Crooked Lines
Published by Nancy Ann September 2nd, 2008 in Fun with PoliticsThanks for all the good interaction about the gov. of Alaska. I still have to confess that I think it is fun and funny to have a woman who is pro-life, mother of five (with one tucked into the sling), hockey mom, and former beauty pageant runner-up being asked to run as VP. I’m not surprised that her family is not without problems. I was more than halfway expecting something or other to come out. But from what I hear, the Palins are handling their daughter’s pregnancy they way they should, and not the way that millions of American families handle the same kinds of things all year long.
At the same time, I appreciate the considerations that you all have brought up. I agree that God used Deborah as a judgment on wimpy men. These are desperate times in America that may call for similar desperate means. And it would not surprise me at all if God used a woman to overthrow Roe. If He did, I would not be grumbling about whether she was qualified or not.
I don’t think Sarah Palin is a role model for Christian women. But neither do I think President Bush is a role model for Christian men. But no one brings that up. I don’t believe women in general are required to submit to men in general. In fact, I think they ought not submit to men in general. The Bible tells wives to see that they submit to their very own husbands. And for all I know, Mrs. Palin does.
I’m not ready to print out any bumper stickers yet, but I am definitely enjoying this. I will still continue to pray that the Lord will have mercy on us in this nation and do something soon to turn us around. But He seldom does the predictable. My husband is fond of saying that God draws straight with crooked lines. And we all know that He does as He pleases.
“I don’t think Sarah Palin is a role model for Christian women. But neither do I think President Bush is a role model for Christian men.”
Okay, you win the “best point I’ve heard / read” award. I’ll keep thinking about all of this, as I’m sure everyone involved will.
I’ll echo bean’s comment. It would be one thing if we were considering Palin for church leadership, in which character, integrity, and Biblical womanhood are a clear criteria.
However, we’re not. We’re considering her as a candidate for the VPOTUS, and in which case, while certain character qualifications apply, a litmus test of “Blblical womanhood” does not (though it wouldn’t hurt). Far more important in this case are her political positions and her commitment to following through.
Some have argued that Palin’s ascension to this nomination is an ominous sign of the times, and that Christians should therefore be in opposition because of her allegedly unblblical womanhood.
To which I respond, I guess you can’t vote for anyone except a born-again Christian who holds to every position you hold.
Once again, very well said. Thanks for putting into words what I want to, but can’t!
Hi Nancy,
I agree with you that women in general should not submit to men in general. I chose the word “subject” in my comment because it has a different connotation than submit.
What I meant is that there is authority in every realm of a woman’s life and that authority is (or should be) men. When she goes into another person’s house, the husband is the authority in that home. When she enters the church, a board of Elders is the authority in that realm. And anywhere she goes the government has real authority and those people should be men.
So, in general, a woman should be subject to all these various male authorities. She doesn’t have to submit to their every request, but she ought to be respectful of them and recognize her position within their realm.
In the same way, children in general ought to be subject to all adults. Again they don’t have to obey their every request, but there is a general respect and understanding of their authority.
I just wanted to clarify.
Thanks,
Tina
Sandpoint, ID
Tina,
The Bible does not teach that women are subject to men, but that wives are subject to their own husbands. We are all to be subject to one another, kindly submitting to one another, not women to men.
For example, if a man comes into my home, which is the realm of my authority, then he should be subject to me and my very real authority in my home (though I would never put it that way). If I ask him to remove his shoes, then he should gladly do so. We are all to be subject to one another out of reverence to Christ. If I am teaching a high school class and a man visiting the school comes in to observe, he should be subject to my real authority in the classroom. Once at a friend’s home, the father began to correct my son. I intervened and told him that was my responsibility, not his, and that I would take care of it. If my children had to be subject to all adults, it would be a very scary world. But my children were instructed to obey their parents, their teachers or babysitters (who were specifically delegated by us to teach or take care of them). One time a neighbor hollered at our grandchildren to get out of an area that we allow them to play in. When my granddaughter told her mother about it, her mom asked her, “What did you do?” My well taught granddaughter said, “Nothing. She is not the boss of us.”
