings of the bride would be disregarded.

If this discussion was truly about upholding Biblical imagery in the marriage ceremony, and if complementarians were truly concerned about linking the contemporary ceremony to the creation account, then they would insist on a ceremony in which the imagery shows that the groom is leaving his family and clinging to his bride.

Comment by Sonnet

November 27, 2009 @ 9:23 am

Kamilla, you wrote: “when I was coming out of Egalitarianism and learning to embrace a biblically orthodox view of the sexes…”

Are you aware that antebellum Southern slaveholders viewed their position to be *the* biblically orthodox view? They believed that the Bible was not just regulating slavery due to the hardness of hearts of people. Instead, they believed that the Bible was promoting and endorsing the continuation of slavery.

“Freedom Song,” a historical fiction movie about the Civil Rights movement, highlighted African-Americans peacefully protesting against the “separate, but equal” rules of the South. These rules were never equal but gave the “whites” many more privileges and advantages than their brothers and sisters who were born with darker skin coloring. One of the racists said the following lines:

“God made us to be separate, he must have a reason. Finally I realized… it must be because he wants each of us to know our place… and to stay in it. Otherwise, there’d be disorder. And God doesn’t want disorder.”

These words sounded chillingly familiar to me as a woman. I’ve heard this same line of reasoning used to advocate for keeping women as second-class citizens in the Kingdom of God. I think that sexism is just as wrong as racism and that churches should not be promoting either cause.

Comment by Kamilla

November 27, 2009 @ 1:03 pm

Sonnet,

That slaveholder comparison is a really, really tiresome old canard that has been shot down again and again and again. Just because some people used the Bible that way doesn’t make it right. Are you aware that homosexuals like Vickie Gene Robinson, Nancy Hardesty and others think theirs is the biblically correct position? You know Nancy Hardesty was one of the original Evangelical Feminists and has been friends with Pat Gundry for years (at least I think they’d consider themselves friends, haven’t asked lately). Nancy Hardesty once told me that God loves it when she “makes love” with her lesbian partner. Is she right?

I’ve yet to see an Egalitarian come up with a good reason for why the Holy Spirit seems to have been derelict in His duty to guide us into all truth (a promise that *is* in Holy Scripture) and has neglected, until quite recently to tell us, “Oopsie, my bad. Of course women can be elders and teach men and . . .”

Kamilla

P.S. Sue D, complementarians already have that sort of ceremony, it’s the traditional one where the groom stands alone without any permission from his family needed or given.

Comment by Dave

November 27, 2009 @ 2:32 pm

HI Kamilla,

I am not sure how giving examples of people who believe homosexualuality is Biblically ok, shoots down the fact that people who believed slavery was Biblically orthodox used the same arguments as gender hierarchalists.

You also said, “I’ve yet to see an Egalitarian come up with a good reason for why the Holy Spirit seems to have been derelict in His duty to guide us into all truth (a promise that *is* in Holy Scripture) and has neglected, until quite recently to tell us, “Oopsie, my bad. Of course women can be elders and teach men and . . .””

I have several issues with this statement! The HS has not been derelict! The truth has not recently been discovered. I assume you are suggesting that only in recent years people have suggested that women can be elders? With Scripture came the Reformation, and with the Reformation came this truth, again!

Also, Scripture never says a woman cannot be an elder, so I do not see why Scripture would have had to change in this respect.

Finally, if gender hierachalists are correct, then why did it take until Paul wrote to Timothy to establish a law that women could not teach men? All of God’s laws are given more than one witness. If this is indeed what Paul meant, where is the second witness to God’s law in scripture that women could not teach men?

Gender hierachalists have never been able to adequately answer these questions for me! ;-)

Comment by Kamilla

November 27, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

Dave,

You’re kidding, right? With Scripture came the Reformation? And the Reformers discovered Egalitarianism?

Oh my.

