Anabaptist woman flees colony

[Soloist]

I am answering the spirit behind these arguments, which abuses Scripture to make women subservient and little more than chattel to men. There is precious plenty of that in the conservative Anabaptist churches. Whether or not this woman had cause our not doesn't detract one iota from my statement.

I am not the demagog. The ungodly patriarchy that is bent on unbridled pride and ownership of women is. I've seen the fruits of it. It is nasty and rotten to the core. God is witness, and He will judge accordingly.

I have never seen this outside of seekers. I would certainly hope this sort of sin would be addressed.

[Chris]

I have yet to see Scripture that tells a woman to stay with a husband who abuses her. It is a perversion of the Word that would have such a thing.

This is about Hutterite woman. Not about a woman being beaten to death. The hypothetical distorts the basis of the scripture itself to give rationale to a woman leaving.

She could have stayed with her husband as the Bible commands.

The beaten point is just fancy demagoging to ameliorate the unbridled feminism indoctrinated into our brainwashed society. Totally out of this equation.

I am answering the spirit behind these arguments, which abuses Scripture to make women subservient and little more than chattel to men. There is precious plenty of that in the conservative Anabaptist churches. Whether or not this woman had cause our not doesn't detract one iota from my statement.

I am not the demagog. The ungodly patriarchy that is bent on unbridled pride and ownership of women is. I've seen the fruits of it. It is nasty and rotten to the core. God is witness, and He will judge accordingly.

Why does "ownership" mean abuse? God strictly gives a command the woman is to submit to her husband as (his bride) the church submits to Christ.

From Judaism until this day, the Father presents the daughter of his home to the man he will marry. This is the same thing as the father walking his daughter down the aisle, to "give her" to the man she will marry.. This transfers the headship of the daughter to him. The bride at this point of headship exchange, attains the surname (last name) of the man. The children of this couple would (in the Bible) be recorded under the husband's lineage.

Numbers 30 is more than clear on the reality of the power of this headship. He can remove the very vows she takes before God if he learns of it and doesn't agree of it. This is a complete authoritative role. She submits to him AS the church submits to Christ.

Why is it assumed that because she submits to her husband that it will be abusive? There are many kind loving husbands that love their wives (Biblical command) that treat their wives wonderfully. God's design of the perfect marriage is a wife who submits to her husband as the church submits to Christ, and a husband who loves his wife as himself.

[KirkDaniel]

This is about Hutterite woman. Not about a woman being beaten to death. The hypothetical distorts the basis of the scripture itself to give rationale to a woman leaving.

She could have stayed with her husband as the Bible commands.

The beaten point is just fancy demagoging to ameliorate the unbridled feminism indoctrinated into our brainwashed society. Totally out of this equation.

I am answering the spirit behind these arguments, which abuses Scripture to make women subservient and little more than chattel to men. There is precious plenty of that in the conservative Anabaptist churches. Whether or not this woman had cause our not doesn't detract one iota from my statement.

I am not the demagog. The ungodly patriarchy that is bent on unbridled pride and ownership of women is. I've seen the fruits of it. It is nasty and rotten to the core. God is witness, and He will judge accordingly.

Why does "ownership" mean abuse? God strictly gives a command the woman is to submit to her husband as (his bride) the church submits to Christ.

From Judaism until this day, the Father presents the daughter of his home to the man he will marry. This is the same thing as the father walking his daughter down the aisle, to "give her" to the man she will marry.. This transfers the headship of the daughter to him. The bride at this point of headship exchange, attains the surname (last name) of the man. The children of this couple would (in the Bible) be recorded under the husband's lineage.

Numbers 30 is more than clear on the reality of the power of this headship. He can remove the very vows she takes before God if he learns of it and doesn't agree of it. This is a complete authoritative role. She submits to him AS the church submits to Christ.

Why is it assumed that because she submits to her husband that it will be abusive? There are many kind loving husbands that love their wives (Biblical command) that treat their wives wonderfully. God's design of the perfect marriage is a wife who submits to her husband as the church submits to Christ, and a husband who loves his wife as himself.

Biblical submission I agree with. What passes for this very often in CA churches is nothing of the sort.