Nancy,
I don’t want you to think that my husband and I think that all authority figures have authority over everyone else. That would be total chaos and definitely a “very scary world” as you put it.
I want to make a few points of clarification:
1) I agree that women and children do not have to obey those who are not in DIRECT authority over them. But I believe they should be extremely respectful to them. Just like almost all of us (I think or hope) would agree that our children should show respect to adults in general, women should show respect to men in general. If women should not, then why shouldn’t children? It is a general principle derived from the Fifth Commandment, which is the authority command. The commandment doesn’t say obey, it says honor. That is because it is a transitional command. Children grow up and no longer have to obey their parents, but still have to honor them. In the same way there is a general honor of children to adults, and women to men. This is why no one likes the “mouthy woman” who likes to go toe to toe with men, or the “mouthy kid” who goes toe to toe with adults. But when men go toe to toe nobody has a problem with it.
2) We’ve run into many of the same situations you listed above and one situation got so bad that my husband finally told the children to tell certain individuals (respectfully), “My father says to mind your own business.” I’ve had to deal with similar situations as the ones you listed above, the only difference is that I would appeal to my husband or the principal rather than rebuke a man or request him to obey me.
3) I used the word “subject” instead of just “respect” because the principle is derived from the authority command. It’s more than just a general respect. I used “subject” because my respect for men causes me to have a general subjection to them (not that I have to obey anyone other than my husband). I have a general respect for everyone, in the same way that you used “be subject to one another”. But my general subjection to men goes beyond that. I may argue with a woman or even rebuke her, but I would not do so with a man (barring extreme circumstances that may be dancing through someone’s head).
4) Your parenthetical comment “(though I would never put it that way)” appears to presuppose the point.
I hope our “toe to toe” is not offensive either!
Tina
Sandpoint, ID
Thanks for that comment, Mrs. Wilson. I can really appreciate it.
One of the problems I can see with general subjection of women is that it denies that there can be any real delegated authority. For instance, if a corporal has it from the base commander that no one gets in without x piece of paper and then runs to ask his commanding officer to tell x colonel he can’t come in because the corporal feels he hasn’t the authority to tell a higher ranking officer he hasn’t the right papers then from my perspective the corporal is completely negating his commanding officer’s right (and authority) to delegate tasks and expect them to be accomplished. I don’t think many people would argue that the corporal doesn’t have to right to inspect a general’s papers if that’s what the base commander asked of him. I would say the same thing goes when a husband has delegated home life and childrearing largely to his wife.
It seems to me that Pastor Wilson’s sermons regarding Islam and women are pertinent here… Second Battle of Tours II has a statement in the notes: “…this carnal understanding (of submission) has meant there has been an unfortunate growth of assumptions about women in conservative Christian circles that can be called more Muslim than Christian…” Elsewhere, I recall him saying something to the effect that we have more in common with feminists than Muslims where our treatment of women is concerned, but at the same time, we are not to embrace one falsehood in order to reject another.
Interesting…the last I checked, God is very clear that it is sex outside marriage that is sinful, not the conception of a child. Our Lord Himself was conceived outside of marriage.
Disobedience, growing and maturing, has now become obvious fruit. This again, is not the fruit’s (child’s) fault, it’s just doing what fruit does–it grows. May this baby be loved and nurtured by repentant parents.
Tina, Though Nancy is much wiser then myself and I would love to see her diologe with you more on this I would like to ask you to put forth a few biblical example as to why you think the way you do as explained in your #1 statement. Specifically, why you think women are to be subject to men.
I think it is always a good idea to clarify terms and it seems a good dictionary is in order here just to be sure.
This is of course from good old Webster but he will have to suit as a falable example for us.
Obey: To do what one is told. To be guided by.
To be Subject: to be under the authority or controle of another.
Honor: to have high regard or repect.
Respect: to show honor, deference, esteem and consideration for.
The 5th commandment is not an over arching “authority command”, it is a command for children unto parents, not children in general to adults in general. Nither does it have anything to do with women in general honorying men in general. So some other specific biblical references would be a wise idea here.