Kamilla

Comment by Kamilla

November 27, 2009 @ 6:36 pm

Dave,

I would like to respond to some of your points tomorrow when I have more time. In the mean time, can you tell me where Calvin or Luther held that women can be elders? Or did you have another reformer in mind?

Kamilla

Comment by Dave

November 27, 2009 @ 8:45 pm

I tried posting a response and it did not come up so I will try again…

Kamila! Great to interact with you. To respond, I was not joking, though I believe I was suggesting that many of the concepts found in egalitarianism were re-discovered during the Reformation, not discovered for the first time.

I was certainly not aware of Calvin or Luther giving the thumbs up for women elders, but was thinking of other examples, such as Agula von Grumbach (1492-1554). My point being that this argument is not recent, which I believe was your point?

I would love you to respond to some of my points! :-)

Comment by Kamilla

November 27, 2009 @ 9:23 pm

Dave,

Sorry, I was looking for a quote, not a reference to a (somewhat) obcure name. (and I always want to pronounce her first name “Arugula”).

She doesn’t really help your case. One female scholar of the Reformation does not an Egalitarian revolution make – can you give me any quote from either she or the male reformers (Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, etc.) who actually held anything close to an Egalitarian view of church office?

Kamilla

Comment by Dave

November 27, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

Kamila,

I never promised you a quote, nor did I talk in terms of an Egalitarian revolution. Let us not lose sight of where this began…you appeared to be saying that this is a new thing. It is not! I have shown that. I could list more (such as Margaret Fell Fox (1614-1702) who wrote, “Women’s speaking Justified, Proved and Allowed by Scripture”) but the point is made!

Comment by Dave

November 27, 2009 @ 10:37 pm

Sorry I keep spelling your name wrong Kamilla!

Comment by Kamilla

November 28, 2009 @ 12:00 am

Dave,

On the contrary, you have shown nothing. You’ve given me one name, and that one apparently not even an Egalitarian. It doesn’t prove what you seem to think it does. Argula Grumbach wrote letters, studied seriously and could even be called a theologian of the Reformation – but as far as I can determine, she never held an Egalitarian view of church office. In other words, she does not help substantiate your claim that the truth of Egalitarianism was “rediscovered” with the Reformation.

No, you didn’t promise a quote — that was what I asked for. You are making a positive claim here: “With Scripture came the Reformation, and with the Reformation came this truth, again!” I am simply asking you for one quote – just one – that substantiates your claim that this “truth” of Egalitarianism came with the Reformation.

Margaret Fell Fox post-dates the Reformation by about a century and is problematic for other reasons (Quaker heterodoxy) so she doesn’t help your case either.

Finally, let me also be clear about what I am willing to give participation here. Until we get through this point, I think any discussion on your other points would be fruitless.

Kamilla

Comment by Sonnet

November 28, 2009 @ 12:09 am

Hi Kamilla,

You said, “Just because some people used the Bible that way doesn’t make it right.”

If I understand you correctly, I agree with you completely here. The Bible was misused and misinterpreted to maintain the institution of slavery. However, in the same way, I see the Bible being misused and misinterpreted to maintain the institution of patriarchy. I disagree with your assertion that the comparison to slaveholders “has been shot down again and again and again.”

During US history, women were not allowed to vote, and married women were not allowed to own property. Wives were expected to OBEY their husbands, and husbands were legally allowed to use corporal punishment against their wives. Divorced women were denied shared custody of their children. The husband received full guardianship. These are historical examples where women (esp. married ones) were denied many rights (like slaves) that had been granted to free men. Therefore, I believe that the comparison is valid. One of the reasons slaveholders fought so hard to maintain slavery is because they realized that many of the arguments used for abolishing slavery would logically lead to greater rights and freedoms for women.

The following quote from “Slavery, Sabbath, War & Women” by Willard M. Swartley is applicable to both the abolition of slavery and the abolition of patriarchy.

