From Hierarchy to Humanity

[mammal_mama]

Hi. Dh and I began our marriage 10 years ago as conservative Christians, believing in wifely submission and the order of God's authority going God-husband-wife-children -- though dh was also a strong believer in submitting to one another, so we didn't have a totally top-down kind of marriage.

We now have 2 daughters, 9 and 4, and have gradually been getting more and more consensual in our parenting. And more and more liberal in our theology and in our views of male/female roles.

It's interesting and challenging to be going through these transformations WHILE raising a family together. Sometimes I think it has been confusing to our older daughter.

I recall her telling me, when she heard dh and me disagreeing about something a few years ago when she was around 5 or 6, "Mommy, the problem is, you think you're the male. But you're not the male -- Daddy is!"

And this wasn't exactly something that dh went around saying to me (though I'm not sure but what he may have once or twice when irritated) ... so it kind of boggled our minds how much she'd absorbed of this top-down ideology, considering that I never saw my dh as an example of extreme male dominance.

So ... it's an ongoing journey, and as I've said, our changing ideology has seemed to create some confusion for our oldest.

Usually I come across people in two groups -- those who think we're making a big mistake by moving away from the top-down hierarchy-system, and of course those who totally don't understand how we ever believed in it in the first place.

I thought I'd start this thread for others who, like me, are on this same sort of journey. And of course others are welcome, too.

I've started it in Religious Studies instead of Spirituality, so there's room for discussion and debate if we feel a need to go there.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

Usually I come across people in two groups -- those who think we're making a big mistake by moving away from the top-down hierarchy-system, and of course those who totally don't understand how we ever believed in it in the first place.

I might be in a third category. My church does believe in the husband-as-head, but would probably maintain that some denominations have misapplied the idea. We would never dream of having a formal hierarchy in which the husband actually gave orders or issued vetoes on a daily basis. It is not only contrary to the spirit of Christian marriage, it is simply impractical.

[anj_rn]

My DH and I have also been married for 10 years, and have always attended a conservative christian church. I think the top down hierarchy works for some families, but not for others. My DH and I can usually come to an agreement even when we initially disagree, but part of that was early boundry setting. For example, we each have a spending limit for gifts, non-budgeted items, etc. Neither of us can spend over the limit without discussing it with the other person. I also practice the Jewish concept of Shalom Bait (Peace in the family). So when DH and I do disagree, I weigh how important what we are arguing about is, vs the stress of the argument itself. In otherwords, I am not necessary "submitting to his authority," but rather choosing to go with his decision because it is not worth arguing over.

[genifer]

Im kind of with mamabadger. I belong in a third category too. I believe we dont understand those verses and agree they allow for abuse, but were certainly not meant to be. I believe this 'wifely submission' stuff or top down heirarchy isnt actually a hierarchy at all. I think that is mans false interpretation of it. This is what Im learning as I go anyway. There is a mystery about it that we cant understand unless we are willing to, with the faith required, walk in it, heeding to the Holy Spirit. Now, I say all this realising its not an answer, its vague, but this is how it looks in my life, my marriage. In order to understand it fully and the spiritual mystery, what God intended to teach us thru it, fully I know both parties in a marriage need to be committed to understanding it as it was meant to be understood. We are certainly not there yet.

I also suspect there are very very few marriages, in modern times, who have 'gotten there', who will EVER understand what Paul meant with those verses.

gen

[cappuccinosmom]

I believe this 'wifely submission' stuff or top down heirarchy isnt actually a hierarchy at all. I think that is mans false interpretation of it.

I agree.

If people actually look at what God requires of men (and it's not domination of everyone around them ), the heirarchy thing wouldn't be a problem. Christians are called to display love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self control. The Bible defines love as all these things, and more. Christian men are specifically called to love their wife and care for her with the same vigor he cares for his own self, and to sacrifice for her the point of his own death, as well as to treat her with honor. A man cannot obey God in these things and simultaneously oppress, injure, or dominate his wife. If he cares for her as he cares for himself, then her feelings, opinions, needs, and desires matter to him as much as his own.

I do believe in wifely submission. My husband believes in loving me to the point of sacrificing his life for me. Neither of us does this perfectly, and we've definitely had our problems, but as we both mature in Christ, it becomes more and more of a non-issue.

