The hiatus is broken with a small-time theological issue.
Johnny Weeks, a biblicist/evangelical friend of mine with whom I worked at Shenandoah Shakespeare last summer, (and whose picture can be seen here -- he's the one with the gun) was once telling me about a taped sermon he was listening to. The preacher, he remembered, said something like "I'm telling you -- if, as you're driving home or to work, you've been praying, 'Please, God, please let the good parking spot in front of my building be open,' and you get there, and the spot is open, thank God for his infinite kindness and leave the parking spot open for the next person." When I told this to Laura, she said something like, "Yes, that's [the Buddhist concept of] non-attachment." We were both rather impressed, if I remember correctly.
I was reminded of this the other day when, driving home from dropping Laura off at work, I heard a Weekend Edition piece on a Buddhist Driving School in Maryland. Bante Ubaratana, (spelling?) the instructor, is attempting to create a "common ethic of caring on Maryland's roadways." Ubaratana instructs his students to avoid the "sickness ongoing" of anger, and seeks to keep his young students focused and mindful on the road. This leads, one can easily imagine, both to safer driving in general and a decreased tendency towards road rage. According to the story, "Ubaratana says even he struggles to practice loving driving. He spends several hours a day in his blue minivan getting to classes or running errands for his temple, and sometimes he loses patience with drivers who switch lanes without signaling. But, then he tries to empathize. Maybe they just had a rough day."
There are a few other examples of American religion used to effect smallball change like this (the great bumper sticker, "I bet Jesus would have used his turn signal" springs to mind) but it seems to me that religious communities spend too much time worrying about big issues that people face, at best, a few times over the course of a life. Liberal Churches are all over themselves about peace vigils and opposing Israeli defense policy. Biblicist Churches concentrate too heavily on finger sins.* The amount of time that human beings spend committing adultery, engaging in queer sex, investing in Caterpillar or praying for peace is, in the long run, a blink of the eye in the overall course of their lives. Maybe churches should spend an equivalent amount of time talking about the small sins we take with us on our daily commutes. This, it seems to me, would do more to make our nation and our world a better place than stressing out about a wall in the Middle East or whether or not your sexually-active friends are "married before God."**
* "If there is one thing that distinguishes evangelical preaching on social issues, it is what Samuel Hill once described memorably as “finger sins.” For evangelicals, Christian morality has long centered on “right behavior” in personal relations and preachers emphasize lapses as grave failings. The literature from the United States shows abundantly that the major themes of evangelical preaching on politics are concerns about alcohol abuse, drug use, homosexuality, abortion, sexuality in the media, etc." Hoover et al. "Evangelicalism Meets the Continental Divide: Moral and Economic Conservatism in the United States and Canada." "Finger sins" were mentioned on an episode of Chicago Public Radio's Odyssey. As my friend Jon likes to tell it, the guest mentioned them, and Gretchen Helfrich, the program's terrific host said, "Finger sins?!" The guest explained the term, and Gretchen said, "Oh, when you first mentioned it, I thought you meant 'The sins of the finger shall be visited upon the toe.'"
**This is not to say that momentous events and our reactions to them are somehow unimportant or to be ignored. Expect a post on those sometime soon. (That one has been kicking around in my head so much that I haven't been able to write anything else.) They should be, however, (to a certain extent at least) de-emphasized.
I was reminded of this the other day when, driving home from dropping Laura off at work, I heard a Weekend Edition piece on a Buddhist Driving School in Maryland. Bante Ubaratana, (spelling?) the instructor, is attempting to create a "common ethic of caring on Maryland's roadways." Ubaratana instructs his students to avoid the "sickness ongoing" of anger, and seeks to keep his young students focused and mindful on the road. This leads, one can easily imagine, both to safer driving in general and a decreased tendency towards road rage. According to the story, "Ubaratana says even he struggles to practice loving driving. He spends several hours a day in his blue minivan getting to classes or running errands for his temple, and sometimes he loses patience with drivers who switch lanes without signaling. But, then he tries to empathize. Maybe they just had a rough day."
There are a few other examples of American religion used to effect smallball change like this (the great bumper sticker, "I bet Jesus would have used his turn signal" springs to mind) but it seems to me that religious communities spend too much time worrying about big issues that people face, at best, a few times over the course of a life. Liberal Churches are all over themselves about peace vigils and opposing Israeli defense policy. Biblicist Churches concentrate too heavily on finger sins.* The amount of time that human beings spend committing adultery, engaging in queer sex, investing in Caterpillar or praying for peace is, in the long run, a blink of the eye in the overall course of their lives. Maybe churches should spend an equivalent amount of time talking about the small sins we take with us on our daily commutes. This, it seems to me, would do more to make our nation and our world a better place than stressing out about a wall in the Middle East or whether or not your sexually-active friends are "married before God."**
* "If there is one thing that distinguishes evangelical preaching on social issues, it is what Samuel Hill once described memorably as “finger sins.” For evangelicals, Christian morality has long centered on “right behavior” in personal relations and preachers emphasize lapses as grave failings. The literature from the United States shows abundantly that the major themes of evangelical preaching on politics are concerns about alcohol abuse, drug use, homosexuality, abortion, sexuality in the media, etc." Hoover et al. "Evangelicalism Meets the Continental Divide: Moral and Economic Conservatism in the United States and Canada." "Finger sins" were mentioned on an episode of Chicago Public Radio's Odyssey. As my friend Jon likes to tell it, the guest mentioned them, and Gretchen Helfrich, the program's terrific host said, "Finger sins?!" The guest explained the term, and Gretchen said, "Oh, when you first mentioned it, I thought you meant 'The sins of the finger shall be visited upon the toe.'"
**This is not to say that momentous events and our reactions to them are somehow unimportant or to be ignored. Expect a post on those sometime soon. (That one has been kicking around in my head so much that I haven't been able to write anything else.) They should be, however, (to a certain extent at least) de-emphasized.
thus sayeth Tyler Simons on Tuesday, August 23, 2005
74 Comments:
I think your quote on "evangelical preaching" is largely out of date. While that "right behavior" strain of American evangelicalism does survive in some instances, the new wave of megachurches tend to be very small-bore in their moral advice. Check out Wolf, 'The Transformation of American Religion' on this, where he finds feel-good uplift to be widely dispersed across the theological spectrum. Look at the list of 'Christian' bestsellers and see how self-help focused it is. You here a lot of stuff about driving and the job and how to look nice for your husband from Joel Osteen et al.
Now, this is somewhat different from what you've laid out here. My guess is, however, that at a lot of churches that aren't SP-R or other Chicago lefty type parishes, you won't hear a whole lot about Catepillar or the environment or whatever else. In three years of Iraq crisis, I can count on one hand the number of references to the war I've heard from the pulpit at my north side church. With the national churches, it's a different matter, I agree. But my guess is that the small-bore stuff is a lot more common than you may think.
Good. I've never heard Jim Steen talk about Iraq or Israel at SP-R, for what it's worth. I was thinking, mostly, about a John Buchanan sermon I heard at Rockefeller two years ago.
I'll check out the Wolf, though, sound's interesting. I really just wanted to relate the finger-sin Odyssey anecdote. I think it's funny. I do think there's a difference between the mega-church self-help stuff and the everyday mindfulness that I'm talking about, but maybe a comparison between the Purpose Driven Life and Osteen's work and Buddhist non-attachment might be fruitful for the mainline denominations. Funny how I'm less sceptical of Buddhism than watered-down evangelicalism. That's probably quite orientalist of me in some way.
Yeah, from what I've heard, the average Buddhist isn't any more sophisticated than your average Christian. Occupational hazard of being religious.
I'mmmmm baaaaaack
Hi all,
I am trying to think about this. The Purpose Driven Life stuff was all very positive (how to act) and had very little negative (what not to do); and very much avoided sexual sin.
Its political program is to apply Christian principles in Africa.
My major concern with my personal sin is second looks at women and gawking in general. I tend to believe that women are quite aware when men are objectifying them (glancing at breasts, butts, etc). I also tend to think that the general response of women to these objectification is not positive.
This has far more of a direct impact than cutting someone off in traffic; and is every bit mentioned by Christ - and for the married man every bit adultery. This is not adultery practiced seldom but with a large number of men practiced every day.
Where does this fall in your "finger sin" world?
Actually, ogling generally bothers me less than someone cutting me off in traffic. Even cat-calling, unless I feel actually threatened by the guy. Granted, I can remember being really pissed off by guys commenting and whistling, when I lived in a neighborhood full of lots of idle guys with nothing better to do--but I wasn't driving then, either.
And enjoying attractive bodies going by isn't high on my list of things I'm not proud of. Maybe it helps that I call it people-watching more than gawking. But sometimes it's definitely gawking.
I have heard that generally women (and I would feel this way) get tired of talking to guys whose eyes are attached to their cleavage instead of their face. Of course, this is so common that it perhaps is only noticed when it is absent. Maybe I am wrong and the new generation of women do not consider this to be sexist and demeaning anymore.
I will be a prude and say that it is sexist, demeaning, and not how God wishes His daughters to be treated by His sons. I will also say this has more real impact on how Christian men are perceived by non-Christian (or Christian) women than whatever Bible verses come out of their mouth; or even what other Christian practice they may engage in.
Of course, I do not believe Christians should drive non-mercifully or non-gracefully either.
Don't get me wrong, I love breasts and asses as much as the next guy, but when I'm checking out the ladies (Which happens very, very rarely, of course. It goes without saying that Laura is the finest of the ladies) the connection between my eyes and the headlights and taillights is minimal -- "yup," I think, "They're there." I'm a sucker for a pretty face, though. Is oggling a woman's cheekbones as offensive as staring down her shirt? Jesus'd call it adultery (and once in a while, I'd agree) but I somehow doubt the women of today mind so much when guy's think they're beautiful, as long as, of course, the aforementioned guys aren't making the stupid assumption that this necessarily means they're dumb. (I have heard very intelligent, very beautiful University of Chicago girls making this complaint.) I think that this mistaken assumption is a worse sin than a little bit of lust. Judge not v. pluck out your eye -- take your pick.
Anyway, I think guys my age (this is me generalizing from my own personal experience, nothing more) have seen so much cleavage that it's not really that interesting anymore. Not that it doesn't have its pleasant occasions, but I've never (even in my agnostic days) felt unable to carry on a real conversation because of it. Well there was that woman with the implants at the store the other day, but I was trying to keep from lauging, and I'm not sure that counts.
One of the annoying things about Christianity is its impossible commandments. A person can avoid committing adultery, but not even thinking about it? The Catholics took the Sermon on the Mount to be "counsels of perfection" that applied only to monastics, Luther took them to apply to everyone but to be so impossible as to exist only to convict us of sinfulness, not actually to be fulfilled. Either way, the impossibility had been acknowledged.
So ogling and gawking are bad--Jesus is quite clear on this. Whether it's a pretty face or other body parts that attract our attention, we're doing something very wrong when we look at others through the prism of our desires, however refined, beautiful, or harmless those desires may be. But in terms of sins that I intend to flay myself over, this is not one I can muster a whole lot of enthusiasm for. I'm with Luther on this one.
The other sin here is not the lust per se but the treatment of another that arises from it--what assumptions I make about women based on their appearance, how I interact with them, etc. There is the familiar problem of assuming that attractive women are dumb, that provocatively-dressed women are easy, and so on. There is an interesting and less remarked corollary, though, which is that studies have found that people have across-the-board higher estimations of an attractive woman (or man, but less so) than a less attractive one--e.g., they are judged smarter, nicer, more accomplished. In this way there is a curious inversion of the lust problem, namely, how do we (and how does our society) treat people who aren't good looking?
Perhaps these things are all beyond the reach of our conscious life, too, and we will be wholly at the mercy of God for their forgiveness. I think in any case, the sin here goes far deeper than action (as sin always does) and into profound psychological dispositions that are fiendishly hard to identify, much less root out.
That's a good reason why churches would be better served to focus more on helping people drive with focus and forgiveness and less on stressing out about lust.
If I might weigh in as a woman here...
I appreciate it when guys look at me and find me attractive. I don't appreciate it when they reduce me to my body (or just a couple aspects thereof).
I think it's a question of intent. It's a natural thing to check someone out. (Girls do it to guys too, I might add...) If the gaze is lewd, it's offensive. But if it's genuine and respectful, then hey, that's a nice feeling.
Jesus hates you, Lisa.
The thrust of what I was actually saying was not really about the sin (its there); but about our Christian walk. The "being light and salt" and "known by our love" things. In other words, when people see us do they see something different and attractive spiritually that makes them ask: "What does he have; and where can I get some?"
When you approach someone in love you are looking for what you can give them; not what they can give you. You are looking for ways to bless them; and not ways they can bless you. You are looking at their heart and soul; not their body. Ben got closest to my point with "we're doing something very wrong when we look at others through the prism of our desires, however refined, beautiful, or harmless those desires may be". I am not even looking at the stereotypical things Ben brought up about pretty and dumb (etc).
Neither Lisa or Laura have said that they do not know when they are being checked out; and have expressed different levels of reaction to that (neither very offended). The point is they know. Men are not as stealthy as they think. As Christian men, how do you want to be viewed by women? And is this a minor issue?
Quickly back to the sin. A Men of Purity conference speaker made the point that God made us beautiful, with an appreciation of beauty, not because he didn't want us to go "Wow, she's gorgeous". Lust doesn't exist in that 1st look and that 1st reaction. No temptation is sin (and obviously you have to notice to be tempted). The sin rests in where it goes from there.