Sorry, you’ll have to excuse my errors. I typed through that pretty fast.
Crystal,
I’d like to address your last paragraph first.
You may not know it, but the historic & reformed position is that all the laws are summed up in the 10 commandments. In fact, as Christ says in Matthew 22, the entire law can be summed up in just two, love the Lord and love your neighbor.
If you are reformed, there is no doubt that your church holds to this position and would agree that the 5th commandment is the command that deals with all questions of human authority, it’s scope reaching far beyond children and parents.
Question 98 of the Westminster Larger Catechism asks, “Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?”
The answer is, “The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon Mount Sinai, and written by him in two tables of stone; and are recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. The first four commandments containing our duty to God, and the other six our duty to man.”
Questions 123 through 133 deal with the 5th commandment and there are a zillion Scripture proofs. But I think Question 124 is worth quoting, “Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?”
The answer is, “By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.”
After reading the catechism and scripture proofs on the subject I would like to change my word to “honor”. I never thought of it before now. I knew it was more than just “respect”, but “subject” does definitely have a connotation of obey.
So I would like to revise my position to say that all women should honor all men.
I don’t have any specific Scripture references to support my position, but still think I can argue it Biblically. I can’t point to a Scripture reference explaining the Trinity either, but I’m not about to throw out that doctrine.
The reason all women should honor all men is the same reason all children should honor all adults. God has instituted an order and hierarchy in the home, church and state. And its arms reach beyond the direct authority of husband over wife, mother over child, elder over parishioner, law enforcement over citizen.
Do you think children should respect their elders? I would hope you wouldn’t throw that one out just because there is not a specific verse that addresses it. It is derived from all of Scripture. Actually, I just thought of one, the bears that killed the children who mocked Elisha’s baldness in II Kings 2. I’m sure we could come up with more if we had the time to think about it.
Hope this is helpful.
Tina
Sandpoint, ID
P.S. You can view the Westminster Larger Catechism online here:
www.reformed.org/documents/larger1.html
Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. I Peter 2.
And Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.
In this way we are to honor Godly men who are not our husbands. As we honor the brotherhood.
This is speaking of the brotherhood of believers.
And we are to honor the king, yes. And if God sets a woman on the throne, we are to honor her as well.
And if Sarah Palin is in submission to her husband, and he approves her as a governing official, she has recieved the green light. This is biblical submission in marriage.
Dear Nancy,
Thank you for the dicussion on this matter.
Regarding your point with G.W. Actually, people did bring it up (a lot) when he was first running for office. They scrutinized his life over several decades and he answered questions ad naseum about his drinking days, what kind of father he had been, husband, etc. His character was debated in Christian magazines, on talk shows, and talk radio. Ultimately, the public is always scrutinizing a candidate to see how consistent their personal life is with what they preach, and shouldn’t it be so?
Allow me a hypothetical. What if eight years ago, Dick Cheney had said I am running for VP of the US but I will also be the CEO of Haliburton, with all of its incumbant responsibilities, at the same time? Do you think the media and public would have said, “Okay, sure. You go dude.” No, they would have demanded he pick, one or the other–it is impossible to do both well.
Is anyone reading this going to tell me being a proper mother to a Down’s sydrome infant, a 7-year old daughter, an 11(?) year old daughter and properly helping your 17 year old newly wed and mothering daughter is any less demanding than being the CEO of Haliburton?
I am not enjoying this. I am very sad for her children. She seems like a warm, loving, go-getter and they are going to miss her very much.
Oh why, oh why did I not use spell-checker? Now you know my mortal weakness–awful spelling!! Please extend grace where grace is needed.
No, all children should not honor all adults. We rightly teach our children that if there is someone in the neighborhood who is to be avoided because he might be a threat to them, they owe him no honor or respect, but are to keep away from him and in no way accede to any of his desires or requests should they encounter him, and treat him with the discourtesy of immediately leaving his presence if they find themselves there.
If all children should honor all adults, they would still owe such a person a duty of honor, but they owe him none.