“Let us acknowledge and accept the moral precepts of the gospels and the apostles; (1) “the doctrine of universal humanity,” in which all are “equal in the sight of God”; (2) the command to imitate God’s love and to love your neighbor as yourself, for the way you treat “the least of these my brethren” is the way you treat Christ; (3) the precept that every person is directly accountable to God, and no one may “impose restrictions on another” in lordship or ultimate accountability…”(pg. 44; The author here is paraphrasing from Francis Wayland who wrote the anti-slavery book “The Elements of Moral Science” in 1835.)

The modern day, non-egalitarian phrase “equal in being, unequal in roles” is strikingly similar to the pre-Civil Rights phrase “separate, but equal.” Non-egalitarians declare that the husband has a special, “divine” right to make the final decisions in a marriage relationship and that a godly wife should willingly submit to these decisions. How does that male privilege not contradict with all of the “one another” verses in the Bible? Why does it supersede those verses?

Comment by Kamilla

November 28, 2009 @ 12:31 am

Sonnet,

I am afraid you are engaging in a bit of historical revisionism here. Married women did own their own property and disposed of it at will – they even gained divorces and retained custody of their children – sole custody.

The British courtesan, Lillie Langtry did all of that and more, while she was touring this country as an actress and had established American citizenship. And she’s just one example, if a rather infamous one.

Kamilla

Comment by Liz

November 28, 2009 @ 1:00 am

Kamilla…I would suggest that the deep contentedness you speak of is a feeling, and it certainly does comes from seeking and finding truth which brings obedience. The thing is that sincere truth-seeking Christians can interpret scripture differently and can all attest to finding satisfaction on discovering truth.

The Holy Spirit certainly will lead us into all truth and ‘one day’ we will ‘all believe alike’ (as one translation puts it) but for now….we know that on several issues, Christians interpret verses in different ways and we need to respect others’ relationship with Christ and that many of us want to know more of The Truth who is Jesus.

Comment by Dave

November 28, 2009 @ 4:05 am

Kamilla – thanks for yet another comment #90450!

I believe I have shown something! By your own admission, “Argula Grumbach wrote letters, studied seriously and could even be called a theologian of the Reformation”. I never said that she held an Egalitarian view of church office, but it sounds like Egalitarianism was alive and well in her life!

Regarding Margaret Fell Fox, she only wrote about ½ a century after Calvin’s death, she is considered a woman of the reformation, is certainly a product of the reformation, and whether you consider some of her theology as problematic or not she shows that Egalitarianism was alive and well in her time.

Now, we could debate this and you could ask for a quote, etc, etc, but how about we go back to your original statement, “the Holy Spirit seems to have been derelict in His duty to guide us into all truth…until quite recently to tell us, “Oopsie, my bad. Of course women can be elders and teach men and . . .”

Now perhaps you would like to qualify what you mean by “until quite recently”. If you mean several hundred years, then I agree with you!

Finally you said, “Until we get through this point, I think any discussion on your other points would be fruitless.” No worries, that is up to you, but you did say you were going to respond to my other points earlier. What happened? ;-) What do you define as fruit? Me agreeing with you? :-)

Comment by Lin

November 28, 2009 @ 8:30 am

“One of the hardest things I had to learn when I was coming out of Egalitarianism and learning to embrace a biblically orthodox view of the sexes was that my feelings didn’t determine the truth. Sure, we all *know* that, but sometimes it’s hard to really grasp. I had to learn to give the right answer to the question I asked Doug Groothuis in class once (when he was role-playing a pagan). The question was this: “What do you seek — happiness or truth?””

The same thing happened to me which is why I could not biblically be involved in Patriarchy of any variation anymore. It is teaching sin as virtue and a huge sin trap for both men and women. My eyes were to be on Jesus Christ. And only by abiding in Christ, and not my husband, could my marriage be God honoring.