Lust doesn't exist in that 1st look and that 1st reaction.
It doesn't? This sounds like the Roman Catholic notion of concupiscence, a state that, while "objectively anti-God," is not itself sin.
Anyway, I agree with the main thrust of your comment, which, as I was trying to point out, Jesus was a Kantian--treat others as ends in themselves, not as means to anyone else's ends.
Are you saying that temptation isn't sin, or did you miss a period and mean to write "No, temptation is sin?" If temptation isn't sin, what does Jesus mean when he says "Everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
I'm unclear on the line you're drawing between lust and temptation. Do you mean that it's okay to, for example, say to your self, "Wow, what incredible cleavage" but not to say "Oh, heavens, I'd love to expose those barely-concealed love bags and suckle like a little child?" The latter seems to me like textbook temptation, but I think it goes beyond your 1st look formulation.
Oh wait, Ben already made the same point in different words. Interesting point, though, about Jesus being a Kantian. In the Religion, Kant wrote:
Frequently this interpretation may, in the light of the text (of the revelation), appear forced -- it may really be forced; and yet if the text can possibly support it, it must be preferred to a literal interpretation which either contains nothing at all [helpful-(bracketed in text)] to morality or else works counter to moral incentives.
In other words, if scripture can possibly support an interpretation that leads one to the proper moral life, this is the interpretation that must be used, no matter how much it distorts the intentional meaning of scripture. One could argue that Jesus does this (and Paul obviously does) with the Hebrew scriptures. I always laugh to myself when Biblicists accuse liberal Christians of ignoring or distorting Biblical passages -- it's not like St. Paul or Christ were literalists. That's neither here nor there, though.
"Everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
As you said, no one can avoid looking, and seeing. If you are sitting on the beach rotating your head rapidly trying to catch the smallest thong - looking is sin because you are doing it TO lust. If you and Laura are sitting on the beach and a gorgeous women comes by and you go "Wow"; and then bounce your eyes back to Laura - what is that? Have you looked at her "to lust"? Lust is a strong word - much stronger than temptation. Recognizing the beauty God has created in a women is not lust; desiring it and fantasizing about it is lust. There are men I know who simply would not put themselves on that beach because it is not in them yet not to lust - but it isn't necessary to lust.
Temptation is not sin. Christ was tempted in the desert - yet didn't sin. He did not yield to the temptation. We are all tempted every day in many ways. Tempted to lie (little white or otherwise); tempted to steal (the clerk gave me too much change; I grabbed a couple of grapes while shopping); tempted to lust; and tempted to flip off the jackass that cut us off in traffic. It is constant. Our character and measure is what we do with the temptation; and where we turn for strength.
Leaving Paul aside: How can Jesus ignore or distort the original meaning of scripture? He was God and knew the original meaning far better than the Jewish religious leaders. He also came to change the rules and to write the law on our hearts. Christ was THE literalist.
Temptation is not sin. Christ was tempted in the desert - yet didn't sin.
A better word for "temptation" in rendering the Greek might be "test" or "trial." Every theologian I know of would agree that a trial or an occasion for sin is not in itself sinful, but many would distinguish between the occasion and the human disposition. Insofar as temptation is something "in" us, it has a dimension of sinfulness. When we experience temptation--that is, when we feel it, not just are exposed to it--we are experiencing our sinful nature.
I don't know, in my own life, how to draw the line between the disinterested admiration of a female form and fantasy/lust. It's a big ole gray area as far as I'm concerned, and I'm enough of a Reformation thinker to believe that there is no true, disinterested, sinless appreciation of beauty any more than that the lewdest fantasy has no touch of true erotic love in it.
All this points to, in my thinking, immense gratitude for a God who does not keep score of actions on a big ledger. God is not a lawyer. The sinner/saint divide runs through every single aspect of human life. Saying that we should act without sin is like saying we should act without blood vessels. It just ain't in the cards.
Tyler – thank you, you’ve made my day. I’ve never had a Christian tell me that Jesus hates me. That’s fantastic. People like you make me feel the most like I could be Christian (well, except that that’s not going to happen) and do wonders towards my general respect of you guys.
Back to the point…
John – once again, I bow in reverence to your ability to sidetrack the main post to a barely-related issue. (This doesn’t mean that it isn’t fun to talk a bit with you, though!) However, since we’re on it, let’s look at some of the things you said:
“You are looking at their heart and soul; not their body.”
Well, but come on now, you’re looking at the entire person. From a historical perspective, Christianity as a whole has a very uneasy relationship with the body and with sexuality – and that seems to be very much the case today as well. I want to love an entire person, not create some false dichotomy between the ‘spiritual’ and ‘physical’...
“As Christian men, how do you want to be viewed by women?”
Whoa. Want to speak for these women much? This kind of attitude is especially pernicious because it presumes to respect women while silencing them. Can we please let the women themselves speak on this one, instead of making assumptions? And as far as that goes, I don’t think less of a guy if he checks me out if it’s in a respectful way. Neither Laura or I have said we are offended by that. It’s a natural thing, and we need to start accepting sex and our bodies and everything attached to that as part of our lives instead of sticking our fingers in our ears and pretending it doesn’t exist. Personally, I’m sick of the cheap degradation of sex on both sides of the spectrum. Erotic love isn’t sinful. The body isn’t sinful. And by the same token, vapid objectification of the human form (male or female) in order to sell products isn’t healthy.
The problem is – as we’ve been circling it like vultures, let’s just get to it, shall we? – using other people as means to your own ends, rather than ends in and of themselves (thanks for the wording, Benjamin). Doris Lessing has a great line in “The Golden Notebook” about the kind of guy who, when he looks at a woman, is imagining her after he’s fucked in into oblivion. That’s where we have a problem here. It’s offensive when a guy lewdly stares at my breasts when I’m trying to talk to him (believe me, it was difficult to get to know guys when we were teenagers, because I’ve got the cleavage to work with), but that has more to do with using my body against me, to degrade me, to treat me as a source of satisfaction (or perhaps frustration, hehe) to him than it has to do with the sexual attraction involved.
"Everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
I don’t have a Greek text in front of me (nor would I know how to read it if I did), but it seems that the idea is that the man must specifically seek out the woman because he wants to stir up those feelings of lust. Just noticing someone and recognizing their attractiveness wouldn’t seem to count. And if you’re married to someone and you’re actively seeking out someone else, then yeah, you are committing adultery in your heart. I think this is more of a text about commitment than lust.
(John, I know you didn’t just say that Jesus was God. I’m pretty sure that’s heretical. Just saying - I’m not one to speak, though!)
Lisa, thanks for coming back. A few things:
Tyler – thank you, you’ve made my day. I’ve never had a Christian tell me that Jesus hates me. That’s fantastic. People like you make me feel the most like I could be Christian (well, except that that’s not going to happen) and do wonders towards my general respect of you guys.
Tyler's a little free with the sarcasm. He didn't mean it, I can say with total confidence.
(John, I know you didn’t just say that Jesus was God. I’m pretty sure that’s heretical.
Quite the contrary: "I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one being with the Father. That's from the Nicene Creed, authoritative for Orthodox, RC, and orthodox Protestants. Also John 1: "In the beginning was the word and the word was with/towards god and god was the word" (my translation with capitals left out). Jesus is God. This causes some pretty big philosophical problems, especially with respect to Jesus's suffering, but that's a tune from another opera.
Lisa,
No, it is not heretical to say Jesus is God (probably is to say He's not). A discussion of the Trinity right now would be a real sidetrack.
Pardon if I sidetracked the thread - if Tyler agrees I will bow out. I think he was saying that there are some major day-to-day, human-to-human issues that are missed by Christianity in favor of being anti-war or anti-abortion or anti-adultery. My take on "finger sins" is that these are ones we might commit 1-5 times in our lives; not everyday. I know from previous discussions that he is not all that "amped up" over sexual sin. I think he would have considered it a minor blip on his personal radar. I was attempting to bring up its impact on others; and its real day-to-day and human-to-human impact. An impact much more personal than our driving habits. Is that off point?
Overall, you and Ben and I are saying nothing different. He got it from Kant; me from Jesus; you from Lessing. Isn't Natual Law great? I have only one minor problem with your post:
“You are looking at their heart and soul; not their body.” Well, but come on now, you’re looking at the entire person . . . I want to love an entire person, not create some false dichotomy between the ‘spiritual' and ‘physical' . . . “As Christian men, how do you want to be viewed by women?” Whoa. Want to speak for these women much? This kind of attitude is especially pernicious because it presumes to respect women while silencing them
The first part of what you say is the way it ought to be; and I think women "in general" tend to be more holistic in their approach to relationships. When I say God created beauty and expected that we appreciate it as part of His creation - I am attempting to get to that point. As Ben points out, that separation between recognizing beauty and devolving into lust is very difficult - especially for men. Before you blast me for my sexism, what are your thoughts on pornography? Certainly women look at it too; but why is it so prevalent in men's lives? Try reading (its Christian, forgive me) "Every Man's Battle". Whether you agree with it or not, you may understand my view (and learn something about men).
The second part is impractical. If we agree (from Kant, Jesus, and Lessing) that men should not be using a women's "body against [them], to degrade [them], to treat [them]as a source of satisfaction" or "using other people as means to your own ends, rather than ends in and of themselves" then what is the solution? Not to do it - control your eyes. Correct? What does this have to do with speaking for women? Silencing them? Nothing.
I am not speaking to, or for, women. I am speaking to men (particularly Christian men) and saying that they are not "getting away with" those looks. Even if (big if - I like what Ben said above) their motives are pure, how do they know how those actions are perceived by women they do not know. Do Christian men just want to be "another guy" when it comes to this issue?
JCH--
I think you're right on with most of this. I'm going to argue with this, however:
My take on "finger sins" is that these are ones we might commit 1-5 times in our lives; not everyday.
This expresses a particular notion of what sin is that I have to take issue with. Sin is not an action that can be committed or avoided, and if not avoided, repented. It is a quality of an action, not an action itself. We do not "commit" abortion only when we have or collude to have one--we are guilty of the sin inherent in abortion (moral haggling aside) when we do anything that encourages or tolerates it. This includes the whole host of things we were discussing in the thread below (which I mention to avoid another abortion discussion). So if you haven't actively helped to prevent abortion, you're just as guilty of it as anyone who has one. The same thing is true, mutatis mutandis, with war--it is not a sin that we commit as a discrete instance. The souls of 25,000 Iraqis and 2,000 coalition troops are on our account, whether we supported the war or not, whether or not we pull the trigger. We all participate in this. So how the church talks about war and abortion are great matters indeed. We can't segregate our actions from the various social facts we condone, encourage, or are otherwise indifferent to.
The idea of "committing sins" also tends to emphasize the negative commands at the expense of the positive ones. My biggest sin is refusal to share my (meager) wealth, time, and talents with those who need them. I do enough to ease my conscience, but that's the most wicked thing of all.
Biblically, the witness falls on different sides of this divide--the Roman Catholics and, increasingly, evangelicals, have emphasized sins as discrete actions and omissions, following the books of the Law. Protestants have typically emphasized sin as a dimension of life, in line with the prophets and some of the psalms. The NT witness is likewise divided.
Anyway, to bring this back to Tyler's main point, I don't think there is a real tradeoff between big/irrelevant sins and small-bore/relevant sins. All sin is absolutely relevant and it's the same tendency acting in all cases. The unneighborly driving, the SUV, and the war are all connected, just to take one obvious case. The great preacher is the one who can discern this vein of perversity running through our individual and social lives and bring it to light (with the appropriate gospel message, of course).
You're right, a discussion of the Trinity would sidetrack things. I believe I was confusing it with something else. I thought that there was a mistake in a simple equation of Jesus being God and then the separate beings were somewhat dissolved into that, which then rather voids the Trinity if that's all you read into it, but that's not what you're saying. Anyway, as I have made abundantly clear elsewhere, I'm no theologian.
Tyler, if you think you can be sarcastic, you'd have fun with my dry and droll sense of humor sometimes. Your original point was taken as it was intended, I assure you.
Again, John, please stop apologizing for giving Christian sources. Honesty and being upfront with one's position is better, as I said earlier. Actually, as for learning something about men, yesterday I went to the library and read a bunch of articles yesterday about masculine sexuality (and a few men's liberation articles as well). It was quite hopeful and enriching... James Nelson's work in particular might be interesting to you. (And hell, you might learn something about men yourself.:-P)
Quick responses:
-Pornography is an example of using another person for your own benefit (however questionable that benefit might be), objectifying women, and therefore does not fit in the "okay" bracket. Ugh. You can get an interesting view of it by crossing it with my comment on the "adultery in his heart" verse as well.
-I am quite sure you do not mean to, but women are amazingly silent in your rhetoric. We're not delicate flowers that can't withstand the sexual energy of men ... there seems to be an unstated assumption that we will be offended by a man's sexual arousal, but you don't come out and ask us. ::shrugs:: It's just weird how much men will sit around and discuss women's perspectives without a single woman present.
-Is sexual arousal a sin to you? It seems to be an uncomfortable topic. If a guy looks at me and gets a hard-on, that's quite all right with me, as long as he doesn't assume that means I want to do anything with it. Sexual arousal is pretty automatic - men just can't hide it as well as women can. It's not a big deal. (I'm taking it that's what you mean by 'lust'?)
