Good things about patriarchies

[temporal1]

Page 2:

Soloist:
No one is devaluing women.
Scripture is clear that the woman is to submit to the husband. Is man devalued because he obeys the government? Is a child devalued because they have to obey their parents?

^^ Agreed.

Soloist:
In the perfect world, a husband would honor his wife's opinion on things and consider her better then himself and treat her as Christ treats the church. In a perfect world, a wife won't have to fear being obedient to her husband.

^^ True, even in our imperfect world.
Sins+abuses should not be allowed to take on dominant roles, as-if they were the majority or norm.

Soloist:
Part of being a Christian is submitting to God's role that He created for us. It doesn't have to make sense to our earthly perspective.

^^ True enough. The temptation to try to “be better than God” is powerful+seductive. It just doesn’t bear good fruit.
Typically, the response to poor outcomes is: adding MORE effort to trying to “be better than God.”

Soloist:
Perhaps I would be less stressed if I didn't have to lead my family and carry the responsibility of bad choices, but God still holds me responsible regardless of if I lead or am led. Look at Adam.

^^ Amen.
i’m not sure i well-appreciated the burden of men’s responsibilities until - thru serious illness, then death, i was forced into these roles. It’s a heavy load. My former role allowed me to be counsel, encourager, discourager, “part of,” etc., but, stepping into “that other role” of leadership, decision-maker, etc., is a whole other thing, a difficult thing. a lonely thing. i’ve done my best. never feeling it’s “enough” on my own. praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance, for the ability to .. manage.

here is an example of where i believe scriptures are genius and inspired. God doesn’t micromanage.
ideals are established, with allowances for how imperfect life on earth plays out. when husbands+fathers die, families don’t (ordinarily) die with them, but have sufficient ability to carry on in less than ideal ways. not unlike life after an amputation.
God designs us to manage in spite of profound losses.

Some thrive in spite of terrific losses. This doesn’t alter the ideal!
We don’t declare everyone sacrifice their legs because some have lost their legs but thrive anyway.
We continue to recognize what the complete healthy physical body is.

Soloist:
I'll have my wife reply to you at some point as she is perfectly capable of defending the Biblical truth herself and it carries more weight to have a woman arguing that her place is Biblical and obedient to God.

^^ (Page 2) - i appreciate when you add your wife’s responses, on all topics. thank you.

it’s a conundrum that those who are happy and fulfilled often have no time or motivation to “defend and argue” their beliefs.
they witness in their daily acts, which may not be directly verbal. (true for men and women.)

We work hard not to fall in to a shallow faith that keeps us from speaking Truth in favor of only works.

"Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary."
-Francis of Assisi?

This very popular Christian quote has been attributed over the years to theologian Francis of Assisi but he never said it.

^^ Regardless of origin, it’s a good quote.

[nett]

In fact, myself and most of the ladies I know seem to be valued a lot more than a lot of the so called liberated ladies who have boyfriends or husbands who are perfectly fine leaving them for someone younger or prettier. In fact, I'm the only one in my family who is still married and whose significant other actually treated her decently. Also, the guy at work who got on my husband's case for me basically being his slave was the same one several of the nurses/caregivers reported for sexual harassment and flirting with a 14 year old.

This is a great point. The reality is, because women are expected to essentially be men in our society, they are fundamentally devalued in society. Women can never be as good at being a men, as men can (quite obviously).

"patriarchy", or traditional gender roles acknowledge and support the inherent value that women have, precisely because they are different from men, and men can never replace women and the equally valuable role they have in God's design.

[Sudsy]

From an SA article - 'Being egalitarian means we resist patriarchy, which is the act of orienting a system towards males and devaluing women.'

No one is devaluing women. Scripture is clear that the woman is to submit to the husband. Is man devalued because he obeys the government? Is a child devalued because they have to obey their parents?

When a man loves his wife as Christ loves the church and gave Himself for her (Eph 5:25), then he qualifies for the woman to submit to him. When he thinks because he is the head and his wife must submit to whatever he thinks and desires, then this is the system spoken of that the SA and Pentecostal, etc. do not support. I have heard more than one testimony where some, often Mennonite, women have been forced to submit to their husbands demands and certainly not as Christ loves the church and gives Himself for her. It is a treatment of slavery/ownership that God does not approve of. There are likely many more testimonies of this happening if it wasn't for the possible penalty of being kicked out on the street for revealing the truth and the brain washing of some that this is the wife's duty to submit.

In the perfect world, a husband would honor his wife's opinion on things and consider her better then himself and treat her as Christ treats the church. In a perfect world, a wife won't have to fear being obedient to her husband.