On the other hand, all children should be taught to treat all people with respect unless there is a reason to think that a person has a strong possibility of intending them harm, because that is part of loving your neighbor as yourself. But it does not arise out of a duty that all children have to all adults.
And another comment on Crooked Lines…is anyone (especially in media) wondering why a mother is blamed for a daughter’s situation and her father is not being held accountable at all? Just pointing out that Mr. Palin will ultimately answer for his family. Since this issue should be private, we should all pray for the Palin’s daughter as she is dealing with life issues that would be difficult for any teen, especially one that has been thrown into a spotlight no teen would find easy to navigate.
OK, Pentamom,
This is getting ridiculous. Since when do we build our theology on exceptions. I even addressed the exceptions above when I said, “(barring extreme circumstances that may be dancing through someone’s head)”.
If you want to build your doctrine of authority on all the possible exceptions, I’m not going to argue with you.
Tina
Sandpoint, ID
…to the roof.
No, Tina, that is not the point, not that there are “exceptions.”
If my husband were to be a fool, that would not create an “exception” to his being my head.
If another man is a fool, I do not owe him deference. That is because there is no “exception” being made, but rather there is no principle in the first place that I owe the same kind of honor to every man other than my husband — I am free to regard foolish men as fools and dismiss what they would say to me or have me do.
It is true we are to honor all people, but that command makes no distinction between men and women. There just isn’t a command or principle that requires each and every woman to honor some kind of specific, sex-based honor to every man she encounters, that goes beyond the honor she owes all her neighbors, including children.
Let me go one better:
“I am free to regard foolish men as fools and dismiss what they would say to me or have me do. In fact, I’m required to do it.”
This is not true of any situation where there is a genuine duty of subjection owed. I have to obey my foolish rulers up to the point where they require my sin, the same with my husband. I simply don’t have to listen to another man at all, if I judge that he has nothing edifying to say to me.
So beautifully put, Pentamom.
Thank you.
Pentamom,
I agree with Tina.
“Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers,
the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity.” 1 Timothy 5 1-2
Once again, the scripture supports the idea that Honor is owed to adults in general. Why do we teach our children the term “yes sir” or “yes maam” to all adults? Even those they do not owe obedience to? It is derived ultimately from the 5th commandment.
The point is clear, there is something owed to adults in general, from children. You can dance and call it what you want, whether its subject, honor, respect, who cares? It really does exist. This is why we teach our children how to speak to adults, with honor.
Do you see what Paul is saying? Treat an older man like your own Father! This isn’t rocket science.
Mrs. Wilson,
As the “hostess” of this blog, you are to be commended for your gentle forbearance as so many gathered around your table have begun to throw peas, carrots and cutlery.
Thank you for your lovely example.
As always, there is much wisdom to be gained from the wise.
I teach my boys that they are dragonslayers. They are to grow up to imitate Christ in crushing the dragon’s head.
There are two kinds of people in this world: the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. My boys show their love and honor for the seed of the woman by slaying the serpent, just like Christ did.
Who are the good guys again? The seed of the WOMAN.
Missy, I agree completely. I wouldn’t have thought of the funny peas, carrots and cutlery, though.
I don’t remember another comment thread here at Femina getting quite like this one.
Pentamom,
If you think its ok for children to treat adults as peers, I don’t know what else to say.
For those of you who don’t think it’s ok, I would ask you why it’s not ok?
If women can treat men as peers, then I would say our children can treat adults as peers as well.
Everything goes, rebukes, debates, sarcasm, even a bit of sass, why not?
Tina
Sandpoint, ID
We don’t treat our peers with rebukes, sarcasm, and sass.
Perhaps that is where the problem lies.
Missy,
Why would you assume that a self-professed feminist is in submission to her husband? It doesn’t make any sense to me.
Heather,
You said you’ve not seen anything that keeps you from believing that she is both honoring God and her husband in her public service. I don’t understand this.
Everyone keeps making outrageously positive assumptions about her? Why is this?
She is a feminist who has gone off to rule leaving her husband behind as a “keeper at home”.