-("Do Christian men just want to be "another guy" when it comes to this issue?") Why do you need to feel special? You're a human being like everyone else. All of this higher-standard bs is just a superiority complex in the vast majority of cases. I think Jesus says somewhere that you can be a good person without following him (not going to look it up, hopefully you know what I'm referencing). What I'm talking about are just general standards of decency; if you're saying that being Christian means having an incredibly awkward relationship with your own body, being uncomfortable with the physical, then fine - I'll be quite happy to be just another girl then.
Tyler, if you think you can be sarcastic, you'd have fun with my dry and droll sense of humor sometimes.
Lisa, that sound's like I'd be using you as a means to an end, rather than an end in yourself. I shouldn't do that, as it would be committing a sin.
Lisa,
Let's see - your missing my heart here. An analogy: there was a time I was deeply involved in anti-racism politics. The key to not "doing something for the downtrodden" (thank you massah) is that you feel it. I didn't oppose racism to help "those people"; I opposed it because it insulted me - I took offense.
I have talked to many women on this issue with varying opinions. This conversation is not being held to my knowledge in the absence of women (you and Laura have commented - AMB is probably around somewhere). I do not need women however to tell me that taking mental pictures of women to use later for my sexual gratification is wrong. Further, if I want to have good relationships with women in general (say as a pastor) can there be a hint that I am doing this? Also, as Ben indirectly points out - what does doing this do to my inner self? I have been objectified on many levels in my life. Under "do unto others" or "love my neighbors as myself" shouldn't I be offended at your objectification?
I am not really talking about having an erection being the gauge of lust. It isn't. I cannot really explain this well - but Ben knows what I am talking about (and I would guess Tyler does to) and might, or might not, put this into better words.
Ben's whole last post is close to brilliant. He and I could nuance the discussion a little more but we are very much on the same page. Why do I hold myself to a "higher level"? Why am I not willing to "be human"? I will give you this link [this is chapter 31, but I would suggest 29-30 and 32 as well] and excerpt this:
I find I must borrow yet another parable from George MacDonald. Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on: you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently he starts knocking the house about in a way that hurt abominably and does not seem to make sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of-throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were going to be made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself.
Christ "living in me" is not rhetoric.
First, I apologize for not being in here more... I've been a bit distracted. We have new kitty who is taking a while to adjust and vacation is approaching. I've also been doing some career life planning that is seeming rather foolish, but no one is stopping me or telling me so. It makes me suspicious. Thus, I make no claims to the coherency of this post. Much will be little points that respond to something, but I refuse to connect dots until Sept 26. :) I'm enjoying the conversation, however, and Lisa and Laura have been responding as accurate representations of my own reactions.
"I am not really talking about having an erection being the gauge of lust. It isn't. I cannot really explain this well - but Ben knows what I am talking about (and I would guess Tyler does to) and might, or might not, put this into better words."
I would like an explanation thenm from JCH especially but all are welcome. I work with the traditional definition of lust (coutesy of the OED): to take pleasure or delight in. There are many things that I delight in, as humans are designed to, specifically symetry. I would consider it a lie to say that I do not "lust" any of my gentlemen friends. I find them all pleasing and some a physical attraction as well. If my partner were non-existent (fortunately not!), perhaps there would be a relationship or two (would that be scandalous?!)
While somewhat tangenting, what then is an erection a measure? I have always understood it to be the autotomic nervous system response relatinging to increase circulation mediated by conscious or subconscious thought and surroundings which may or may not fully brought to the fore by the mental filters. With men, it is much easier to read these signs, as Lisa stated, which is why they are used for so many more and interesting experiments in sexuality than women. Minds lie, bodies rarely do.
For years this conversation has been held without women, or at least without women's participation intellectually. It is only recently that it has been opened to us.
"what does doing this do to my inner self? I have been objectified on many levels in my life. Under "do unto others" or "love my neighbors as myself" shouldn't I be offended at your objectification?"
A theory in psychology that is not well liked right now is that altruism does not exist. Instead, the endorphines gained from altruistic actions may be one of the few reasons that people help others - to feel better about themselves or to justify their past. Could this instead be a reason for opposition to objectification? Does the rational behind it matter? Does it make a difference legistically?
Lisa, I really must apologize for Tyler's remark. We, as somethings (mostly Christian usually?), do not hold to such feelings. Instead, let me fully express a statement to you to override Tyler's, which I hope that you will fully understand and appreciate: "Jesus may love me, but he sure hates you."
AMB,
I think there is a separation (well I know there is with me) between desire/lust and arousal - which you could measure by an erection. I think a large number of men are sexual "image collectors": they like seeing all they can see. Sometimes they do that on the internet, sometimes on a beach or at the mall. LIke potato chips, they cannot eat just one.
As Ben, and Lisa, talked about there is that line where you go from catching the sight of an attractive women accidentally (with whatever reaction); and actively seeking them out.
Men who rely on those "mental pictures" to form the basis of their fantasies when they masturbate usually "store them" and "replay them" later when they are ready to be aroused, and to act on that arousal.
I find myself staring, copping "looks", placing myself in position to see more, etc - but this seeking of sexual images does not cause me to get an erection. However, my sexual orientation is not to fantasy and images anyway - it has always been to living breathing humans.
It sounds like I am saying there is another level of activity above temptation; and below actual arousal. I probably am.
Tyler and Ben can weigh in. I admit that I, at least in the past, have not had a healthy sexual life (at least not what God would consider healthy). Now how much of that sense comes from the Co-resident of my spiritual "house"; and how much is really outside normal male behavior is a question I am not even trying to answer. The men I talk to about this are also men in that same position. Narrow viewpoint.
I will quote from "Every Man's Battle":
"Our eyes give men the means to sin broadly and at will. We don't ever need to wait. We have our eyes and can draw sexual gratification through them at will. We are turned on by female nudity in any way, shape or form.
We aren't picky. It can come in a photograph of a nude stranger just as easily as in a romantic interlude with a wife. We have a visual ignition switch when it comes to viewing the female anatomy.
Women seldom understand this because they aren't sexually stimulated in the same way. Their ignitions are tied to touch and relationship. They view this visual aspect of our sexuality as shallow and dirty [Lisa's "ugh" reaction to pornography] . . . For males, impurity of the eyes is sexual foreplay"
I cannot remember the last time I had to hide an erection in public. It's a dull memory - but it must have been in my early twenties. Men learn to control that reaction in public (or get very embarrassed a lot).
WHOA there John, my "ugh" reaction to pornography has to do with the objectification of women and the use of another person for one's own gain, regardless of the effects on that person. The visual aspect of sexuality (BOTH male and female) isn't distasteful at all. Nowhere in my extremely brief discussion of pornography do I give any hint of finding arousal via visual stimulation to be distasteful. Where did you get that from? Please have more respect for the text you have in front of you and stop bending it or picking and choosing to meet your own rhetorical goals. (I might add that on your website the way you used quotes from me was rather liberal as well.)
I will write more after I read more. Coincidentally to this discussion, I have been reading up on male sexuality for fun (I tend to pick a random subject and just read a few articles as long as I have access to a university library) and have found very different understandings of what's being said here, to say the least. In the meantime, AMB, you're right on the money.
Lisa,
WHOA there John, my "ugh" reaction to pornography has to do with the objectification of women and the use of another person for one's own gain, regardless of the effects on that person
Relax, I didn't really say otherwise. Nowhere did the quote (or me) say that: "The visual aspect of sexuality . . . [is] distasteful at all". I said, through the quote, that women (I would add "generally" here) find a man's ability to experience sexual foreplay from viewing ANY women's naked body (or even a not naked body) as being "shallow and dirty". This just does not stand very far from (or indeed any distance from) "objectification of women and the use of another person for one's own gain"; and certainly there is no difference between pornography and capturing mental sexual images on a beach - or is there?
AMB
A theory in psychology that is not well liked right now is that altruism does not exist. Instead, the endorphines gained from altruistic actions may be one of the few reasons that people help others - to feel better about themselves or to justify their past. Could this instead be a reason for opposition to objectification? Does the rational behind it matter? Does it make a difference legistically?
Do you agree with this theory and are upset "they" are dumping it?
Are YOU offended (personally and not as a protective reaction of the weaker) by the objectification of other human beings even if you are not a part of the group being objectified? You seem to think I am sterotyping men: does that offend YOU or are you defending Tyler and Ben? If YOU are offended, is this because the "endorphines gained from altruistic actions" gives you a personal benefit?
Even if its endorphines or whatever - do you ever tell the people doing the objectifying (even if the objectified are not present) to not do that when you are present because YOU are offended by that (and not because it hurts "them")? In the case of racism, I did this when it was comparable to standing up in a conservative Baptist church and telling the pastor in the middle of his sermon that gay sex was ok. Not a lot of endorphines in that process I think. Tyler can say whether he does THAT for the endorphine rush; or whether he is just personally offended by societies treatment of gays.
I lay my history and soul out in these discussions. Perhaps you can step away from the psychology books and tell me what YOU feel/think on this issue.
General
Dear Abby once replied to a 60ish women whose husband was going to topless bars; and then coming home for sex (to paraphrase):
1) There are a bunch of 60ish old women who would not complain about repeated sex from their 60ish husband.
2) Who cares where he works up an appetite as long as he comes home to eat. [I used this to justify a lot for a long time]
What say y'all?
Okay, we need to debunk a few sexual myths about women. Let's start with this one: we are aroused by visual imagery just as men are; we're simply socialized to play it down or not even admit it to ourselves. Like I said before, we are not delicate, nonsexual flowers waiting for a man to bestow his touch upon us. And, for the record, I don't find it upsetting that my partner might look at any woman's body and find it arousing - I would be upset if he fell in love with the entirety of another woman, body, mind, and all. One of them threatens our relationship, and the other is just part of the foundation that makes our relationship exist.
Most of my reading has focused on male 1)nonrelational sexuality and 2)domination in male-female relationships. I am not sure that it will help the discussion on 'lust' (whatever we're taking that to mean) much. On the other hand, since you referenced good ol' Clives, what do you think of his defense of the idea that the man should rule his wife and she should submit to him? He's pretty clear on that.
Jhc, once again, you begin presuming. Maybe you can step away from your presumptions and listen and discuss what I said instead of accusing me of not being involved. I do give the theory of gain from altruistic actions (and therefore not altruism) quite a bit of credit. Again, read what I wrote. No one is dumping it. It makes people uncomfortable and is thus not in favor.
Life is not as simple as your questions make it. There is gain from altruism, whether that be a sense of respect for yourself ("I stood up in church") from yourself or others, or the adrenaline rush, or the warm fuzzy when you think of it. True altruism (to fit the definition) must come with no emotion, no thought, no reflection. I think it is a mistake to assume otherwise. I like to know why I feel the way I feel, why I act the way that I do. That way I can understand myself and others better. If I deny these things, then I endanger my knowledge of myself and how to better myself and make my actions more effective.
For example, I called 911 the other day because I could hear a women yelling "leave me alone" to a man pulling her down the street. When the police showed up 2 minutes later, I was pleased when though it seemed that there was no conflict and no one was in danger. Why?
Actions are not causational, any more than emotions. Just because there are endorphines/adrenaline (same as skydiving) does not mean that there are not other reasons for actions. Should we deny those as much as we deny possible chemical influences for "good" behavior? you try to put things/people/life in neat little boxes. It does not work. Life is not an either/or question, option a or b. Why can Tyler not (by your questions) be offended "because" he identifies with queers, is part of that culture, is outside of that culture, is protective of friends, opposed to what that treatment represents in greater schemes, sees patterns of behavior elsewhere, reminds him of some comment someone made about him or someone he knows, is justification of violence, distortion of God, is on a Monday when he cut himself shaving and ran out of coffee, is when he is feeling beligerent, and he gets an endorphine rush/respect boost from it? (To name a few of a blend.)
Lisa, I'll swap sources/citations with you. I'd be curious to know what you are looking at. Have you bopped into Journal of Sexuality or Journal of Personality and Social Psychology yet (my two favorites!)? I would agree completely with your first paragraph in the last post too, btw. Well said.
My quick response to the dear abby thing (who herself had many problems and gave much awful advice generally...) is that it is a problem since 1)wife objects. Lack of respect and communication. 2)is this the only time he has sex with her? I would have a problem if the only way my partner found me attractive is if he got rip roaring drunk. It indicates bigger problems in the relationship. I suspect her answer might have been different if it had involved drugs (would there be a difference in this case between the two?) 3)is he doing this so she is just another pair of knockers and a hole in a mattress? Again, relationship problems. 4) 4)but she shouldn't care because at least she gets laid.
Lisa
Talk about an ugly sidetrack: the Christian view on Submission in marriage.
Well, my wife and I both believe in it; and after 17 years of marriage neither of us has ever played our part in that correctly. We keep hoping we will get it right. Clive's principle reasons:
Something else, even more unpopular, remains to be dealt with. Christian wives promise to obey their husbands. In Christian marriage the man is said to be the `head'. Two questions obviously arise here. (1) Why should there be a head at all - why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?
(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs in a Christian marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach agreement. What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority. Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.
(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say 'Poor Mr X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.' I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own 'headship'. There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also another reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside even better than from inside. The relations of the family to the outer world -what might be called its foreign policy -must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?