I disagree. A man does not need to consider his wife better than himself. That is going in the other direction and I know of some what are called 'hen pecked' husbands. I would replace the word 'perfect' in your last statement with 'If a husband follows Eph 5:25, a wife would not be threatened by and would submit to decisions that one person must make on disagreements that required one person making the decision to move forward and the man would then be fully responsible in that decision he made for the family.'

Part of being a Christian is submitting to God's role that He created for us. It doesn't have to make sense to our earthly perspective. Perhaps I would be less stressed if I didn't have to lead my family and carry the responsibility of bad choices, but God still holds me responsible regardless of if I lead or am led. Agreed, however if one believes they are being stressed to do what the Holy Spirit is guiding them to do, then they can pray for experiencing the peace of God in those leadings. Look at Adam.
I'll have my wife reply to you at some point as she is perfectly capable of defending the Biblical truth herself and it carries more weight to have a woman arguing that her place is Biblical and obedient to God.

[Sudsy]

Wife

First I appreciate you giving a wife's perspective from a God centered home.

I often get this from some of my family members and other people. People think that because the Bible talks about the wife submitting to her husband, we must be less valuable. In fact, myself and most of the ladies I know seem to be valued a lot more than a lot of the so called liberated ladies who have boyfriends or husbands who are perfectly fine leaving them for someone younger or prettier. In fact, I'm the only one in my family who is still married and whose significant other actually treated her decently. Also, the guy at work who got on my husband's case for me basically being his slave was the same one several of the nurses/caregivers reported for sexual harassment and flirting with a 14 year old.

It seems like the majority of these so called patriarchal preachers (at least in our circles) spend much more time on preaching about men loving their wives than wives submitting, You especially here this with mothers day/fathers day sermons with a lot more praise on moms/wives and a lot more step up to the plate with dads. They also had all the guys cook for the shared meal and the bishop likes having equal amounts of males/females do dishes at large events. These men also tend to think VERY POORLY on a guy mistreating his wife and will upbraid him for it and intervene. I'm not saying there aren't bad examples, but that's like my friend's children trying to tell me seatbelts are bad because some guy was saved by not wearing it.

And until husbands treat their wives as Eph 5:25 indicates, I'm in support of challenging the husbands first and foremost. My belief is that when men do their part as the scripture says (nothing cultural in this), that their wives won't have many issues with submitting to the husband's final decisions understanding his obligation to his family. But yes, I think preaching on submission still is necessary. But the two instructions need to go hand in hand. In this fast paced world, I believe carving out quality time between husband and wives alone, children aside, would help with the together decision making process.

From an SA article - 'Being egalitarian means we resist patriarchy, which is the act of orienting a system towards males and devaluing women.'

Anyway, I'm not saying there is nothing good with Salvation Army or Methodist groups although i would disagree with some of their other theology, but when they say that, they are basically saying they are resisting a system set up by God, and I can't see how they can be spirit led and resist God. God definitely values women. He stands up for the widows and the fatherless, and in the same chapter that says that wives should be in subjection to their own husbands (not to the point of disobeying God), it also states basically that abusive husbands don't get their prayers answered.

I'm not sure then how you regard how God has and continues to use women in leading roles to not only bring millions to salvation but to teach and train them in following the Lord, including men. I don't know how you were water baptised but many born again believers believe the system established in the NT was by immersion baptism. Is this resisting God when the NT says quite clearly to immerse ? My belief is that God is more interested in the heart than in some of our ways of literal, scripture practise. As I have mentioned many times before I was raised in a Pentecostal, egalitarian believing church with a lady pastor. Some of my favourite bible teachers today are women. Regardless of how absolutely correct they are in all of their practise as Christians, I am confident they are not only saved and filled with the Spirit but God is using them in mighty ways.

Jesus stood against devaluing women when He emphasized the permanence of marriage. Also, as the Son of God and Someone who obviously wasn't too concerned about being politically correct in His time, He could have easily established women as some of His 12. After all, Peter probably couldn't read or write either. Paul emphasized that there was no difference in value, but also said in numerous epistles that women were not to teach or have authority over men, even saying that this was a commandment of the Lord.

Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 14:36-37 ESV

If Paul was masking his chauvinism by trying to say it was a God ordained commandment, how can you believe his doctrine of salvation by grace through faith? How can you believe Isaiah, Peter, and any other person who speaks against women in leadership? How can you even believe in the story of Adam and Eve?