Again, you have not given me any reasons not to believe that you ladies would just be tickled to see a pro-life, hockey mom, with 5 kids in office. And so you believe the best about her, and continually defender her despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
If it’s not the case, give me a Biblical argument.
Tina
Sandpoint, ID
Lynn,
You ought to rebuke someone in sin. And sarcasm is fun. If you don’t engage in sarcasm, you’re missing out. Sass between friends can be cute and funny too.
Lighten up, my goodness.
Can someone please put forth a positive argument and stop nitpicking?
Tina
Sandpoint, ID
Thank God for Palin:
I mean with the great example she is setting for me and my family. My girls and I are so proud to be alive in this great time when that glass ceiling is breaking and we will have our turn to rule the world.
I am already getting involved in local government. In-fact I have already told my husband and children that they are going to have to start getting in line and supporting me. By cleaning and cooking for themselves.
Also I think I will follow in the good Christian example she has set forth on supporting the homosexuals in Alaska. One of her first acts in government in Alaska was a Veto on a bill that would have block homosexuals partners of state workers from benefits… What a good lady… How could any of us Christians not mistake her as divine…
Come on women lets unite and get behind this great Godly woman Sarah Palin brought up by the Lord like Deborah…
Amber
Oh btw NO SATIRE HERE…
Brittany,
I can’t help but ask why you capitalized woman? You’re whole post confuses me, as a matter of fact. How does it relate to the current discussion?
It gave me the same feeling as the bumper stickers that talk about if you want a job done right hire a woman.
Tina
Tina, I don’t know why you draw these conclusions from what I say, that don’t follow.
Children shouldn’t treat adults as peers because children are children, and adults are adults. They are different, and the way children show adults respect does not involve sass and sarcasm.
None of that means that my kids are thrown into a moral dilemma when the mailman assigns them a science lesson they don’t want to do, and a guy walking by with his dog tells them they don’t have to do it. They owe the mailman and the dog walker no special honor or subjection, only the honor of respect and courtesy and charity.
Pat, I agree with you. But Tina is developing a parallel that indicates that there is actually some kind of duty owed by each woman to each man in general. Of course we all owe one another the duty of honor and respect, as appropriate to our different conditions. I owe an older woman special respect, and I owe any man I meet a certain level of respect (up to the point where it becomes clear that I am biblically required to treat him as the fool who is not even to be listened to.)
But it does not follow from that, that all men in general have some kind of position relative to me that requires a special duty whereby I am not free to use my own judgment against theirs without questioning whether I need to be “subject” to them or owe them “honor.” Clearly, given the original basis of this discussion (whether a woman can be a leadership position of any kind where men might be involved), honor here must mean not merely appropriate the respect and deference that we owe to all, applied to a particular person in a particular way, but something that enjoins her to defer her actions and her judgment to the instruction and desires of men generally. Yet if that were true, we would be enslaved to every fool and false teacher that came down the pike until we found another man who gave us the approval to disregard the first one — and then how would we know which to choose?
Pentamom,
I keep saying they don’t have to obey.
I feel like you are not listening to me either.
My point is that I am asking you to justify why children shouldn’t treat adults as peers.
I would argue women shouldn’t treat men as peers because men are men and women are women.
I agree with you about children and adults, but WHY?
I’m arguing it’s because God has instituted general roles and general order.
Let me say it again, just so you understand. I’m not talking about obedience. I’m using the word honor. Children are to honor adults and women are to honor men.
Does that make more sense?
Tina
Yes, but do you believe that women are required to honor men in a way men are not required to honor women? It seems the Bible speaks of mutual submission and respect with regards to men and women universally, and only speaks of a woman being particularly submissive to her own husband.
Tina, that certainly makes sense, but what does that have to do with women in civic leadership, then? Elizabeth makes the point well.
Pentamom,
You could go back and read my original comment to see it in its original context. It was posted on the other thread, Mrs. Palin, Take 3. The comment was posted on 9/1 at 5:02 pm.
And, Elizabeth, no I don’t mean mutual honor. I mean an honor that is due to one who is higher on the authority chain, for lack of a better explanation. God’s order has always been men, then women, then children.