This of course was written in about 1945. The first section is logical: someone will at some time have to have the deciding vote. I doubt if I would need two hands to count the times in my marriage when someone needed to cast the tiebreaker - but it has happened. In my marriage too that vote has not always been cast by me. My wife is disabled (work wise) and is the stay at home mom and housekeeper to my working life. If it has to do with the house or the children she has always been the tiebreaker because she is with both a much larger percentage of the time than me. This policy was decided by us unanimously.
The problem with this whole discussion is that it ignores the extraordinary role placed on husbands by the New Testament. Starting from the absolute, ironclad definition of loyalty implied by Matthew 5:28
and think about the deep implications of this: Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,[DIED FOR IT!] 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. [NOTICE THE WIFE BEING BLAMELESS IS NOT HER RESPONSIBILITY; BUT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HUSBAND IN HIS SACRIFICE FOR HER] 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body -- NASB
Every Christian marriage counselor I have been to would ask the husband (right after his complaint about his wife not "submitting") whether he had lived up to this standard. Submission conversation ended.
Frankly, the Bible makes it clear that a wife is to submit to a husband who is in submission to God - and therefore completely concerning himself not with his own personal self-interest; but placing his wife's interests first.
So, when you find such a man (good luck) and you are married - you can see whether submission is ever an issue.
I guess you would agree with Abbey:
It doesn't matter where your husband works up an appetite as long as he comes home to eat.
So, you and your husband are sitting in a bar (or at the beach, or in a restaurant): Are you saying he will have just as much trouble as you in not letting his eyes wander to good looking folk in the bar? That he will catch you "checking guys out" as much as you catch him "checking women out"?
Not my experience, but thats great.
AMB,
True altruism (to fit the definition) must come with no emotion, no thought, no reflection. I think it is a mistake to assume otherwise
I wouldn't agree. No one places themselves at risk (which we are talking about) with no emotion, no thought, no reflection. If someone places that as the definition then of course there is no altruism. Jesus was so stressed over the "cup" he was to take that he sweat blood. That is about as emotional as you can get. That is my definition of altruism.
I think it must come without expectation of earthly reward or benefit; but not without the expectation of God's reward.
Otherwise, I generally agree with you. I was mostly responding to the continually repeated theme of "we are not delicate, nonsexual flowers waiting for a man to bestow his touch upon us. (or to protect us, etc)". This could be extended to racial issues. You can take up these issues out of a desire to "help the unfortunate" or "defend the weaker"; or because it is your issue and problem too.
John, it's getting kinda predictable here. Let me paraphrase what you said to AMB: could you please put the books away (I've read the CS Lewis on that one and don't need to have it quoted to me) and tell us what YOU feel/think on this issue? Frankly, you're hiding behind a lot of rhetoric that's already been thought out for you.
There are many criticisms I could bring to bear for the benevolent dictator scenario, but for the moment I'd like to put that aside and ask you personally: what about me makes me inferior to you? What about you makes you superior to me? I would like answers from you - not from CS, not from the Bible, not from sociological studies, not from whatever website you happen to come across. From you.
And also, as AMB said, could you please stop presuming and start asking and listening to us? I don't agree with Abby and don't see what I've said here that would make you think that I do. I am beginning to think that true dialogue is impossible in these circumstances.
Fucking hell! I was working on a response but then I lost it when I took a break and clicked on a link. Earlier, I had written a comment and for some reason it didn't get posted. I'm wondering if God is trying to tell me that I'm not supposed to participate in this discussion. I'm going to go fume a bit and then I'll try to reconstruct my train of thought.
Just a quick note that I forgot to put in earlier - Buddhism would take the tact (tack? too lazy to look up the proper word) of working with my definition of altruism. (Can you really work purely for someone else with your own God's reward in mind? I think not.)
Most Buddhist sects (especially my favorite, Mahayana) stress spontaneous action - no-thought. Yet one must always act with compassion. Therefore, many work to act spontaneously in a compassionate manner, training themselves to no-thought with compassion. It is an interesting process with an interesting result: True altruism for those moments.
I still think I can take up those issues for both the reasons you mentioned. They are not separate spheres (if you will) to me.
Nothing like a little Mariokart to help one let off some frustration. Smash Bros. would also be good, but I suck at it. Anyway, let’s try this again. This time, I’m typing in a word document and when I’m finished, I’ll copy and paste it.
First of all, Aaltje and Lisa:
It’s a shame you two have never met. I’m pretty sure you would like each other. Lisa is planning on coming to AAR in November. Any chance we could talk you into it, Aaltje?
Everybody:
You’ve covered so much ground in this threat that I’m not sure where to jump in. Buddhism, lust, the Trinity (which I find extremely relevant), marriage…
I’ll start with lust. I had a personal anecdote about a book in the teenage section of a Christian store, but I don’t feel like retyping it. I take the sermon on the mount very seriously, but since I am neither a Roman Catholic nor a Lutheran, so I am not committed to either a “counsels of perfection” reading or an “impossible standard of which to fall short” reading. This is one of the areas where process and liberation influence on me are most apparent. I read the sermon as an impetus toward greater approximation of the kingdom of God in this life and perhaps as a description of how we will behave when the world is mended. The teachings of Jesus make us grow dissatisfied with the state of things and seek to become better individuals and to better the social order. In a long battle that involves many defeats and many fruitless victories, we achieve partial realizations of the kingdom, individually and collectively. But Jesus’s proclamation of the kingdom relativizes every human aim and accomplishment and keeps us from becoming complacent. Rather than being satisfied with these partial realizations we press on. The Reformation was a wonderful step forward in the struggle for the realization of the kingdom, but Luther’s institutional and spiritual children must be willing to criticize the shortcomings of the Reformation and work to keep achieving the dream of a church that is truly catholic, truly evangelical, and truly reformed. What the liberation theology I’ve read neglects is the continuing role of God in the struggle (it’s there in Gutierrez, but it’s rarely made explicit). Humans are instruments of grace, but it is God from whom all grace comes, and the holy spirit sanctifies us and our struggles. This, to my mind, is what Christianity has that Marxism doesn’t.
To apply this to the lust “commandment” (quotes indicating that I don’t really buy this description of the logion), I think it would be a horrible mistake to define a rule whereby lust may be intrinsically distinguished from healthy sexual desire. For one thing, I’m not sure this is possible. We’re not exactly dealing with something quantifiable, so you can’t have a scale to measure it. Arousal is, as has been pointed out, an autonomic response. True, one can gain a certain amount of control over it, just as one can control one’s breathing, but never complete control. Furthermore, arousal for one’s spouse is identical to arousal for another person (or arousal occasioned by linoleum). Moreover, am I supposed to believe that the thoughts, feelings, and physical responses I have to a certain person today are sinful but the same thoughts, feelings, and physical responses to the same person will be kosher after my pastor waves his hands and says the magic words making us legally married? Maybe you buy it, but I don’t.
Any criterion, then, must be extrinsic. While I’m skeptical of all criteria at all times, I think that Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative, which has already been discussed, is by far the most useful way to discriminate among thoughts, feelings, and physical responses. Am I treating a person as an object? Of course, even this has its flaws. I think that one can be sexually attracted to a person without treating that person as an object. I think that one can acknowledge that attraction and even enjoy it. But there are many ways in which it can become unhealthy. For instance, it can become an obsession, it can affect how one treats others, or one’s relationship to one’s partner. To my mind, it’s sinful when (and only when) it harms someone, even when the harm is not readily apparent. But individuals and couples will have to figure out for themselves what is healthy desire and what is harmful lust. Matther 5:28 is an ideal, not a command (this does not make it any less demanding, but it does mean that application requires a great deal of careful thought). All that to say that I am in agreement with Aaltje and Lisa, I think with Ben and Tyler also, and probably with John in principle, though I disagree on the applications. In fact, there wasn’t much point to writing what I just wrote, though I have to say that Jesus is NOT a Kantian. The categorical imperative works like a computer program. Jesus isn’t a programmer. If anything, Jesus is a computer science professor who makes us realize how badly our programs suck and makes us find ways to write better ones. Jesus relativizes Kant.
My next comment will be about the Trinity, then marriage.
The Trinity: Very Relevant!
First of all, Lisa perhaps overstated her case a bit when she called the statement “Jesus is God” “heretical.” BUT, I think that it definitely has heretical tendencies. I see this going in the direction of docetism and modalism. Scripture does not use this formula, the creeds do not use this formula, and if it is ever used by any of the fathers, it is used sparingly. Now, if I may draw your attention to the following extracts from the Athanasian Creed (copied from the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer):
…And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and
Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the
Substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another
of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is
all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost…
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, There be three
Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor
created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one
Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or
less than another;
But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the
Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
You will notice that St. Athanasius (or more likely, whoever wrote this creed in his name) is not only very concerned with the divinity of Christ (over and against Arianism), but also with preventing a naïve identifiction of the Son with the Father (“neither dividing the substance nor conflating the persons”). Now why do I say this is relevant? Because I believe that the Trinity is the model for Christian relations (feel free to use terms other than Father and Son for the first two persons. God is not male; men and women share equally in the imago dei. I’ve just never heard any alternative that doesn’t imply some equally pernicious heresy). Anyway, if you want a fuller treatment of the matter, I recommend Tanner’s book. But note that here are three “persons” who are different, but equal and through their love and harmonious operation the world comes to be. I sometimes reformulate and Christianize the categorical imperative: in all things, reflect, augment, and flow with the love of the Trinity that explodes into the world.
Lisa
Frankly, you're hiding behind a lot of rhetoric that's already been thought out for you.
I am a 52 year old man married to an intelligent, assertive women who has been fighting through a horrible disability for 30 years - 13 of those on her own. I have been a Christian for 10 years. You really think this is rhetoric for me.
There is no benevolent dictator stuff here. I will try again. Regretfully, my wife in this instance would simply be the mother of the child your dog bit - you would prefer to talk to me (I am more of an appeaser, don't you see) - or I would have her explain it to you.
My most important imperative vis a vis my wife (and my marriage) is to obey God - and to submit my ego and self to Him. As I do that, I will love my wife as Christ loves me; because that is what I am told to do and if I love her that is what I would want to do. How does Christ love me? Sacrificially, unconditionally, meeting all my needs with no expectation (or need) for me to meet any of His - repeat, no expectation that I will meet any of His needs. Feeling that love for me; I channel that to all people but particularly my wife - my self actually in a one flesh (two become one) relationship that mirrors Christ and His church (Him the head, the rest of us the Body). I have EXPERIENCED this; she has EXPERIENCED this. I love her, above all, as I love myself - because she is myself and to harm her harms me. Actually.
To my wife: she too has this relationship with Christ; but is to submit herself to me as a mirror of her submission to Christ as head of the church (she is the bride). I mirror Christ as head; she mirrors the church as Bride.
Neither of us do this well. If I am not submitted to God (I am not) then that little plank in my eye keeps me from saying squat about the splinter in my wife's - her lack of submission to me (she is not). I do not have any ability to demand, or even ask, her obeidiance to me if I am not obediant to God. However, she can ask me for whatever she needs; because that is my job and my road to obedience requires me to satisfy all of her needs as Christ satisfies mine - completely, unconditionally, and without repayment. And without her meeting my needs.
Just as Christ washed the feet of His disciples and talked about first becoming last and last becoming first - men are to be the servant leaders of their families. We become first in our families by placing ourselves last - something I also do not do.
what about me makes me inferior to you? What about you makes you superior to me?
What did I say that implied I thought men and women were not equal? Not the same; but equal. In marriage we mirror certain roles as we model Christ's relationship with the Church for the rest of the world. You and I have no such relationship - we are not married. Our relationship spiritually is defined by whether we are, or are not, both part of the Bride (the church). Equal in salvation (or not); but certainly physically God loves us both the same and desires the best for both of us. Equal in His eyes (and its His eyes that count). My wife and I while we play our little dress up roles; actually also (with God as third leg) mirror the Trinity - we are three in one. We learn something about the nature of the Trinity while we become one in God and with each other. She is me and I am her - we are not equal, we are one person.
Lest I get accused of rhetoric again: I know this, have felt this, and experienced this - and so has my wife.
As to quoting books:
1) You brought him up. I quoted it for the bystanders. Everyone might as well see what we were talking about.
2) I quote things that say what I feel; not things that have told me how to feel.
3) I will NOT step away from quoting scripture. Even if I didn't feel it - I would quote it. Our feelings are often the farthest thing from reality.
John:
Talk about an ugly sidetrack: the Christian view on Submission in marriage.
The Christian view on marriage? I really appreciate your input on this blog, and I hope it doesn't seem like we're ganging up against you, and I hope you won't think it rude of me to pounce on a single word by which you may have meant nothing but...
The? Have you not been paying any attention to anything that has been said on this blog since you started participating? How can you ever justify stating or implying that any view represents the only or at least the normative Christian view? There is no Christian view on marriage. There is your view, my view, Aalje's view, Tyler's view, Joe Carter's view, Tom from Aquino's view, St. Paul's view when he wrote 1 Corinthians, St. Paul's view when he wrote he wrote Romans, the view of whoever was pretending to be St. Paul when he wrote Ephesians, etc. These may not all be right, God may beg to differ with them, but they are all Christian views because all the people who hold them are Christians.
You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.
This from a Brit! It's not that the United Kingdom doesn't have a constitution, it's just unwritten! I'm glad that makes sense to them (this does not imply that I don't secretly want to be British).