To those paragraphs above - the simple answer is that to best further the Gospel in Paul's day and culture those directions Paul gave I do not disagree with. He was concerned about things like these that cause stumbling blocks to others coming to the Lord. The same I believe would hold true today and Paul would support both women and men in all aspects of ministry as God calls them. These traditional views of what Paul taught being applied literally today, imo, is more of a stumbling block than a helping stone for people to come to Christ. Our good deeds and message of the Gospel is what scripture says will draw them and not how out of place we outwardly appear in our culture. I believe his message of salvation is the core of the Christian faith and those who embrace it are born again. There are commandments that stand forever and those that stood for that culture. I would include foot washing, the holy kiss and some others as cultural commandments for that day. But those who chose to practise them I am not going to say they are not Spirit led. I and other believers do not have these leadings. Bottom line for me as we all see through a glass darkly and only know in part, regardless of how we might think our's is the one and only practise God accepts.

There are a lot of other stories in the Old Testament of men and kings trying to step out of place and do the duties of a priest, or Moses ect, and those didn't end well. Doesn't mean their assigned role was less valuable to God than the role they wanted to fill (Korah's sons were some great poets), just that we need to accept and embrace what God has for us and not envy others. After all, if the last should be first, maybe God values us women more than you think.

I think God values all His children the same, male and female.

Thankyou again for giving your views but you could be crossing the line on trying to teach me as I am a man. Just kidding, God bless !!!

[Sudsy]

So all Pentecostals, Wesleyan, Salvation Army (SA) and various others have 'rejected both their Heavenly Father and also His Son' ? Did I understand you correctly?

From an SA article - 'Being egalitarian means we resist patriarchy, which is the act of orienting a system towards males and devaluing women.'

It's not devaluing at all. It's merely reading scripture and accepting it's truth

1 Timothy 2
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

You don't even need to read the Bible to observe that matriarchy is generally disastrous.

Who is talking about matriarchy ? I accept this scripture passage as truth. That is not the issue. I would be curious on how you interpret verse 15 without looking up what others have said from various sources.

[Josh]

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Women can redeem themselves from their own fallen nature by raising godly children, just as men redeem themselves from their fallen nature by working hard to provide for and lead their families and churches and communities.

This verse is clearly a reference to the curse of the fall, under which humanity still operates. (If you go outside and work, your brow still sweats. And childbirth is still quite painful.)

[Josh]

When a man loves his wife as Christ loves the church and gave Himself for her (Eph 5:25), then he qualifies for the woman to submit to him. When he thinks because he is the head and his wife must submit to whatever he thinks and desires, then this is the system spoken of that the SA and Pentecostal, etc. do not support. I have heard more than one testimony where some, often Mennonite, women have been forced to submit to their husbands demands and certainly not as Christ loves the church and gives Himself for her. It is a treatment of slavery/ownership that God does not approve of. There are likely many more testimonies of this happening if it wasn't for the possible penalty of being kicked out on the street for revealing the truth and the brain washing of some that this is the wife's duty to submit.

You seem to be saying that a wife can decide when she should submit, and when she shouldn't.

Does this apply to other situations? Can we decide when we should submit to the government, and when we shouldn't?

Certain liberals here have been loudly saying I need to obey the government if they order us to wear masks or take vaccines. Perhaps I can instead behave like the wife above - the government is being demanding and not loving me like Christ loves the church. Seems like slavery/ownership that God does not approve of. And the government has the penalty they can take away my home (via taxes) and kick me on the street or put me in prison.

Is that 'brainwashing' to think a citizen has a duty to submit?

[Soloist]

When a man loves his wife as Christ loves the church and gave Himself for her (Eph 5:25), then he qualifies for the woman to submit to him. When he thinks because he is the head and his wife must submit to whatever he thinks and desires, then this is the system spoken of that the SA and Pentecostal, etc. do not support. I have heard more than one testimony where some, often Mennonite, women have been forced to submit to their husbands demands and certainly not as Christ loves the church and gives Himself for her. It is a treatment of slavery/ownership that God does not approve of. There are likely many more testimonies of this happening if it wasn't for the possible penalty of being kicked out on the street for revealing the truth and the brain washing of some that this is the wife's duty to submit.

Flip this around. Why should I love my wife if she doesn't submit to me? There is no qualifier for submission to the husband or loving your wife.
I don't doubt that there are women who have been abused, but that does not justify them rebelling against their husbands.

1 Peter 1 1-2 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

This is directed to wives with rebellious husbands or non-believers. Seems pretty clear that a husband that doesn't obey the word likely not loving the wife as Christ did.
Also, it says submit to the husband as to the Lord, 99% of the conservatives out there would say this doesn't include sin. An evil man should not cause us to fear obedience to the Lord.