Instead of putting forth more arguments, let me ask you this:
Why do children have to honor (not obey) adults in general more than their peers?
I’m going to leave it at that for tonight.
Good Night,
Tina
Tina,
Haven’t had much time today to read through everyone’s posts but here’s a short answer to your questions (though I would strongly disagree with your authority chain above — no time for that pleasant conversation now.)
You wrote to me,
“You said you’ve not seen anything that keeps you from believing that she is both honoring God and her husband in her public service. I don’t understand this.
Everyone keeps making outrageously positive assumptions about her? Why is this?”
I said what I said because I have not been privy to her conversations with her husband or the council she’s received from her pastor/elders. I don’t know what went into her decisions and so I do not believe that it is necessarily “wrong” or unbiblical for her to be VP. Is it the norm? No. But given the clear example of Deborah (who was not in sin no matter how you slice it), Palin assuming a role of leadership over men cannot be condemned outright. Am I saying you should vote for her? No. Not necessarily. She is, after all, stuck with McCain. Deborah was a wife and a mother . . . and the judge over all of Israel (their executive). It wasn’t until she had to lead the charge into battle that the men were shamed.
For Heather and Nancy Wilson,
Were I to muse on current political events on my non-existent blog, I could bask in obscurity, rest-assured that few people would stumble by to comment due to my being a no-body. You ladies don’t have that luxury. For several reasons, not the least of which this has been a good blog, you have lots of people visiting everyday, scrutinizing your every word. For that you have my sympathies.
With much love,
Ginny
Another thought–
I haven’t had cable TV since shortly after Desert Storm and NO reception at all since September of last year. I’m wondering if this is a factor in my gut level reaction to all this being different from many others here.
LOOK HERE IS HOW IT WORKS…
GOD
MAN
WOMAN
CHILD
Pretty simple… The MAN is HEAD of the HOME. The WOMAN is next then the CHILD. Then it flows back the other way with the headship at GOD. OK lets do this again… GOD MAN WOMAN Child. See how that works its really pretty simple once you pull your head out of the sand.
The biggest problem we have is the Church has failed to raise Godly men that can lead a family and our men are failing us women and in-turn us women are failing our children. SEE THE PROBLEM. If you do not it may be because you see yourself as a Peer with your Husband or MAN. Well I guess you will just have to take that one up with GOD. I am sure he will be more then willing to listen to your arguments… I mean its only his LAW maybe its like a speeding ticket you can talk your way out of it or something.
OK so lets review… I am not a peer with my husband nor are WOMEN peers with MEN. I am in submission to his authority. HE (being MAN) is the HEAD of the HOME. Is that really so hard… OOOHHH yes of course it is because the Lord God says in Genesis 3:16 …your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your master. (or rule over you or shall have dominion over thee… …etc) we have no place in leadership, government, military or for that matter voting let alone running for VP. I will go toe 2 toe Biblically on these issues.
Amber
Amber, could you explain more fully? I agree that in the home, the order is God Man Woman Child.
How does that translate to men generally and women generally? You and Tina keep saying it does, but the scriptures you cite are all about relationships between specific men and specific women, not me and some man to whom I have no connection beyond being fellow humans. Can you explain how you are deriving the idea biblically that all men and all women need to relate in ways similar to the way each husband and wife relate to one another? I’m fully aware that there are some roles that are appropriate to men and some that are appropriate to women, but that tells me nothing about how I am to relate to men. It tells me I shouldn’t be a soldier or a church leader and my husband shouldn’t stay home to raise my kids. It doesn’t tell me why I am somehow below another man who is neither my pastor, father, or civic leader in some hierarchy (and note, I’m not objecting to the idea of hierarchy.)
Pentamom,
I would ask you to first justify why children should honor their elders.
If someone told you you were completely out to lunch and that children are peers with adults (other than their own parents), what would you tell them?
Thanks,
Tina
If all women are under the authority of all men, what happens when two men (neither her elders or husband) give conflicting messages to a woman? To whom is she supposed to obey?
Patricia,
Please refer to my comment to you under the other thread.
Tina
The answer is that they’re children, and that God has not given them the wisdom and maturity of their elders.