Seriously though, I like Jack a lot, but this is not one of his more lucid moments. In addition to Lisa's question of what makes you superior to her, I would ask the following:
Why must a constitution specify that one party will get the deciding vote? If your going to be arbitrary, you could at least be fair. Flip a coin.
On many, I daresay most issues, is a "family policy" really necessary? I can spend my free time campaigning for a candidate and my wife can campaign for that candidate's opponent, and we can then come home, have dinner, coffee, and passionate sex and call it a healthy marriage.
On those issues about which it is necessary to have a single "family policy" (i.e. do we get a dog or a cat, this being a dumb question because the obvious answer is dog?), if the two partners cannot reach a compromise without one party or the other having to cast a tiebreaking vote, I have to wonder if they should really be married.
Last (for now), doesn't this ignore the millions of healthy marriages in which neither partner has the ultimate power?
I find the second part of the Lewis quotation just plain offensive. It is a large part of the reason why I no longer recomend Mere Christianity to people looking for a basic introduction to the Christian faith. I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish by quoting it.
As for the Bible, yes, it does say that a wife should submit to her husband. But this I mean that certain books of the Bible say this. The Bible is an anthology, not a single book, so in one sense, the Bible doesn't say anything. The books of the Bible that are most emphatic about this point just happen to be the ones that are almost certainly not by the person whom they claim as their author. This doesn't get the Bible off the hook, but it gets Paul off the hook. But this is perhaps wide of the point.
I've told you before that I sometiems find it necessary to disagree with the Bible on behalf of the Gospel. This is one such case (or rather, several such cases). The unfortunate rhetorical turn taken by the author Ephesians is very problematic for me. I honestly don't know what to do with these passages where the husband is to the wife what Christ is to the church. Perhpas we could add as a gloss that the wife also is to the husband what Christ is to the church. No, I do not think that is what the author intended. I believe that the Bible is the product of the interaction of the human with the divine. I think these parts are much more human than divine. I believe that the divine is present in all of it, but this is one part where the manner of that presence is not readily apparent to me.
Kyle – I wish that I were of the caliber of thinker that would be required to truly second everything you said, but since I’m not, let me just say “amen, brother!”. I would also add that I was going to jump on the “The Christian View” (tm) bit next, but you got there first and are much better-qualified to do so than I.
AMB – please come to the AAR conference!!! Ask Kyle about our wine and open Bible ritual – it’s very illuminating study, of course.
John - So you don’t think that men and women are unequal, but that when two people marry each other, then there is an inequality that just springs into existence out of nowhere? I just don’t think that human relationships work this way. I find it telling as well that you as much as admit that this doesn’t work out in practice in your own marriage. (Believe me, I’m not judging you for that – quite the contrary.)
The hierarchy that is set up by the benevolent dictator husband scenario (forgive my illustrative naming) is one at which the woman is at the bottom. She submits to her husband, who submits to God. The husband is then closer to God than she is, and the two are not equal in their relationships to God. I believe any "oh, but the Holy Spirit..." objection can be headed off at the bend by saying that if the positions were reversed, you would suddenly feel this distance more strongly. Putting the husband between the woman and God doesn't work - and that is definitely what is happening here, in terms of the power hierarchy. There is a great deal of literature I could bring to bear here in terms of the way this worked historically in Jewish culture (which then formed a sort of cultural template for emerging Christianity's Greco-Roman influences to squish through with many interesting results)(pardon the obviousness of the remark, but I liked the visual)(what I'm trying to say is that Jewish conceptions are still relevant) as well.
In response to Clives, a marriage isn’t a union that requires a constitution greater than your love for each other. If there must be a tie-breaker (though I ), let your love for each other be that force. As Kyle noted, when those conditions aren’t met, I would tend to question the basis for that marriage. And for the second part, one of the greatest problems with CS’ logic is that it often makes appeals to how you ‘feel’ in situations that rely on how you were socialized. The examples he gives are very dependent on the way Western men and women were socialized in 1940s/50s. If we still feel some resonance with that, it’s because we have still not reached equality and still require boys to be boys and girls to be girls, regardless of what that does to all of us. If a woman is more assertive than her husband, she's domineering; if her husband is quieter by nature, then he's submissive and not 'manly', etc... why can we not just be people (or equal children of God, if you will)? Why do we have this need for labels?
As happens so often when a person has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, you need to point to ways in which the status quo was embedded in culture and then insist that there is something 'natural' or 'divinely-ordained' there. Kyle's comments on Ephesians seem relevant. But I don’t need to point to books or philosophies or anything to prove this. I can just tell you quite candidly that this conception of marriage is harmful to both partners because it’s harmful to both my and his humanity. (There's a divine thread to seize upon that seems much more immediate than whatever a few anthology-writers put down! Let's relate it to the Holy Spirit, shall we?) When I get married, it will certainly not be to someone who makes me promise to submit and obey him (oh, but don’t worry, he’s got my best interests at heart). That’s no way to start an open, caring, loving, true partnership. It just doesn’t work.
Oh, and Kyle, nice Buffy reference. Bien joué, mon ami!
Furthermore, arousal for one’s spouse is identical to arousal for another person (or arousal occasioned by linoleum).
I'm not going to touch that.
John, like Kyle, Lisa, and most other readers of this blog, I think, I'm bothered (not that this will surprise you) by the idea that there is a "Christian view" of marriage, or anything at all, for that matter. For example, when a evangelical protestant talks about the "Christian view" of something, that usually implies that a Catholic formulation of the same thing is somehow unChristian. The reverse also tends to be the case. (I tend to think that my Episcopalianism puts me in a pretty good place to notice this particular tendency.)
I'm a little confused by the long passage(s) you cited to develop Clive's doctrine of wifely submission. Was that Clive or Lewis you were citing. I was going to say that it's interesting that the people who talk the most about the husband being the head of the family, at least as mentioned in this thread, Clive, Lewis and Paul, weren't married when they wrote down their formulations. However, it now seems that what I thought was Clive sounding a lot like lewis really was Lewis, and, as Kyle points out, what I thought was Paul, (ephesians) wasn't really Paul. Oh, well, there goes a clever rhetorical point. Anyway, do you know what Lewis had to say about wifely submission after he was married? It seems he rethought a whole lot of stuff after his marriage -- his wife, it seems was a firecracker -- and never returned to the narrow dogmatism of Mere Christianity. Your difficulties with wifely submission might have to do with the fact that anyone married to a halfway decent woman (or better, of course) realizes how dumb the "husband is head of the family" stuff really is.
Kyle, you asked if John thinks that there's some magical thing that happens to a sexual relationship when a minister waves his hands and calls a couple married. John is on record elsewhere on this blog as saying that marriage before God transcends official marriage by the state or church, and that, for example, Laura and I are already married in the Godly sense. I think he agrees with you, really.
Aaltje, the correct word usage would be "Buddhism would take the tack," I believe. I think this term might have an origin in sailing terminology.
Most Buddhist sects (especially my favorite, Mahayana) stress spontaneous action - no-thought. Yet one must always act with compassion. Therefore, many work to act spontaneously in a compassionate manner, training themselves to no-thought with compassion. It is an interesting process with an interesting result: True altruism for those moments.
This, I think, is precisely what Paul is going for in Galatians when he says something like "It is no longer I who act but God/Christ (can't remember which one Paul uses) acting through me." John, my question for you is does your natural-law theory support such a claim? Can Christ act through someone who doesn't explicitly proclaim faith in him? Your analogy of God dwelling in one's personal house is nice; I think a better one would be God as a mechanic souping up the hot rod of your soul. You get all psyched to drive it, but God's like, "no, dude you get to ride shotgun. I'm takin' the wheel. If I let you drive, you'd just crash it into a tree, or, worse yet, smack into someone's Toyota."
I think that's just about exactly what the Mahayana buddhists are going for with "no-thought with compassion." (This is also an attempt to steer this conversation back to the original intent of the post above, that being how mindfulness, forgiveness and, dare I say it, selflessness while driving is more important for the church to promote than the cesation of taking mental pictures of hot girls, seeing as how the former is far more likely to cause one to stray over really-existing lane dividers, and...)
By the way, 10 points to the first person to tell me who the person in my new Blogger ID photo is and what he did.
Kyle, do you know if and how we can get the Div. school to pay for AAR meeting fees? Aaltje, even if we can't, student memberships (if you, like me, aren't already a member) are only $25, and we have another couple weeks to get the super saver packages for cheaper registration.
What plans are afoot for hotels, etc?
Kyle
Another thread highjack :)- Ephesians "almost certainly" not written by Paul. Aargh!! (really, I do not want to go there). For the sake of having no discussion on this now; I think Ephesians was "almost certainly" written by Paul (so while you will let him off the hook, I will not).
Forgive me for the "The" (I forgive you for the authorship of Ephesians); and if you are going to pounce, pounce accurately: I didnt say the view "of marriage" but the view of "submission in marriage". Frankly, you have to step outside of scripture to come up with any view of Christian marriage that doesn't include a wife submitting to her husband. Certainly, this isn't the place to discuss Christians, scripture, and scissors either.
On many, I daresay most issues, is a "family policy" really necessary?
Both Lewis and myself (what did I say, 5 or less times in 17 years - I actually cannot remember one but I am sure there is at least one time my wife deferred to my belief) made it clear it should be hardly necessary.
On those issues about which it is necessary to have a single "family policy" . . . if the two partners cannot reach a compromise without one party or the other having to cast a tiebreaking vote, I have to wonder if they should really be married.
Lewis's point exactly: "Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or other of them must have a casting vote"
Are you saying that in those rare cases where unity cannot be reached divorce is a better solution than a casting vote? I really hope (and pray) you are not saying that.
doesn't this ignore the millions of healthy marriages in which neither partner has the ultimate power?
I think in most long-term marriage power exists - I doubt if you could find one million marriages where it didn't. One of those big marriage counselor issues is that spouses hold back their opinion because they wish to avoid conflict - deferring to their spouse without discussion because they want to keep the peace. Men, incidentally, are the worst offenders in this area as near as I can tell (unless domination by intimidation is in place - no argument, and "peace', by force)
"Great" secular marriage advice I've recieved:
1) "The right answer is always 'yes honey' or 'your right dear'"
2) "Just remember, 'if Mom's not happy, nobodys happy - so keep mom happy'" [I have NEVER said this to a husband who didn't agree]
3) "If it isn't worth getting divorced over, it isn't worth arguing over."
I find the second part of the Lewis quotation just plain offensive . . . I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish by quoting it.
First, completeness. Second, my wife would agree - if the dog bites our child (or even shits in our yard) they would be better off talking to me (because I am a bit of an appeaser). She just doesn't suffer fools well; and she will defend her children and turf like a raging lionness. Now that my daughter has reached the age of 12 - I notice this policy being extended to her as well. She would have blown out of here long ago in the face of some of the (hopefully) unintentioned arrogance and condecension I have tired to reason through (You young whippersnappers you :) )
I honestly don't know what to do with these passages where the husband is to the wife what Christ is to the church.
Not taking them out of the context of the full range of what the Bible says about "one flesh" relationships (the real key here); husbands and fathers; wifes and mothers; and, in this case, contemplating deeply exactly how Christ loves his Church (and how we, as His Bride, actually do, or do not, love Him (such whores) - and what He does about that) would be a start.
The problem with the word submission is that it creates a knee-jerk reaction that ignores love, the role of the Holy Spirit, marriage as both a reflection of Christ's headness over the church and the equilateral triangle of the Trinity.
Most Christians who believe that they must try to understand and, with "fear and trembling", work out how this all goes together in their marriages would have never stood the theological ground here as long as me. I am a fool for punishment. Or in some minds, just a fool.
Lisa
So you don’t think that men and women are unequal, but that when two people marry each other, then there is an inequality that just springs into existence out of nowhere? . . . The husband is then closer to God than she is, and the two are not equal in their relationships to God.
Actually, I said we were not equal (should have said beyond equal) but we were the same person - that "one flesh" thing. Ponder that my wife and I both believe we are a duality like God and Christ - two people becoming one person in God's eyes. Two halfs of one person cannot stand at different distances from God. So, in this you also get to see a mirror of God and Christs relationship. How is God "over" Christ when they are both part of a Triune God? This is deep water we begin to put our feet (or one small toe) in by attempting to pattern our marriages in a Biblical way.
Nothing in the Bible places the husband as intercessor between his wife and God. See also my comment above about the other relationship modeled by Christian marriage - the Trinity. I will not broaden beyond my own experience of what it means to view marriage (with God as third member) as a mirror of the Trinity. My wife definitely plays the role (naturally - meaning by her own nature) of the Holy Spirit in our modeling of this cosmic relationship. That has depth difficult to ponder in the scheme of being "inequal"
I just don’t think that human relationships work this way. I find it telling as well that you as much as admit that this doesn’t work out in practice in your own marriage . . . I can just tell you quite candidly that this conception of marriage is harmful to both partners because it’s harmful to both my and his humanity
Well, reference what Ben said above about our sin nature (he didn't use that word - but I think he meant that concept). What human nature is, and how it works, is generally not a good measure of how Christians should or should not operate. In fact, most of the Bible is a call to stop acting in the ways that "human relationships work".