Comment by Lin

November 28, 2009 @ 8:37 am

“That slaveholder comparison is a really, really tiresome old canard that has been shot down again and again and again. Just because some people used the Bible that way doesn’t make it right. Are you aware that homosexuals like Vickie Gene Robinson, Nancy Hardesty and others think theirs is the biblically correct position? You know Nancy Hardesty was one of the original Evangelical Feminists and has been friends with Pat Gundry for years (at least I think they’d consider themselves friends, haven’t asked lately). Nancy Hardesty once told me that God loves it when she “makes love” with her lesbian partner. Is she right?”

This is not unlike the problem many patriarchs have with pedophilia and sexual perversion. It would be wrong for us to use a generalization and map all of them to this heinous sin. Folks like Papa Pilgrim come to mind. And many SBC ministers who have been caught but the comp mindset has been to give them a pass.

In any case, homosexuality has its roots in Patriarchal cultures going back to Sodom. It is not a new thing that applies to egalitarianism as some would like for us to believe. It is still alive and well in many patriarchal cultures today.

Comment by Lin

November 28, 2009 @ 8:42 am

“Finally, if gender hierachalists are correct, then why did it take until Paul wrote to Timothy to establish a law that women could not teach men? All of God’s laws are given more than one witness. If this is indeed what Paul meant, where is the second witness to God’s law in scripture that women could not teach men?”

And why is there not a prohibition on women teaching or leading men in the OT? Is there a new law in the New Covenant that is more legalistic than the Old Covenant? Where is this law? Just like some try to use the 1 Corin 14 passage to prove there is a law, they cannot point to it. God’s laws are always clear in the OT. So, where is this clear law concerning women teaching or leading men?

The 1 Corin 14 passage is quoting from the Talmud. That is why we cannot find it. And Paul sets them straight in the following verse.

As believers, Do we dare ignore the Joel Prophecy?

Comment by Lin

November 28, 2009 @ 8:46 am

“I am afraid you are engaging in a bit of historical revisionism here”

Yes, women could do such things and even gain divorces IF…and only IF…they had a male benefactor or were very well known and rich. Money can buy many things including a divorce and custody. But the laws were not written in their favor at all. They were not written to present them as equals in civil law.

A poor woman who was abused had nowhere to turn.

Comment by SingingOwl

November 28, 2009 @ 8:57 am

One wedding I performed featured the groom walked down the aisle by his parents, and the bride likewise, and both sets of parents gave their children to each other. It was lovely.

Comment by Kamilla

November 28, 2009 @ 11:02 am

Dave,

The reason I don’t think future discussion will be fruitful is that our standards of “proof” are vastly different. Naming one woman for whom you think, “Egalitarianism was alive and well in her life” does not count as substantiation of your claim that, “With Scripture came the Reformation, and with the Reformation came this truth, again!” If the “truth” of Egalitarianism came again with the Reformation, that means someone, somewhere, who was a Reformer held an Egalitarian view of church office. It doesn’t simply mean, oh yeah, over here we have Mrs. von Grumbach studying theology and writing letters.

By the standard you have claimed here, Christine de Pizan, Theresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna, Hildegard of Bingen, Catherine Parr and our contemporary Alice von Hildebrand along with many others I could name would be Egalitarians — and NOTHING could be further from the truth.

I’ve asked you twice now for a quote – just one. You readily make the claim, you easily defend it — you must have something with which you can substantiate your claim. But as it appears you do not, I’m done with this discussion.

Kamilla

Comment by Sonnet

November 28, 2009 @ 11:21 am

During my own wedding ceremony, the pastor completely surprised me when he said that I could now kiss the groom! :) It caught me so off guard because I had *always* previously heard that the groom could now kiss the bride. Another change this pastor made was that he stood with his back to the crowd and let my groom and me face our guests. His take was that the guests were there to watch us instead of him.

Comment by Dave

November 28, 2009 @ 12:55 pm

“The reason I don’t think future discussion will be fruitful is that our standards of “proof” are vastly different”.

This would appear to be the case. For some reason you want to distract us from the original point that you made, which I have asked you to clarify. What did you mean by, “until quite recently”? This is where the conversation started, this is the original claim that you made that you have not backed up.