On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence in scripture for honor being given to those who are hierarchical peers. Older men are not by definition “over” younger men, but scripture requires a certain kind of honor to older men. Your question creates a difficulty that does not exist in the scriptures. The scripture has no difficulty assigning various levels of respect and respectful interaction where the relationships are not hierarchical.
Again, the practical question — if there is a sense in which an unrelated man is “over” me, and he tells me to do something, do I really need a special justification not to do it? Do I even need to take the order seriously enough to decide whether there is a justification? Hierarchy implies authority, but respect does not imply hierarchy.
BTW, to reiterate something to make it clear — I believe that the roles of men and women, adults and children, and what have you, are clearly defined in scripture, and that it is quite possible to violate them, and that we may be talking about a case where it is violated. I also believe that there are above and below relationships of various kinds between people, and that they are related to sex.
What I reject is the idea that the existence of differentiation implies some kind of “above and below” relationship. It might, but it doesn’t have to.
Tina, that comment doesn’t address my question as you are still equating honor with an ontological hierarchy of authority placed on all men over all women when the Bible clearly states honor goes both ways.
Here is another question for Tina: you seem to have a category in your thought for “above, but not authoritative.”
What is the practical meaning of that? How is someone actually “over” someone else if, in the end, there is no actual authority attached to that “aboveness”? I don’t see a reason why that is “aboveness,” rather than “otherness.” That is to say, it makes biblical sense to say children are to treat adults as non-peers because biblically, adults aren’t peers. They are “other,” and scripture defines a certain kind of behavior toward this kind of “other.” But how are they actually “above” in a way that means anything, if the mailman really can’t require anything of my kids that respect and charity don’t require anyway?
I see you posted on another thread:
“Can we get beyond this obey thing and talk about respect/honor, the same kind that we teach our kids to do to adults?”
Okay, sure, but how does that bear on civil leadership? Do you think that a leader cannot respect and honor the citizens as he rules over them? I’m sure you don’t think that, but I’m at a loss as to the connection here between “respect/honor” and who is allowed a position of rulership over another.
So again, if it isn’t about who must obey whom, I’m just not understanding how the “over” thing works in your thoughts.
I just composed the following comment, but before I posted it I refreshed the screen and you ladies have been busy. I don’t have any more time, but if the following still leaves questions, I will answer them later when I have more time.
———————————–
OK, it’s becoming more clear how we are missing each other. Woo-hooo!
It’s not what you owe him when he asks something of you. I would rush right off and get my husband if any man asked anything out of the ordinary from me. Or I would refer him to my husband on the spot.
It’s more about how you treat him as A lord. He is not YOUR lord, but he is someone else’s lord. The fact is that he IS a lord.
Let me give you a working example.
It’s Sunday afternoon at a friend’s house. There are several families there. In the living room there is a group of lords or heads or men. The lords are engaging in rigorous discussions on theology, politics, business, etc. The helpmeets are in another room, maybe in the kitchen preparing lunch or outside watching the kids, engaging in rigorous discussions on the same subjects.
I would not go and sit down as a peer with the lords and engage in discussion with the same level of tone and manner. But rather, I would dialogue in a more inquisitive tone, formulating statements in questions, not as a rigorous peer like the other lords.
Men might say things like, “This is where you’re wrong…” or “That is completely unbiblical…” or “That thinking is going to take you down a road of destruction…”
I would say things like, “But wouldn’t that be…?” or “But I’ve always been taught…?”
Or “I don’t understand…?”
But in the group of helpmeets I would feel free to use the same language of the lords.
We teach our kids to do the same thing. They are not to contradict adults. They are not to say, “That’s not true” or “I don’t think so”. They are to say, “Really, my dad taught me that…” Or, “Really, I learned in homeschool that…”
This is what I mean by honoring the lords in general.
Here’s another working example. Three couples go out to dinner. It would seem ridiculous that each woman would owe a certain level of respect to her own husband, but that it’s free game with the other two men at the table.
This is also what I mean by honoring the lords in general.