I disagree. A man does not need to consider his wife better than himself. That is going in the other direction and I know of some what are called 'hen pecked' husbands. I would replace the word 'perfect' in your last statement with 'If a husband follows Eph 5:25, a wife would not be threatened by and would submit to decisions that one person must make on disagreements that required one person making the decision to move forward and the man would then be fully responsible in that decision he made for the family.'

Christ laid Himself down in death for us. We are called to follow His example and I stand by my words. I'm certainly not talking about women who rule the roost, that is unbiblical.

[Soloist]

And until husbands treat their wives as Eph 5:25 indicates, I'm in support of challenging the husbands first and foremost. My belief is that when men do their part as the scripture says (nothing cultural in this), that their wives won't have many issues with submitting to the husband's final decisions understanding his obligation to his family. But yes, I think preaching on submission still is necessary. But the two instructions need to go hand in hand. In this fast paced world, I believe carving out quality time between husband and wives alone, children aside, would help with the together decision making process.

Seems like you object to the wife submitting? are you saying you actually agree that the wife is to submit to her husband?
Certainly a loving husband makes submission easier and sometimes us seekers go a little too far the other way were as the CM's try to remind us of our duty to our wives.

I'm not sure then how you regard how God has and continues to use women in leading roles to not only bring millions to salvation but to teach and train them in following the Lord, including men. I don't know how you were water baptised but many born again believers believe the system established in the NT was by immersion baptism. Is this resisting God when the NT says quite clearly to immerse ? My belief is that God is more interested in the heart than in some of our ways of literal, scripture practise. As I have mentioned many times before I was raised in a Pentecostal, egalitarian believing church with a lady pastor. Some of my favourite bible teachers today are women. Regardless of how absolutely correct they are in all of their practise as Christians, I am confident they are not only saved and filled with the Spirit but God is using them in mighty ways.

Both her and I were immersed on two separate occasions. I don't see a teaching saying that we are to immerse but suggestive things that could go both ways. Culturally I believe its immersion.
If God is more interested in the heart, what does it say when a man or a woman says God's word doesn't mean what it says in matters of personal freedom such as a woman preaching? A woman preaching over men is offering strange fire to the Lord.

To those paragraphs above - the simple answer is that to best further the Gospel in Paul's day and culture those directions Paul gave I do not disagree with. He was concerned about things like these that cause stumbling blocks to others coming to the Lord. The same I believe would hold true today and Paul would support both women and men in all aspects of ministry as God calls them. These traditional views of what Paul taught being applied literally today, imo, is more of a stumbling block than a helping stone for people to come to Christ. Our good deeds and message of the Gospel is what scripture says will draw them and not how out of place we outwardly appear in our culture. I believe his message of salvation is the core of the Christian faith and those who embrace it are born again. There are commandments that stand forever and those that stood for that culture. I would include foot washing, the holy kiss and some others as cultural commandments for that day. But those who chose to practise them I am not going to say they are not Spirit led. I and other believers do not have these leadings. Bottom line for me as we all see through a glass darkly and only know in part, regardless of how we might think our's is the one and only practise God accepts.

Do all your arguments boil down to culture? I object to the argument that the spiritual gifts were just for a time but why is that argument less valid then yours? I suspect it would come down to your personal experience rather then any Scriptural argument although Scripture should be the litmus test.

I think God values all His children the same, male and female.

Thankyou again for giving your views but you could be crossing the line on trying to teach me as I am a man. Just kidding, God bless !!!

The Scripture addresses this very thing... its not in a church nor are you regarding her as your authority figure and

Acts 18: 24-26 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

A husband and a wife correcting a misled follower of Jesus. This forum also is not a church nor are you and I in fellowship.

Often my wife is the one that people approach to ask for prayer from or ask about our beliefs. You see it as a stumbling block, I see it as a witness.
My wife might reply to you further at some point.

[Sudsy]

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Women can redeem themselves from their own fallen nature by raising godly children, just as men redeem themselves from their fallen nature by working hard to provide for and lead their families and churches and communities.

This verse is clearly a reference to the curse of the fall, under which humanity still operates. (If you go outside and work, your brow still sweats. And childbirth is still quite painful.)

Whoa, I must be mis-understanding what you are saying here. As posted it appears to me to say women can be saved from eternal damnation by raising godly children. To that I say, never. And the same goes for men doing hard labour. Salvation is not of works of righteousness which we have done and never will be. So, I'm guessing I mis-understood you on this.

I think John Piper best describes what the meaning of this verse is. YMMV.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/ho ... ildbearing