I believe any discussion with you would be fruitless while you continue to shift the argument away from you having to back up any of your claims, and while you continue to distort what I said. I never claimed, “Egalitarianism came again with the Reformation, that means someone, somewhere, who was a Reformer held an Egalitarian view of church office.”

Why not deal with the claims in order? I will give you your quote when you back up your assumption! I am assuming you are not happy with the title from Margaret Fell Fox’s book as a quote? ;-)

Comment by Kamilla

November 28, 2009 @ 1:26 pm

Nice try, Dave, but no cigar.

I simply asked you for proof to back up your claims regarding the connection between the Reformation and Egalitarianism as a preliminary to further discussion. You made no complaints about that request at the time but now that I have pressed you on the matter of substantiating your claims you want to say *I* am the one shifting the argument?

Further, your inability to substantiate your claims does indeed show that further conversation would be fruitless, but the fault for that does not lay with me, it lays with you for the reason I’ve given above.

Finally, your inability to provide any substantiation for your claim rather proves my point that Egalitarianism is a recent phenomenon. Your reference to the Quaker foundress only strengthens my case as your best argument for an Egalitarian history draws it pedigree through a sect that is, at best, heterodox. And yes, that does make a difference.

Kamilla

Comment by Dave

November 28, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

I might add that Argula lived a very Egalitarian marriage (evidence suggests) compared to most in her day, organising the education of children and the finances. She also challenged the Catholic hierarchy to a debate. All this caused her to be seen as ‘out of line’…and I might add, somewhat egalitarian!

I might also add that the Reformation is thought to have improved the place of women in some ways, and yet there is a lot of evidence to show how the reformation also brought with it more hierarchalism. I am not claiming it all went one way.

I guess you will have an issue with this,

an excerpt from:
Unyoked Is Best! Happy the Woman Without a Man

A man oft comes home all drunk and pissed
Just when his wife had worked her fingers to the bone
(So many chores to keep a decent house!),
But if she wants to get in a word or two,
She gets to taste his fist–no more.
And that besotted keg she is to obey?
Why, yelling and scolding is all she gets,
Such are his ways–and hapless his victim.
And if the nymphs of Venus he chooses to frequent,
What hearty welcome will await him at home.
Maidens, young ladies: learn from another’s doom,
Ere you, too, end up in fetters and chains.
Please don’t argue with me on this,
No matter who contradicts, I stick to it:
Unyoked is best! Happy is the woman without a man.

–from Anna Bijns: Germanic Sappho by Kristiaan P. G. Aercke

And this,

“Marie Dentiere
Movement Magisterial Reformation
Born Unknown
Died 1561
Significance; Historian and advocate of reform in Geneva. She wrote to Queen Marguarite de Navarre defending Calvin and Farel and argued that women should take a more active role in the church.”

Or this,

“Katharina Zell
Movement Magisterial Reformation
Born Strasbourg, 1497
Died Strasbourg, 1562
She assumed pastoral roles in that she conducted Bible studies which were sometimes attended by men. She conducted part of her husband’s funeral as well as the funeral of two women followers of Schwenkfeld.”

There are a number of books that trace the Egalitarian movement from the reformation (e.g. Egalitarianism and the Generation of Inequality
by Henry Phelps-Brown). You might like to check them out!

Comment by Dave

November 28, 2009 @ 2:00 pm

“Finally, your inability to provide any substantiation for your claim rather proves my point that Egalitarianism is a recent phenomenon”.

But what is recent? Even if I were to concede regarding the Reformation (which I am not), then what do you do with the likes of Catherine Booth, or is she recent, not orthodox enough, or do you need a quote first? ;-)

It comes back to your point first Kamilla. I am happy to withdraw my comment about the Reformation (even though I believe I have shown evidence of Egalitarianism at the time of the Reformation – which was my claim – though you have tried to add to it). Why not forget it…and focus on your statement? What is recent? You tell me and then I can consider whether or not it is true and provide evidence.