This is all I am saying. I’m saying that in Nancy’s example of the classroom, I would have gone and gotten the principal rather than rebuke the man or ask him to obey me by leaving. And in Nancy’s example of the man at church, I would have gone and gotten my husband or at least referred him to my husband rather than correct him.
This is all I’m saying.
I’m NOT saying that I have to do anything that another man asks me to do. If a man asked me to do anything out of the ordinary requests, I would refer him to my husband.
Is this clearer?
Tina
P.S. My husband just called me to point out that this is the example of Esther. I would encourage you to read the passage and see how she treated men in general.
It applies to civil leadership because like I said in my comment on the other thread, “men were created to be lords and women were created to be helpmeets. Women don’t suddenly become lords the minute they step outside the home or outside the church doors. What a crazy world that would be.”
I’m really enjoying your comments, Pentamom. They’re giving me fresh food for thought.
Tina,
Sorry, I seem late to the discussion, but I capitalized “woman” because I’m not computer savvy enough to know how to do italics.
My point is that God never meant all children to give honor to all adults. There are dragons and wolves out there who would devour our young ones if given the chance. The sword of the spirit is given to slay them, not honor them.
I do teach my children to honor and love all of God’s people. One of the ways they do that is to learn how to protect God’s people by slaying dragons.
Ultimately, God raises up conquerors through women. That was the point of my last sentence.
I hope this helps. I realize sometimes that not everyone can hear the ongoing conversations in my head.
Brittany
Tina,
So if a man were to get in on this particular discussion, would you back down?
Hi everyone. I am twelve years old and would just like to say that I think the way you guys (esp. Tina, Tim and Amber)are treating one another is just awfull. I do NOT want to be disrespectfull, sarcastic, or sassy. But I just wanted to say this. My mom loves Mrs. Wilsons blog and gets alot of good advice from it. Everyone is entiltled to their own opinion. If you don’t agree with someone you don’t have to be rude about it.
Thanks for listening to MY opinion.
Hi,
I am twelve years old and I just want to say to Tina Amber and Tim especialy that I cant beleive how rude you are being! Everyone should be entitled to their own oppinion and if you can’t be kind about it leave it alone! My personal opinion about Sarah Palin is that I think she would do a good job as vice pres. I watched her speach last night and I think she really knows who she is talking about. And I also feel that women and girls are not in submission to every man and adult they come in contact with. We need to be respectfull of course but I for one am not going to do what ever my non-beleiver neighbors want me too. I don’t see anything wrong with a woman being president. Deborah was a judge as many have pointed out, and God chose her.
Thankyou for listening.
PS
Tina, I do not mean to be sassy, sarcastic or rude. This is my honest opinion.
I am Audrey’s mother. And she is really a lovely respectful girl. She asked permission before posting her comments, and I trusted her to do a nice job. I believe she did.
She thought her comment was lost, and so she posted twice, though that was not her full intention.
Why is it that when those in the other camp are accusatory and rude, nobody calls them out? And yes if a man came on, I would defer to my husband. That is what I have done several times in the past.
I’m sorry, but I think I’m done. I dont’ know why I am lumped in with Tim and Amber. Why hasn’t anyone called out Jeanette, Kirsten or Patricia for their rude and false accusations?
I’ve just talked about the issues. I haven’t used ad hominem’s like the others. I haven’t been anywhere near as inflammatory as the others, yet I’m lumped in with them and then even singled out by Audrey, as if I’ve been the worst.
It’s jaded and I’m busy and tired and quite frankly, sad.
Best Wishes,
Tina
P.S. You ladies talk about rules of etiquette and your words being seasoned with salt, yet I find your underhanded, indirect so-called “gentle” comments much more offensive than the direct, straight talking ones. The comments about going to the roof, putting your pearls away, someone needing to starting their own blog, throwing peas and carrots are hypocritical, pseudo-pietistic, underhanded and downright hurtful. I would much rather be confronted directly.
don’t be too hard on yourselves ladies. i think you are poking along quite decent. very articulate and trying hard to understand the other’s position. wouldn’t want you to get mousy on me all of the sudden. chin up.