[genifer]

If people actually look at what God requires of men (and it's not domination of everyone around them ), the heirarchy thing wouldn't be a problem. Christians are called to display love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self control. The Bible defines love as all these things, and more. Christian men are specifically called to love their wife and care for her with the same vigor he cares for his own self, and to sacrifice for her the point of his own death, as well as to treat her with honor. A man cannot obey God in these things and simultaneously oppress, injure, or dominate his wife. If he cares for him as he cares for himself, then her feelings, opinions, needs, and desires matter to him as much as his own.

That is the most beautiful way of putting it Ive ever heard. Im going to copy and paste that... somewhere safe, my facebook quotes maybe . If you dont mind.

[mammal_mama]

Hi! It's interesting reading all of your comments.

As far as what Paul intended by those verses, I'm inclined to interpret them the way I interpret admonishments for slaves to submit to masters and not seek to free themselves.

Slavery was accepted in that culture, whereas today we realize it's wrong for one human being to own another human being.

In the same way, women were seen as inferior beings in that era, with inferior intelligence and inferior spiritual discernment. Paul didn't like them speaking up in church, and he certainly didn't feel that a woman was qualified to teach a man.

When he expressed his opinion that women should keep silent in church and not teach men, he backed it up by citing the Genesis account in which Woman was last in creation, and first to be deceived into sinning.

And I've certainly heard this used by Christian leaders to promote the idea that women are more easily-deceived than men are, and therefore need to stay under male headship.

I see this as a reflection of the Church being influenced by the culture of the times, just as it was about slavery. I see it as something to overcome, just as race and class prejudice were/are something to overcome.

[MyLittleWonders]

For another take on the Paul issue - there are modern scholars that do not accept all of Paul's letters as authentically his. If you look at early Paul writing, he included women as well as men in his mention of those teaching/preaching. He did not exclude women from his mention or only speak of males. The letter for Timothy, from which it seems most churches that preach male hierarchy, is not seen as an authentic Pauline letter, but rather one that was written much later as a way of changing the acceptance of women in ministry. The verses in 1 Corinthians 14 are also seen as an addition as they do not agree with the rest of Paul's writing. (The same argument is made about Paul's supposedly statements of slavery - compare for instance Philemon with the debated Pauline letters like Ephesians.)

[cappuccinosmom]

Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders

The verses in 1 Corinthians 14 are also seen as an addition as they do not agree with the rest of Paul's writing. (The same argument is made about Paul's supposedly statements of slavery - compare for instance Philemon with the debated Pauline letters like Ephesians.)

That's interesting. I was actually reading Collosians, which has similar "rules for households", and actually I don't see a discrepancy between those rules and Philemon. What those rules describe is much the same thing: Basically, treat him like a brother and with love because whatever social structures you are part of, there is before God no difference between slave and master.

[MyLittleWonders]

14But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced. 15Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good— 16no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord. 17So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

What I have read in study of Philemon is that the slave, Onesimus, had done something to wrong his master, Philemon. That is why he was with Paul for a while. Paul was sending him back as a Christian - and as a Christian, Philemon was no longer to keep Onesimus as a slave. It wasn't that Philemon was to treat Onesimus better or as a brother while keeping him as a slave; it was that Christianity undid the binds of slavery - once Onesimus decided to follow Christ, he was a free man, and Paul was writing to Philemon and admonishing him to take Onesimus back as a free man because he was now his brother in Christ. Liberating Paul has some good stuff in it - pages 45-52 - especially the bottom of page 51. Another book that addresses the idea of the "evolution" of Paul from his authentic letters to the pseudoPauline letters if The First Paul by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. Here is a conversation with Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan on their book. They are both exceptional scholars and at least for me, helped me see Paul in a totally new light (and for the first time, like Paul).

[mammal_mama]

MyLittleWonders -- that's interesting what you say about some of the Scriptures that have been attributed to Paul, possibly not being written by Paul.

I see what you mean about it seeming inconsistent for Paul to be in favor of freeing Christian slaves, yet at the same time telling slaves to submit to their masters, and women to submit to their husbands and also to keep silent in church.

But I've seen similar inconsistencies in studying American history. Some of the same founding fathers who said all men were created equal, nevertheless supported slavery (and justified it by counting a slave as 3/5 of a man). And I'm not sure whether ANY of the founding fathers were in favor of women getting the vote at that time.