Or we can drop the whole issue (as Church History does not interest me that much) and get onto the other points…the ones you said you would address earlier without added clauses and conditions!

Comment by Dave

November 28, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

“You reference to the Quaker foundress only strengthens my case as your best argument for an Egalitarian history draws it pedigree through a sect that is, at best, heterodox. And yes, that does make a difference.”

No, it does not make a difference. I did not claim that with the Reformation came Egalitarianism within only orthodox Christianity”. Stop distorting the argument Kamilla! I never said it was my best argument! Can we please stick to what is said, not what is imagined! ;-)

Comment by Lin

November 28, 2009 @ 4:21 pm

“Finally, your inability to provide any substantiation for your claim rather proves my point that Egalitarianism is a recent phenomenon”.

If you mean by the civil laws, you are correct.

Egalitarianism was prefall. No where does God say that Adam is in charge of Eve or her authority. Creation order is a very thin and dangerous position to put words in God’s mouth that are not there.

Patriarchy is a result of the fall. It is teaching sin as virtue. That makes it insidious. It teaches women to turn toward their husbands and/or men instead of God. Exactly what God said would be a result of sin.

Comment by Liz

November 28, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

Hi Kamilla – I have a question for you. If you marry, would you choose to be walked down the aisle by your father? I would be interested in the reasons for your answer, whether it is yes, or no.

Comment by Dave

November 28, 2009 @ 9:37 pm

Kamilla…you said…

“You made no complaints about that request at the time but now that I have pressed you on the matter of substantiating your claims you want to say *I* am the one shifting the argument?”

The reason I made no complaint about the request at the time was because you had not asked me for a quote. You came close to asking for a quote when you said, “I am simply asking you for one quote – just one – that substantiates your claim that this “truth” of Egalitarianism came with the Reformation.” Note, this was not a request for a quote, but a claim by you to be asking for a quote…which you had not. You had asked where Luther and Calvin had made a comment, but I said that that was not who I was alluding to.

You then later said, “I am simply asking you for one quote – just one”. This was a false statement because at this stage you still had not asked for a quote. This is the first time you asked for a quote.

Kamilla, I have backed up my claim. You can disagree if you like, but I must say it seems that you would be happy to throw out any argument that does not agree with your own beliefs. You said you wanted to address my points without qualification, you have not backed up your own statements when asked to, you twist the argument to suit yourself and you fail to back up your own claims.

If you would like to put this to one side and start again with the points you were going to address, I am always happy to interact! :-)

Comment by DF

November 29, 2009 @ 2:34 am

I wish that everyone who wanted a fully egalitarian wedding ceremony was able to have one. But then I reflect on my own courtship and ceremony, which wasn’t as egalitarian as I would have liked.

What I didn’t understand back then, but am beginning to understand now, is that a wedding ceremony is both the joining of two individuals, and also a show of communal support for the new couple. For a marriage to be fully egalitarian requires not only the consent of the bride and groom, but also the support of the community at large.

I’ll illustrate what I mean through my own story. My wife and I dated for about 5 years before becoming engaged. By this time we were both committed egalitarians. I knew that she did not want to be “given away”. I also did not wish to ask for her parents’ permission to marry her, but I did wish to honor their position as future parents-in-law (somehow).

A few days before proposing to my future wife, I took her parents out to a very expensive steak restaurant (future mom-in-law likes steak). I let them order. Before the steaks arrived, I informed them that I would be proposing to their daughter within the week. Not a question; a statement. Luckily they were happy with my intentions.

Fast forward to the wedding planning phase (she said “yes” btw). We made small tweaks to the ceremony, like changing “man and wife” to “husband and wife.” I didn’t need anyone to declare me to be a man and we both wanted this declaration to be affirming of our new identities relative to each other.

But this is where our community started to exert its complimentarian influence. While I made most of the pre-day-of arrangements I left walking order and ceremony specifics to our day-of coordinator (a church friend). She strenuously objected when my wife told her that she did not want to be “given away”. My future mother-in-law accused my wife of being ashamed of her own father. Why else would a bride walk down the aisle alone? No one understood.