In a large sense, the point of Christianity is to strip you of your concept of your humanity; and turn you into a new creature in Christ (so you can find out what it is to be truly human for the first time)
If a woman is more assertive than her husband, she's domineering; if her husband is quieter by nature, then he's submissive and not 'manly'
These are not labels or distinctions I would ever use. I will even give you that there may be Christian marriages where the "husband" and "wife" roles of the Bible are flipped genderly. God, and I, would have no problem with that. De-socialize for another 30 years and we will see whether boys are still boys; and girls are still girls. Men and women are equal, but not the same (Thank God! - seriously).
When I get married, it will certainly not be to someone who makes me promise to submit and obey him (oh, but don’t worry, he’s got my best interests at heart). That’s no way to start an open, caring, loving, true partnership. It just doesn’t work.
Haven't you said you are not a Christian; and unlikely to ever be one? This doesn't apply to you if this is the case. I wouldn't, if I were you, submit to a non-Christian man; or to a Christian man (regardless of his submission to God) if I were a non-Christian women. You can be "one flesh"; but one of you lacks being "in Christ" and being part of "the Body of Christ" as well as being "indwelt by the Holy Spirit". One of you cannot fall into the third point of the Trinity in order to be one together with God. That is the reason the Bible warns against being unequally yolked.
Before Tyler and Laura freak out, I was unequally yolked to my Christian wife for 7ish years (lucky for me God had her ignore Paul) and it worked out great. There was, however, no question of her submitting to me in those circumstances. This is a model for marriage between TWO Christians - all others can ignore it.
There is a great deal of literature I could bring to bear here in terms of the way this worked historically in Jewish culture . . . (what I'm trying to say is that Jewish conceptions are still relevant)
No, I think you can see I think they are not relevant at all.
Tyler
Your difficulties with wifely submission might have to do with the fact that anyone married to a halfway decent woman (or better, of course) realizes how dumb the "husband is head of the family" stuff really is.
I am not having "difficulties": y'all are :)
As my brother in Christ, I will NEVER let my lovely bride see this comment. Not being the appeaser I am, she will come to Chicago to visit her daughter at Great Lakes - and then they will both come down and rip your head off (with Christian love). Lisa would come because, after all, she has now been trained to rip heads off.
my question for you is does your natural-law theory support such a claim? Can Christ act through someone who doesn't explicitly proclaim faith in him?
Natural law doesn't have Christ living through you: it just implies that the underlying moral and ethical unity of the planet flows from a creative God with a definite character.
The hot rod analogy is good too. It falls in with one of my favorite one-liners: "God cannot steer a parked car"
Oh, here is a place you can argue this stuff with conservative Christian women; and one more fine view . I kept both the posts because the 1st talks about where I started.
I am not having "difficulties": y'all are :)
The difficulties to which I was referring were evidenced in this passage of an earlier comment of yours, John:
I mirror Christ as head; she mirrors the church as Bride... Neither of us do this well.
Forgive me if I misunderstood you.
Are you saying that in those rare cases where unity cannot be reached divorce is a better solution than a casting vote? I really hope (and pray) you are not saying that.
Kyle already said that in such cases it'd be better to flip a coin than for the husband to say, "When the shit hits the fan, it's my word is law."
As far as the Ephesians authorship question goes, I'll leave an analysis of the Lewis article to Kyle, who knows a lot more about this kind of thing than me. I would point out that in a scholarly article that seeks to refute a theory, such as that which claims that Paul didn't write the book in question, the first thing I look for is an even handed account of the theory to be refuted. I don't get this from the Lewis, he brings up a point or two here or there, and leaves the main issues (it seems to me) alone -- "The linguistic argument is a technical matter of the use of Greek words that cannot well be discussed here." That's Kyle's department, and, it seems to me, the best way to really figure out the answer to this question. Like, for instance, if Flannery O'Connor and William Faulkner were translated by the same committee of Chinese speakers, it would be a hell of a lot easier for a native English speaker reading the original texts to discover that they were two different writers than a Chinese speaker, no matter how much he loves the subject matter. (Not to mention the fact that, in this analogy, the Chinese speaker might have a vested interest in showing that Faulkner wrote A Good Man is Hard to Find.)
Natural law doesn't have Christ living through you: it just implies that the underlying moral and ethical unity of the planet flows from a creative God with a definite character.
Than how do you explain the Christian revelation teaching the same thing as Buddhist tradition?
Tyler,
The real issue is that Clement is believed to have known and met both Paul and Peter; and used Ephesian's Pauline authorship in 95AD (just 30 years after Paul would have written this) in a letter to the Ephesians - when there were too many witnesses to pass off a "fake". Polycarp did the same - he died in 115AD (just 50 years later)
You have to have some SERIOUS evidence to decide he didn't write it based on its greek (did Paul dictate his work? Sometimes he did) 1800 years later.
That is neither here nor there though.
Tyler,
I expect the tasks God sets us to be impossible to fully achieve without His grace - and almost always impossible to achieve perfectly with it.
Than how do you explain the Christian revelation teaching the same thing as Buddhist tradition?
Didn't I just now? What are you talking about?
It is interesting though one time when I was grazing through some Buddhist teaching that the timing between the Buddha and Christ actually represented the time period that the next Buddha was supposed to arrive. Did the Buddhist's miss Jesus too?
Clarification: The persons I am calling Jack, John is calling Clive, and Tyler is calling Lewis are all one and the same C(live) S(taples) Lewis (who prefered to be called Jack rather than Clive).
Mundane matters: I am not aware of any scheme whereby the Divinity School pays for students to go for AAR, though such a scheme would be awesome if it existed. I've got plans to share a room with a friend's fiance who's a Ph.D. student at Claremont, but your standard hotel room can hold more than two people. Personally, I'm all for having as many Chicago M.Div.s as possible (though not all in one room). Perhaps we should have a special AAR thread.
John:
What's one more unrelated topic in this thread? Nevertheless, we don't need to discuss it here if you don't want. I will say that unlike the case with Johanine authorship of the fourth gospel, there is some actual historical scholarship (by which I mean historical scholarship that brackets the question of "inspiration" and considers the text apart from its role in the Christian religion) that upholds Pauline authorship of Ephesians. I find the case for a disciple of Paul writing the letter after Paul's death (perhaps as a cover letter to a collection of Pauline epistles) to be pretty damn compelling.
Frankly, you have to step outside of scripture to come up with any view of Christian marriage that doesn't include a wife submitting to her husband.
You're probably right about that, at least as far as explicitly stated views are concerned. I think that implicitly, Paul's authentic epistles offer a much more nuanced (and if not egalitarian, then moving in that direction) view of marriage.
Certainly, this isn't the place to discuss Christians, scripture, and scissors either.
Of course not. It's the place to discuss Buddhist driving school. ;)
Both Lewis and myself (what did I say, 5 or less times in 17 years - I actually cannot remember one but I am sure there is at least one time my wife deferred to my belief) made it clear it should be hardly necessary.
Yeah, what you're describing in your own marriage sounds a great deal fairer than what you say you believe it ought to be like. You say that sometimes your wife casts the deciding vote according to a scheme the two of you have worked out in advance based on who is more competent in the disputed area. Without knowing the details, I'd say it doesn't sound like a bad scheme. But it doesn't sound at all like God->Christ->man->woman. More on that in a second.
Are you saying that in those rare cases where unity cannot be reached divorce is a better solution than a casting vote? I really hope (and pray) you are not saying that.
Certainly not in most cases, though I'm unwilling to rule out the possibility of such a case a priori. It just seems to me that two maritial partners ought to be able to make a compromise that will be equally unacceptable to both of them. Even if neither likes it, it would be infinitely preferable to one partner making an executive decision.
I should probably stop here an apologize if I have unfairly grouped you with other people who go in for this wifely submission stuff who go so far as to say that a wife must vote as her husband dictates. This seems to me to be the logical conclusion of the god-christ-man-woman headship thing. I'm glad you don't take it to this extreme. If I read you right, you will say that scripture commands that a man love his wife, which would mean that he not abuse his authority over her. Fair enough, but what if he does? Does your understanding of wifely submission allow for a woman to disobey a Christian husband who has become a tyrant? If it does (and I hope and pray that it does), then how is this compatible with the scriptures you have cited?
I think in most long-term marriage power exists - I doubt if you could find one million marriages where it didn't.
What can I say? You're not the only one who occasionally falls short of your stated ideals.
"Great" secular marriage advice I've recieved:
1) "The right answer is always 'yes honey' or 'your right dear'"
2) "Just remember, 'if Mom's not happy, nobodys happy - so keep mom happy'" [I have NEVER said this to a husband who didn't agree]
3) "If it isn't worth getting divorced over, it isn't worth arguing over."
Sounds like pretty shitty advice to me. Then again, I'm not a husband yet. Ask me about #2 next year.
She would have blown out of here long ago in the face of some of the (hopefully) unintentioned arrogance and condecension I have tired to reason through (You young whippersnappers you :) )
I'll try to take that in the good humor in which I'm sure it was intended.
Not taking them out of the context of the full range of what the Bible says about "one flesh" relationships (the real key here); husbands and fathers; wifes and mothers; and, in this case, contemplating deeply exactly how Christ loves his Church (and how we, as His Bride, actually do, or do not, love Him (such whores) - and what He does about that) would be a start.
I'm fine with 'love you wife as much as Christ loves the church.' But this understanding of man as the head of woman as God is the head of Christ has a notorious history of tyranny, oppression, and abuse. You didn't like it when Lisa called this a benevolent dictator model. I'm glad you object to the idea of a dictator. Your self-description does not strike me as dictatorial in the least, and I say this to your credit. But isn't it the oldest trick in the book for a dictator to defend himself by claiming that he loves his subjects and acts in their best interest? A dictator is a ruler with absolute power, whether it is exercised for good or ill. And when he starts comparing himself to God and his subjects accept the analogy, there is nothing to stop him from using his power for evil and no recourse for the subjects. I despise the militant secularism that many of my fellow liberals are marshalling as a defense (or maybe even an attack) against fundamentalism, but I'm not about to let anyone reinstate the Great Chain of Being (tm).
Finally, (I know this was directed at Lisa, but...):
These are not labels or distinctions I would ever use. I will even give you that there may be Christian marriages where the "husband" and "wife" roles of the Bible are flipped genderly. God, and I, would have no problem with that. De-socialize for another 30 years and we will see whether boys are still boys; and girls are still girls. Men and women are equal, but not the same (Thank God! - seriously).
The nature of sex and gender is Aaltje, Bradon, and Lisa's area of expertise, but I'm glad to hear you say this. But I'm very confused. You say that God would be fine with a woman who was the head of a marriage as long as there was a head. But how is this even remotely compatible with the theology of the scripture on which it is based, that God has ordained that a man be the head of woman as Christ is head of the church?
I see that several comments have gone up since I started writing this. I apologize if I beat to death anything that's already been hashed out.
I referenced it in passing, but going here wasn't my idea. :)
The real issue is that Clement is believed to have known and met both Paul and Peter; and used Ephesian's Pauline authorship in 95AD (just 30 years after Paul would have written this) in a letter to the Ephesians - when there were too many witnesses to pass off a "fake". Polycarp did the same - he died in 115AD (just 50 years later)
Proves nothing except that at the end of the first century, a collection of letters ascribed to Paul was in circulation and that Ephesians was among them. There's no way of knowing whether Clement actually met Paul and Peter. If you rely too heavily on the traditions surrounding them, you'll end up a Roman Catholic (then again, I can think of worse things one could be).
You have to have some SERIOUS evidence to decide he didn't write it based on its greek (did Paul dictate his work? Sometimes he did) 1800 years later.
Would you like to hear it? Lewis shows awareness of it, he just writes it off with no argument. He's assuming what he's trying to prove, so he can do that.
John, I think I’m going to go with the “just a fool” description. And, as anyone who knows me will tell you, I don’t suffer fools gladly. Frankly, accusing us of ‘arrogance and condescension’ is pretty amazing, given that the ‘young whippersnappers’ you’re talking with are a bunch of grad students at exceptionally good schools in the field and that you think that a few amateur internet articles, coupled with false piety, coupled with appeals to your age, constitute strong arguments. There is a tremendous amount of theology and scholarship of which you are ignorant, and while we’re all just at various steps along the way, you’re mocking the path. As far as I’m concerned, the discussion’s dead; it would be as ludicrous for me to continue this with you as it is for you to claim that you’ve got God sewn up in your back pocket and know exactly what God wants in all situations, or that the husband takes the role of Christ and the woman the Church and that’s an equal relationship, or that Judaism’s irrelevant to Christianity (I did kinda write a thesis about historical and Orthodox roles for Jewish women, so if I say I see a parallel, it’s probably there), or to claim that there is one ‘Christian’ view of something…I won’t go on. And, by the way, whatever you meant by the “ripping heads off” statement about me, I don’t appreciate it. Up until this point, I have gone out of my way to be patient with you and speak in a respectful manner; anyone who’s seen me really debate a point knows that I’ve been treating you with kid gloves. Frankly, I’m even being nice now. But I’m done.
To everyone else – you’re much better people than I, and much more patient. Thank you for that. Hopefully we'll see each other at AAR?
I'm not so sure that any of the commentors (including and especially myself) on this thread have avoided arrogance and condescension. I apologize for my tendency (of which I'm well aware) to exhibit these two traits in spades.