I think what gets some people so hung up on these words of Paul (about women), such that we're either trying to say they got "added in" by someone else, or that Paul didn't really "mean it the way some people are taking it" -- well, it seems to all boil down to some people's idea that the gospel of Jesus Christ HINGES on the whole Bible being accepted as the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

If it weren't for that hinge-thing, it would be easiier to just accept that Paul was a man like anyone else -- and just as we have insights from God about some things and still have misconceptions about other things, so Paul was not perfect.

Why not respect Paul as a man who loved God and had some godly wisdom -- but who was nevertheless still a man, imperfect and a product of his culture, as we all are?

[MyLittleWonders]

I understand what you are saying, and yes, I would agree that people on a whole are inconsistent. But, the flipside of the argument could be that the Founding Fathers were not inspired by God, nor did they believe their words to be infallible, or were their words held to be infallible (at least as defined by Christianity). To me, learning that many of the letters attributed to Paul could very well be written in his name but not with his pen has allowed me to see past what before was very frustrating - not only his supposedly views on women and slavery, but that those views were inspired by God and infallible as Scripture. Learning the history and timing of the various writings of the Bible and the life situations of the writers themselves has opened the Bible to me as an amazing document no longer bound to the "Scripture is written by the hand of God and there are no inconsistencies or controversy" feelings of many churches.

I do believe Paul, when reading just the letters that modern scholarship have attributed to him, is as radical as Jesus. He does not contradict Jesus, whereas the disputed letters definitely contradict Jesus. When, in the Gospels, is Jesus seen as telling women to be silent and not speak? They were part of his inner circle even though they were not called "disciples." They are said to have supported his ministry financially. They were the ones who stayed by his side to the very end. Mary Magdalene was the first to whom he chose to appear. He was absolutely radical in his acceptance of women and would never have told a woman to be silent and only speak to her husband in privacy. Yet, for some reason, it is reasonable to believe that a mere 20-30 years later, Paul had turned such revolution on its head and ordered women silent in all matters? But, separating out the pseudo-Pauline letters, suddenly the radical and revolutionary Paul shines through, who true to his encounter with the risen Jesus, affirms the central role of women in the preaching and spreading of the Gospel.

So, to me, it is not a matter of just accepting that Paul was a Godly man who did the best with what he had, but contradicted himself none-the-less. I do believe that the real Paul was exceptionally revolutionary of his time, stuck true to the Gospel that Jesus preached and showed what a radical transformation can be made when one is touched by God.

I apologize if I have butted in on a thread where this opinion was not warranted. If you wish, I will bow out from now on as what I believe definitely challenges the idea of a male-hierarchy both within the church and within the family.

[mammal_mama]

MyLittleWonders -- please don't bow out!

In case you haven't noticed, I (like you) don't believe in the male hierachy idea, either!

I honestly don't want anyone here to bow out; I hope we can keep on discussing.

[VisionaryMom]

Well I fit into the second category. That said, as far as with your dd, I'd talk to her honestly. Tell her that you and your dh are going through significant changes in what you believe and that the way you believe marriage works is part of those changes. She's picked up on your previous views, whether from you or church services, so I think it would be good now to talk to her about your new views.

[MyLittleWonders]

I will stay in the conversation - I enjoy it. But, I got to feeling like maybe I was interjecting where it wasn't wanted.

[mammal_mama]

Oh, yes, BrandiRhoades, we do talk about it.

MyLittleWonders, I'm glad you're sticking around.

[genifer]

Is it at all possible that some of the verses about women being silent in church, specifically, that paul was talking about a specific situation, a specific church where a situation had gotten out of gotten out of control? Ill have to go and relook at the verses in question but Ive heard that argument.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by genifer

Is it at all possible that some of the verses about women being silent in church, specifically, that paul was talking about a specific situation, a specific church where a situation had gotten out of gotten out of control? Ill have to go and relook at the verses in question but Ive heard that argument.

I've heard it, too. I've actually heard that since he followed it up by saying that woman was last in Creation and first to sin, that he was really just addressing one particular situation in one particular church where some women were teaching that woman existed first.

But this seems like a twisted way of reading it, and like the most obvious interpretation is that he is saying that men are the ordained teachers and leaders, because the last time woman was in charge, look what happened.

But, again, none of this is really a problem if the Bible can be read as containing some wisdom from God, and also some human and cultural influences. It's only when people think that inerrancy is a must, that there has to be all this bending-over-backward in interpreting what the writers "really" meant by this or that "seemingly"-sexist verse.

But this is just my opinion. Please, genifer and everyone, I hope you will continue feeling welcome to post your ideas and opinions, just as I am posting mine.