Our compromise was that each father would walk his own child in. She and her father came from the back of the meadow. My father and I came from the canoe dock. It was a good call because the canoe dock at our lake-front wedding didn’t have cleats to tie the canoe up to and getting out of an unsecured, unbeached canoe in formal wear is…precarious.

As a side note we were also able to include portions of our respective cultures in the ceremony through prayer (Mandarin Chinese, and Ilocano). I also wore a barong tagalog (traditional Philippine formal shirt, made of pineapple silk), as did my groomsmen.

I personally don’t prefer seeing a couple walk in together. It gives me the impression that I already missed half the ceremony. But I wouldn’t hold it against anyone if they chose to do it that way.

I think Americans in particular (I’m including myself in that category), tend to have an acutely individual outlook on the world. I thought my wedding was going to be about what my wife and I wanted. But the community my wife and I married in wasn’t egalitarian, and so that community had their say in what they would and would not do, even in our wedding.

I take this as an admonition about how important it is to develop a fully egalitarian community or at least a community that is respectful of egalitarian choices. No matter how much we desire to exercise control over our environments, our surroundings and those who surround us will continue to influence the trajectory of our lives.

The lesson to me is not to rest on simply being content that I am an egalitarian, but to continue to strive for a community where egalitarian choices are honored and respected, so that the compromises we made in our wedding will not be required of others.

Comment by Trevor

November 29, 2009 @ 3:21 am

Hi Kamilla, I can’t help but chime in at this point.

I have to confess that I wasn’t up to speed with reading the most recent Scroll comments and had to read a whole lot in succession which put me in the picture with the ongoing discussion between you and Dave. As I read it Dave was simply responding to your suggestion that egalitarian beliefs were relatively recent. He used the reference to the Reformation primarily to point up that the Holy Spirit was not remiss in informing the Church of Truth but that the Church needed a Reformation to bring it back on track with forgotten Truth, principally the whole matter of Justification by Faith. This fresh revelation no doubt provided fertile soil for the examination of other issues that may have become overshadowed by centuries of church tradition. Patriarchal Church tradition no less!

To my mind it is not a big leap to suggest that women (some of whom have been mentioned in both of your comments) felt empowered to more freely express themselves, giving rise to fresh egalitarian concepts or beliefs. The whole point is that this is not recent, and as others have well said on this post, the NT itself is replete with examples of women engaged in Christian ministry.

The plain facts are that the early church was obviously more egalitarian in its less formal setting. Women were potentially emancipated and empowered as equals in both the church and the home. Paul’s pastoral instructions were designed to steer the infant churches through this very unfamiliar territory through wise counsel and Godly suggestions that, of necessity, considered and worked alongside of the accepted cultural expectations. (The same rule applied in the case of slavery.) Unfortunately, as the church became more structured and organized it also became entrenched in the more familiar patterns of patriarchy and hierarchy of the day. Egalitarianism needed to be rediscovered.

My own view is that it was never lost. God continued to gift women and from time to time these women emerged, whether they recognized it or not, as spokespeople for the true church, the ’spiritual’ as opposed to the ‘nominal’, or established church. Many of these women are recorded in the annals of church history but sadly, many are not, because, to put it simply, they were not men!

Comment by Dave

November 29, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

Thanks Trevor for summarising my thoughts so well. I do not always communicate very well. Sorry that we got a bit off topic everyone! :-)

Comment by Deborah

November 29, 2009 @ 12:42 pm

Thanks for the challenge presented in this post. I have some fondness for the tradition despite being an egal, but I also struggle b/c of how I HAVE known it to be used as to give away a girl-child and to put her under another thumb. However, I’d never seriously reconsidered the tradition until now. Part of me really doesn’t want MORE ways to be different than everyone else, but whenever I marry, I will reconsider this tradtion. I suppose the benefit I can find in it lies in my view of “head.” A lot of egals think a husband simply is not a head and that this was not transcultural. I think I see it differently. While not seeing head as “authority,” I do think it reflects the general advantage and eminence men find in society causing him to relate to her relative vulnerability (the weakness Paul mentions) in a unique way. His sacrifice in self-denial is often different than hers. And so there is this protective position (one that should fully exalt and release her not protect her like a fragile teacup) that I think even egal men often find themselves in. And so I can okay a transfer of that from the father to the groom. Now that the consideration of this tradition as reflective of ownership is fully in my face, I’ll have to ponder this…. Thanks.