(C.S. Lewis, I'm sorry to say, I think, is the most guilty of these two sins of anyone whose words have appeared on this page. John, please read Chesterton's Orthodoxy he covers much the same ground and doesn't make Reform Judaism sound nearly as appealing as Lewis does. Maybe the occasional quotation from A Grief Observed or the Great Divorce would help settle my stomach, and you won't need to buy a book you don't already have.)
Lisa (if she looks back)
Lisa is also my daughter who is in the Navy at Great Lakes in Chicago. Sorry for not making the distinction.
Kyle,
I am sorry (truly) that I ran Lisa off. I punch too hard sometimes. And I apologize for the whole "arrogance . . ." comment. It was uncalled for and violated horribly: Ephesians 4:29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. I so hate adding to the list of things that I get to talk to God about someday (every careless word).
what you're describing in your own marriage sounds a great deal fairer than what you say you believe it ought to be like
It is that highlighted word that bothers me. Peter mentions submission of wife to husband; and Paul in other "authentic" (allegedly the court desires to be said). Is submission "unfair"? My wife and I worked out many of the structures of our marriage during the 7 years prior to me becoming a Christian. I wouldn't set those structures against God's as being fairer. I might think we have passed too many amendments and have added to the "talk to God about later" list.
God calls us to obedience. Obviously that applies to only those that are His in this case. He desires our Christian marriages to act as a shadow (mirror, type) of His Son's relationship to His church. This is scripture. Make Paul (and Peter) male chavanist pigs and wield the scissors - or obey [I do live in a simple belief world - the doing of it is much much tougher]. My wife and I choose the latter.
Once you both choose to obey: how do being two people joined into one; Christ submitting to God even though they are one; Christ's sacrificial love of His church; the line about submitting to each other sexually; etc. impact this relationship? How can the husband even mention his wife's lack of submission to him if he is not fully submitted to God [That plank and splinter thing]; and when has any human since Christ been fully submitted to God? Who said Christianity was easy.
God's central human-to-human relationship on the planet, marriage, is such a deep spiritual and theological pool because it mirrors not only Christ's sacrificial, loving relationship to His Church; but the duality of Christ (God and man, God and Son) and the nature of the Trinity. Lisa may hate me for it but adding Christ and the Trinity to this theological mix erases any but a surface resemblance to married relationships under Judaism.
I think Lexie at Intellectuelle did better than me:
"Because I’m a word person, I’ll look up submit.
Submit, v. intr. - To allow oneself to be subjected to something.
My initial reading this definition was a “light bulb” moment in which I caught a glimpse of the power in submission. Jesus allowed Himself to be subjected to the cross. He could have opted out, but He chose not to because of His love for us. Restraint of strength is one expression of power. Choosing to submit and serve is another expression of power. [This emphasis mine]
That same definition can be used in context of a dog submitting to his master out of fear. Not quite the same visual or connotation as the Son of God sacrificing Himself on the cross. Sadly, most people probably think of that dog example when they hear the word submit. But the dog analogy isn’t all bad. Dogs also show submission by making themselves vulnerable when they roll on their back for a tummy rub. That’s a display of trust, not fear.
Action item: Meditate on Colossians 3:18-24. Submitting to my husband will be a means of serving him, thinking of him more highly then myself. I will allow myself to be subject to him. I’ll make myself vulnerable to him, trusting that he’ll take care of my heart. Maybe he'll even rub my tummy."
As a husband, I must obey God to love my wife as He loves me. I choose (or not) to obey in that way. So my wife chooses (or not) to submit in her obedience. You cannot force obedience (God sees our hearts not our actions). Submission to me is entirely my wife's problem - I shouldn't even think about that (only my submission to God)
Of course, all sorts of nasty things can happen. I can open up myself in vulnerability (loving my wife as Christ loves me) and my wife can take horrible advantage of my servant heart. My wife can choose to submit and I can take horrible advantage of her servant heart. We both place ourselves by faith under God's grace by obeying Him - and open ourselves up to sacrifice on His account. We have taken up our crosses.
Certainly either of us can choose to stop obeying God for any number of reasons. That is between each of us and God. We can also rely on the church appeals system (here is where you come in): Matthew 18:15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Frankly, abuse of Christian women by their husbands needs to be brought under the Matthew 18 process. There needs to be church involvement and/or discipline for husbands and wives who take advantage of their spouse's servant heart repeatedly and unrepentently. This needs to be taught often and hard.
Finally, what does this mean for Christian women in choosing their Christian husbands: "By inference, our text has much to say to the young woman who is considering marriage. A commitment to marriage to a young man is the commitment to a lifetime of submission to that man. If there is any one question which should be in a young woman’s mind concerning marriage it is this one: 'Is this the kind of man I want as my 'head,' to whom I will submit in all things for the rest of my life?' Surely our text suggests the necessity of premarriage counseling, so that an independent, objective third party can help in arriving at the answer." -- The Submission of the Christian Wife
John, thank you for the clarification on your comment regarding Lisa. I couldn't make heads or tails of it at the time and that should have been a clue that something was missing. (I might say, if that's the case, whatever man she's supposedly supposed to submit to had better respect her.) If I am not participating in this pointless discussion anymore, it is not because you 'ran me off'; believe me, I believe Kyle would tell you that I fear basically no debate and will rush in where angels fear to tread (this is not always a good thing). Anyway.
Lisa,
Lisa is not a Christian and she just got married to a man (who is not a Christian) she has absolute control over (at least to us outside family observers)
We will see how that plays out. It is interesting that her mom's and my experience; and her grandparent's experience convinced her that lifetime marriage without divorce is an obtainable goal. She would not have married (she said) if she didn't believe it very possible. She is in for the long haul.
John:
Consider the arrogance comment water under the bridge. I was pissed off when I first read it (and treated Lisa to quite a rant), but by the time I wrote my comments last night, I realized I was overreacting.
Also, I'm not saying we should discuss this now, but to just to be clear what I'm talking about, when I refer to the authentic or undisputed Pauline epistles, I refer to: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. If I refer to the disputed epistles or the deutero-pauline corpus, I'm talking about: Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians. The Timothies and Titus are about as likely to have been written by Paul as the Declaration of Independence. This does not bother me because pseudepigraphy was common and in many circumstances accepted in the Greco-Roman world. It was particularly common for students to write in the name of their teachers as a way of honoring them. This is what I believe we have with the deutero-paulines and the pastorals. What bothers me is that they lend the authority of Paul's name to blatant misogyny (it wouldn't have seemed so blatant at the time, but it represents a significant scaling back of the revolutionary advances Paul made toward women's equality).
Anyway, on to business!
The "fairer" bit. (Perhaps I should apologize for taking this thread even further afield... Nah.) You see, I believe that the human sense of justice and injustice is part of the imago dei. All sorts of other factors play a part in it (endorphines, for instance), but it is perhaps my most fundamental belief that the justice instinct is an echo of the voice (or perhpas Word) of God. Compare Romans 1 (sorry, I don't have it handy right now). Moreover, it is absolutely fundamental to who we are as human beings. This justice instinct is also one of the main reasons I believe the Bible to be of God (as well as the main reason I ever doubt the Bible to be of God).
I think everything I've said so far fits in pretty well with your natural law theory. Now, the question has come up several times in the history of Christian thought of whether God is bound by the moral laws we are. Could God have ordained it such that right is wrong and wrong is right? William of Occam is an example of a person who answerd yes. If God is not free to determine good and evil as God sees fit, William argued, than the moral law is greater than God, and this is absurd. But if God has arbitrarilly chosen what is to be considered right and wrong, what does that say about God? It says that God demands that we be good, but God is not good. And do we not worship God for who God is not just for what God has done? The point that I'm getting at (and it's late and I've had a beer, so I'm not sure if I've explained it adequately or not) is that if something is automatically fair because God says it's fair, than now God is our benevolent dicatator (and many might say with some justification that we have reason to doubt the benevolence).
God calls us to obedience, you say. And right you are. But God also asks us to love and worship him (pardon masculine pronoun, ye who are sensitive to such things. Can someone please come up with an accusative form of God?). We can obey an arbitrary God. But can we love and worship an arbitrary God? I don't think we can. Obedience to a dictator is predicated either on fear of punishment or hope of a reward, but love and worship cannot be predicated on this.
The scholastic solution to the dilema of the relation of the moral law to God was to say that right and wrong are not determined by God's will but are based on justice as an atribute of the divine nature (I think I'm representing old Brother Tom correctly, but medieval theology isn't my strong suit, so anyone who knows better should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Whether I'm representing Tom correctly or not, I find this explanation satisfactory. It makes God the source of justice (and not subordinate to it), but does not make God's justice arbitrary. God is actually just and can be truly worshiped as such.
But this has some serious implications for ethics. God cannot demand something of us unless it can be shown actually to be fair (I do not say that we have to see how, at least not perfectly. "For now we behold in a mirror, dimly." But an argument must at least be possible. And a definitive argument against it must be impossible).
All that to say that I do not consider "Deus vult" to be an acceptable response to "that's not fair."
And enough about the goddamn scissors! I'm going to be very offended if you continue to imply that I am a Marcionite. :) Seriously, I would never excise anything from the Bible. The biblical authors wrote what they wrote, and it would be dishonest to do anything other than repreint it faithfully, the good, the bad, and the ugly. But though the Bible is scripture to me just as it is to all Christians, "scripture" has never meant the same thing to all Christians. I try to obey God in all things (and like anyone else, fail miserably). But if that means that I must obey the Bible in all things, then I cannot call God good and just. That, and I'd have to go on a killing spree against all the witches I know.
John:
Congratulations to your daughter. All of use at the Watchpost wish her and her husband the best of luck.
Kyle,
I still like Lewis's response to the witch thing: if we really thought they were doing the things they were credited with in the Middle Ages - we would still be killing them. I certainly do not want to discuss that.
I have no problems with anything you wrote - my respect for you cranked up a huge number of notches. Obviously, I have developed a massive heumanistic (sp?) on the concept of submission in marriage (and on marriage) in order for me to place it on the "fair" side of the scale as I perceive it. And of course, theologians attempting to hold Biblical submission as fair and good have done the same. What is the primary purpose of theology though: to try to hold the Bible together in a way that strikes us as fair and right; or to explain to us what God thinks is fair and right.
As strongly as I believe in Natural Law and what you are saying about justice and fairness flowing out of God's very nature (and not being rules He can arbitrarily change) I am a conservative Christian because I also understand what the "world, the flesh (oh those endorphines), and the devil" do to warp our sense of what is fair and just, good and right. We are at the core of our being selfish and that impacts how we process good and fair.
Also, as societies change and those societies concepts of fairness and justice change - the tendency is to want to force those changes on God: To "rewrite" theology and to place those parts of the Bible that give us pause in the realm of "mistakes of the author" or "particular to a culture". Since I do not see anything particularly just or good about capitalism (I am not a socialist either - that is probably worse), world or national politics as they stand, and the moral status of any age of man (particularly the current one) I have a hard time with attempts to make the Bible "relevant" for our times. Frankly, the feminist theories which I embraced so fully in the early 70's along with Marxism are seen by me now, along with Marxism, as being false and not against "conditioning" but counter-intuitive to our very biology and nature. The "sexual revolution" was horrendous on a massive level - and my endorphines were certainly on the front line there. (Its nice to see that reversing now, even among secular high schoolers).
Also, the argument of Natural Law is that we can see God's morality generalized in all of human culture. Do we think that our liberalness in the US, and the west, is the norm? Generally, the rest of the planet wants our wealth and goods (How did we gain them?) but considers our culture and mores to be "satanic" (where that concept exists) and the epitomy of moral decay and degeneracy; and our concepts of justice and good self-serving and imperialistic (not to mention racist, nationalist, and arrogant). By the concept of Natural Law, the US is out of control morally.
The sermon yesterday was on Deuteronomy 6. A brief sidenote in the sermon was about the fairness and justice of what God was about to accomplish - the use of Isreal to destroy the currently resident people of the promised land; so that Isreal could enjoy "splendid cities which [they] did not build, and houses full of all good things which [they] did not fill, and hewn cisterns which [they] did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which [they] did not plant". You cannot have discussions with anti-Christians, intelligent seekers, and some liberal Christians very long before the question of how a good God could endorse the upcoming slaughter - and why would I think Isreal was led by God through Moses rather than by a early version of Saddam Hussein using God. I certainly have a heumanistic for that too.
God made a big change about 2000 years ago when "His mercy provided what His justice demanded". It is actually wrong to call that a "change" because the thread of the Bible is a natural flow from lack of law not making us pure; to law not making us pure; to Christ once we realize we are incapable of being righteous - ever. I expect however that God's concepts of right and just are eternal and unchanging. We should be very careful to assign them to "a time and place".
Anyway - I ramble now.
I still like Lewis's response to the witch thing: if we really thought they were doing the things they were credited with in the Middle Ages - we would still be killing them. I certainly do not want to discuss that.
I like that response rather much too. I think that it kind of conflicts, though, with the aim of Mere Christianity itself:
Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.
If Lewis had been writing 200 years earlier, he could definately have included the belief in the actual pernicious reality of witchcraft in his book, and said, "That's just what Christians believe." I think that a Lewis writing now, or at least 100 years from now, regarding homosexuality, for example, would write a very different book. An appropriate passage could be, "If we still believed that homosexuality was an unnatural choice, based on a psychological illness (the way Lewis thought about it, if I remember right) the way we did 2000 or 150 years ago, we would still oppose queer marriage."
In other words, there's a disconnect for me for Lewis to trace out what most Christians have always believed but be so glib in writing off something that just about every Christian believed for about 80% of Christian history.
This lead me to a post on submission
JCH--
I need to echo Kyle on the scripture/scissors thing. The choice is not between your view of the Bible and infidelity,e.g.
He desires our Christian marriages to act as a shadow (mirror, type) of His Son's relationship to His church. This is scripture. Make Paul (and Peter) male chavanist pigs and wield the scissors - or obey [I do live in a simple belief world - the doing of it is much much tougher]. My wife and I choose the latter.
and if you persist in saying that it is, we won't be able to have a good faith discussion.
Moreover, if you think that the plain meaning of the Ephesians author is that less than once a year, the husband makes an executive decision, or that submission is strictly the woman's task and no concern of the man, or that the man's submission to God must be perfect for it to have binding effect on the wife, or that women should engage in lengthy counseling and careful, considered choice before marrying, or that the 'husband' role may just as well be filled by the woman, then you plainly disagree with the vast majority of Christians over the course of all history. None of these new age evangelical niceties about voluntary submission and so forth were at all evident to the John Miltons of history. Indeed, it's hard for me to imagine the Ephesians author intending something so trifling.
The balance of power in gender relations is moving inexorably away from men. This is the only reason we have these nice-guy versions of patriarchy floating around. The velvet was off the steel two centuries ago. Now, even evangelical women demand some kind of circumlocution of the submission question to tolerate such backwardness. This trend will only continue until the neo-partiarchy movement is an embarrasing footnote in our history.
My main point, however, is that I would urge great caution in aligning your own view with the plain meaning of scripture. It is most emphatically not the view held by most interpreters of these verses over time.
Anyway, I know your comment about whippersnappers is no longer operative, but I took no offense. And Kyle, great Occam/Aquinas post. That's important stuff. While I agree that human notions of justice are warped by sin, any view of the Bible that requires me to believe that God commanded mass rape and genocide is much, much worse than the most demented human concepts of justice. I won't and can't believe it.
Ben,
I go through transformations (hence the name of my blog). So for the current state, drop by - I posted on submission
As to: Moreover, if you think that the plain meaning of the Ephesians author is that less than once a year, the husband makes an executive decision,
I think in a loving marriage that is the practical outgrowth of a man and wife each placing the other first coupled with most decisions not being crisis-driven - there is usually time for reflection, prayer and further discussion.
or that submission is strictly the woman's task and no concern of the man
This is the clear meaning of the Greek word upotasso unless you want to go for the military rather than the non-military sense. Duties to God all through the New Testament imply lack of coercion - since God knows your heart and doing duty without belief is useless. I stand on this one.
or that the man's submission to God must be perfect for it to have binding effect on the wife,
I have to dump this in one sense. I hold that the man cannot say anything about her lack of submission - both because of the voluntary nature of submission and the "plank" issue; and both men and wife owe their particular submissions to God in obedience; and not because of performance by their spouse.
or that women should engage in lengthy counseling and careful, considered choice before marrying,
I think you didn't intend this in the list. Most churches have pre-marriage counseling - especially Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Lutherans. I haven't gone through that process so I do not know if submission is discussed - but it should be. However, any women should do this - Christian or not. Unless you think running off with the first guy you love (without thought) who wants to marry you is Biblical. If you said you believed that I might have a cardiac arrest.
or that the 'husband' role may just as well be filled by the woman, then you plainly disagree with the vast majority of Christians over the course of all history.
I will retract this one. It was a silly attempt to appease the crowd. Forgive me. I repent.
None of these new age evangelical niceties about voluntary submission and so forth were at all evident to the John Miltons of history.
I care as little for historical mistakes as the new-fangled ones. So what. Remember that at least up until Luther church teaching and the Bible sometimes didn't resemble each other much - the Bible being hidden from most people.
Indeed, it's hard for me to imagine the Ephesians author intending something so trifling.
You mean Paul :). Why? Kyle was saying his objection to Ephesians was that it ran counter to Paul's general comparitive liberalness on women in his unquestioned works.
Even in the verses the duties of the man take up more than twice the space of the women. Qualitatively, the man's seem to me more critical and more difficult. I think in this passage the wives submission is the most trivial thing here.
Ben,
Is there some other way to view Peter and Paul's positions on the duties of a wife? Don't you have to obey the passages on submission; or dismiss them as anachronistic (or chauvanist and against God)?
It is a clear command all through the New Testament. You may not like the scissors remark but there is no point in authority if you simply find a way to dismiss it or ignore it.
And what of the commands to the husband - are they only relevant to that time and place as well? I would hate to see them go because they may be the most revolutionary in the Bible.
This is the clear meaning of the Greek word upotasso unless you want to go for the military rather than the non-military sense. Duties to God all through the New Testament imply lack of coercion - since God knows your heart and doing duty without belief is useless. I stand on this one.
I don't want to speak for Ben, but I finally got off my ass and checked the Greek. The word is indeed hupotasso, but this distinction that your crosswalk lexicon makes between military and non-military use of it is really, really stretching it. There is nothing in the word itself or in the present text that indicates that the submission is voluntary. In fact, in verses 21 and 24, it is in the passive voice (it isn't actually in 22, which is a clause explaining verse 21, but it might make more sense in English if you repeat it. vv. 21-24 are all one sentence with a lot of back to back subordinate clauses, very characteristic of Ephesians but very uncharacteristic of Paul, but that's neither here nor there). Furthermore, Deutero-Paul's emphasis is on the divinly appointed hierarchy of God-man-woman. There is nothing in the text to suggest that what he is talking about is voluntary. Furthermore, marriages in the Greco-Roman world (and in many other places then and now) were often arranged. In such a case, there is really nothing voluntary at all about this. This is really quite a nasty text.
Okay, so there might be one mitigating factor, and that is the mood of the verb in v. 21 and the reciprocal pronoun allelos. v. 21 is actually a participial clause, which is then explained by the following verses. Something like:
"Being subjected to one another in the fear of Christ, the women to their own men as to Christ, for [implied "a"?] man is the head of the woman as also Christ is the head of the church, himself the savior of the body; but as the church is subjected to Christ, so also [be] women to men in everything."
That participle in v. 21 could have several sorts of nuance that would have to be guessed from context. It could be a temporal participle ("while you are being subjected to one another..."), a causal participal ("because you are subjected to one another"), a concessive participle ("although you are subjected to one another"), a conditional participle ("being in the state of being subjected to one another"), a participle of means or manner ("by means of subjegation, one to another..."), and there are probably other ways to understand it as well. Obviously, some of them are a bit of a stetch (though not near as much of one as this distinction between compulsory subjegation in the military and voluntary submission out of the military for hupotasso), but all of them are possible readings. Whichever one chooses, the interesting fact to note is that it is not an imperative, it's a participle. The other thing is that the reciprocal pronoun allelous implies mutuality. It is not "to one another" in "some of you being subjected to others of you," but "one to another and vice versa." Make of that what you will. I still will not except the hierarchy.
Unless you think running off with the first guy you love (without thought) who wants to marry you is Biblical. If you said you believed that I might have a cardiac arrest.
No, that's not biblical. Your heart is safe. But see my remark above about arranged marriage.
I will retract this one. It was a silly attempt to appease the crowd. Forgive me. I repent.
The crowd boos. It certainly isn't biblical. I just found it to be an improvement over what is.
Kyle was saying his objection to Ephesians was that it ran counter to Paul's general comparitive liberalness on women in his unquestioned works.
Not exactly. My main point was that I don't care who wrote it, this passage and others like it are incompatible with the heart of the teaching of Christ to which Paul bears wittness. I appreciate Paul's comparative liberality, injustice is injustice no matter who it's coming from.
Or if you mean my objection to Ephesians as an authentic Pauline epistle, that would be a small part of it. The main argument there is that the writting is about as different from Paul as you can get. The Deutero-Paulines also emphatically affirm some doctrinal statements that Paul emphatically denies. If you want more details, they're available on request.
Don't you have to obey the passages on submission; or dismiss them as anachronistic (or chauvanist and against God)?
Yeah, pretty much. Which is why I opt for the latter and dismiss the comments about a wife submitting to her husband as to the Lord right along with the one about slaves submitting to their masters as to Christ 14 verses later.
Kyle,
It is interesting that I was led to the greek not first by the Strong's but by Christians for Biblical Equality in this article: A Fresh Perspective on Submission and Authority in Marriage.
Once I saw this much softer version of subject/submit I looked it up in Strong's to see what they thought - and voila. Even the conservative writer at Dallas Theological takes this tack. The dictionary meaning (at least one) implied agreement to be subject.
Arranged marriages mean nothing in this context. You can be forced to be married and not agree to submit in a Biblical since - voluntarily in obedience to God. You do not get the impression from the rest of Paul's writing that he is dealing with forced marriage. His comments about men and women remaining unmarried if possible tends to say he was mostly aiming his comments at those capable of making a decision.
Why you wish to give "subject" a more harsh meaning than conservative to moderate evangelicals I do not know.
The Deutero-Paulines also emphatically affirm some doctrinal statements that Paul emphatically denies. If you want more details, they're available on request.
This I would be interested in. Theological incoherance would be about the only thing that would override my lean here. Email me the links or articles or direction to sources if you wish.
All obligations in the New Testament tend to be seen as voluntary - at least in the sense that you must be wholehearted in carrying out God's will.
I think to argue here that there can by any spiritual reward for not voluntarily and wholeheartedly fulfilling your role as wife would fly in the face of New Testament teaching in every other area.
Just one point tonight, more later.
Why you wish to give "subject" a more harsh meaning than conservative to moderate evangelicals I do not know.
What I wish has nothing to do with it. In my previous comment (at least the first part of it), I am merely concerned with what the text says, and I've told you what I think it says based on the resources available to me, which tonight are the Alland edition of the Greek New Testament and the Middle Liddle lexicon (unfortunately, I don't own the Great Scott, or even Bauer). I realize I sort of switched modes without telling anyone, but no matter what mode I'm opperating in, my first task is to figure out what the Bible says. Only then can we figure out what to do with it. Perhaps when I get ahold of an LSJ, I will determine that I am wrong about hupotasso. If I think of it (and still care), I'll let you know when I get back to Chicago. Until then, I'm tentatively standing by what I've said.
Kyle has the exigetical ground covered better than I here, so I'll defer to him on hupotasso. My real question is this: are people seriously arguing that their strictly Biblical view of marriage has literally never been held before in the history of Christianity, including by all the monks and moral theologians in the middle ages who did have access to the scriptures? Or is it likelier that patriarchy lite developed in response to the increasing egalitarianism of American gender relations? The latter strikes me as so much more likely.
The idea that lengthy counseling before marriage is implied by the Ephesians submission doctrine is absurd unless there's any evidence that Christian communities actually had such a practice. I, of course, agree that counseling is very important. But that is because women can get a divorce now, because they can live on their own if they need to--basically, because they don't have to accept the lot that was always assumed for them before and they have to make voluntary decisions that they must abide by voluntarily. This was not the case in the apostolic time, as far as I know.
If modern evangelical scholars want to argue that the true, pristine original meaning of the Ephesians verses with their insight to the real (not so serious) nature of wifely submission has survived intact underneath centuries of very devout, very learned scholarship, I guess they are entitled to believe whatever they can convince themselves of. But please, please no more self-righteousness about "Biblical" views.
Ben,
The idea that lengthy counseling before marriage is implied by the Ephesians submission doctrine is absurd unless there's any evidence that Christian communities actually had such a practice
Of course Paul wasn't saying this. The author of the article couldn't hold that position nor would I. He is saying, as you, that pre-marriage counseling is important - and that part of the decision a future wife must make is whether the future husband is the kind of person she wants to submit too.
My real question is this: are people seriously arguing that their strictly Biblical view of marriage has literally never been held before in the history of Christianity, including by all the monks and moral theologians in the middle ages who did have access to the scriptures?
Got me. I just come at what it says - I am not all that worried about its history. As I implied above, we all look for a heumanistic that places scripture within our context of fair and good. I have used the NASB (which no one would call liberal). The Greek Lexicon used at Study Light has the same definition. Crosswalk says: Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.". Smith's Dictionary is 1880ish - just a little before the feminist movement.
It is interesting that of all the people I have run this by so far y'all are the only ones arguing that my post (have you read it?) is off the mark. Of course, all countries have not been heard from - you might get support. Or you will find a Lexicon that says I am wrong.
But again, where in the New Testament is any other duty to God not presented as voluntary out of necessity of it being wholehearted? Where do you get "points" for "going through the motions" unwillingly?
As Jim, in my post, comments: On a sweeter note, how wonderful that Jesus never clubbed us with "I'm the Lord, and you'll do it because the Bible says I'm in charge here.". This is a charismatic from the "Rock of [somewhere]" Church in Georgia I think.
Or Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost: "Most Christians tend to reject, misunderstand, or simply ignore this command. But JCHFleetguy takes a different approach and provides one of the best explanations for this passage that I've ever found."
That is not to brag, or argue from authority - it is simply to show my position is not outside the mainstream of conservative, evangelical thought.
John:
Congratulations on a link that will likely increase trafic at your blog. But I had to chuckle at your disclaimer that you're not arguing from authority. We respect Mr. Carter, but feel quite free to disagree with him.
Post a Comment
<< Home