Btw, I relate to whomever responded to Kamilla by saying that they had to go through a similar process in leaving the patriarchy that was comfortable to them to embrace the truth God showed them of egalitarianism. That is similar to my walk.

Comment by Deborah

November 29, 2009 @ 12:46 pm

Btw, my ideas on head are (whether or not exegeted correctly) out of a systematic exploration of the Bible and of the Greek for head as later confirmed by the quasi-egal Dr. Sarah Sumner. I used to come across more egals who spoke this way, but now it seems to be more and more an anti-headship position. Glad we can unite on the overarching ideas.

Comment by Liz

November 29, 2009 @ 5:41 pm

Thanks for your gentle and fair comments Deborah. It shows that we can see things differently but respect another’s opinion about the meaning of some words.
There has been so much written about the meaning of the word which is translated ‘head’ and it can be hard for people to think of it as any other than ‘leader, boss,etc’ (however nicely that is exercised)

It’s a pity the discussion usually centres around the one word rather than the whole tenor of Ephesians which is one of mutuality, concern for one another and full of teaching about our position as believers in Christ.

As was pointed out, in the society at the time of writing, women were more vulnerable and men had the power and position, hence the need for protection and consideration, and in many places in the world that still holds today. In most ‘developed’ countries though, much work has been done to ensure the equal status of women in society and legally that is in place, even though it is taking a longer time for the traditional ideas to die out.

Hope this makes sense!

Comment by Lms526

November 30, 2009 @ 1:19 pm

First off, let me say that I am not and never have been married. I tend to go back and forth on whether or not I ever want to get married. But I do know this much. I would never even consider marrying a man who believes very strongly in patriarchy. I believe marriage should be an equal partnership. To me, a marriage grounded in patriarchy has more in common with a parent/child relationship than a partnership. Submission is NOT just the job of the woman. The husband submits to the wife, and the wife submits to her husband.

I’ve had the opportunity to observe quite a few weddings. However, there are a couple of things that really bug me about the “traditional” marriage ceremony. For example, it really bugs me when the newly married couple is introduced as “Mr. and Mrs Benjamin Smith” I think they should be introduced using the first names for example “Sarah and David Carter” Along the same lines, another thing that really bugs me is when the minister says “I now pronounce you man and wife.” Okay, so the groom is now a man. But the bride is just a wife?

Most of my friends are married. I have one married Christian friend who told me that her husband did something really special for her on their wedding day. She didn’t know about it beforehand. During the ceremony, the groom washed the feet of his new bride. I thought that was a really beautiful gesture and showed such humility on the part of the groom. Listening to my friend talk about her husband washing her feet, I could see that it still meant a lot to her, even thought it happened over a decade ago.

Comment by Deborah

November 30, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

Agreed on the “man and wife” bit!

Liz, yeah, there is less of that vulnerability in modern cultures, but even physiology allows for some (and will culture ever really not involve more social vulnerability for the women prior to Jesus’ return?). I personally have difficulty reading a parallel to the relationships Godhead as not transcultural. I do allow for the possibility but am very cautious about it. Just my 2! I’m a devoted egalitarian, but I don’t have any problem with recognizing nuances of relating that I think are inherent to the metaphor… and I can sort of see it as a justification for the Father giving away the daughter. I probably would choose to forgo that if it was just me I was considering, but I think it might hurt my father a lot if I changed it up. So that will be a hard call when the day comes.