Popsonian

We seem to have a broad spectrum of agreement about not caring much for "traditional" gender-role assignments. Well and good, but how, then, do we grapple with the simple historical fact that we are participants in religious traditions which in many ways enshrined in their sacred writings and practices a subordinate role for women? It seems dubious theological method to shrug and simply say "Meh, that stuff in Paul's epistles or Deuteronomy doesn't seem to apply very well today..." Yes, perhaps we might eventually reach that conclusion, but by what route of faithful, theologically consistent reasoning do we accomplish this?

One possible route (and I think I'm actually cribbing from Catholic thought here, believe it or not) is to distinguish between "Capital T" Tradition and "lower-case t" tradition. Some of our respective traditions, by this line of reasoning, can be regarded as simply products of their social milieu (examples: slavery and polygamy), acceptable and accepted by the Scripture-writers of that era, but not worthy of being elevated to the status of Tradition, and therefore able to be jettisoned honorably without violating Tradition.

How does one distinguish between Tradition and mere 'tradition'? Part of this is done by appealing to what are understood to be the deeper, more enduring values of one's religion. It is also helpful to find ways in which the Tradition itself manages to find counter examples to the tradition. In Judaism we have examples of some daughters or wives of great Sages displaying impressive theological acumen, for example; this can be seen as an opening for the possibility of women serving as rabbis, despite the weight of the tradition being against it.

ok fellow women...remember im an innocent one armed woman here...try not to all pounce at one...

I am very old fashioned. I love and value the leadership of a man in life and relationships. I believe men are wonderful leaders and should be in leadership positions. Im one who thinks theres definitely places a woman doesnt belong. I dont think a woman belongs behind a bulldozer, trucks or construction hammers, behind a pulpit except to lead other woman, or in the oval office. I loooove the roles of men and woman in relationships too. I dont think women need to be barefoot and pregnant. I think hers should be the second and helping income if necessary but the man is the main provider of the home. I believe the woman takes care of her home and the man repairs it...lol. I love that the husband is the primary decision maker in the home. I think that its important that there is mutual respect. Ephesians 5 tells us wives submit unto your own husband and husbands love your wife like Christ loved the church-that to me is the most beautiful example of mutual respect and love.

Well thats it in a nutshell. I know I know...the woman here are planning a lynch mob for the one armed freak here as I type...lol.

Maddie, I have to completely agree with you!!! Kent and I are a lot like that too. Plus our Church has an Associate Pastor that is a lady and she is VERY GOOD!!! If it wasn't for her, I wouldn't be baptized today. She led me closer to our Lord and enabled me to not be so afraid of water and thinking I couldn't do it.

okay, well, since I started this thread, it seems only fitting that I should post my view
somewhere along the line;
-- other than to cackle uproariously @ Pops' tongue-in-cheek "submission", (achem, )

so.. here goes:

I chose that specific verse, "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall have rule over thee" for
an explict reason -- to see if anyone would connect the dots to the other verse,
where Father G-d, Great-Spirit-Creator, refers to BOTH humans,
male & female, as "Adam" (meaning "taken from the earth")..

IF we look at WHEN He handed down the man-rules & woman-desires "ordinance",
it was AFTER Sir Adam and Eve disobeyed.. wasn't it? SOOOOO,
doesn't that mean then, (at least to me it does), that what He stated was therefore
A CURSE??? and that originally, in His Divine Perfect Plan, men and women were EQUAL??? ..
ONLY after they sinned, did the inequality come into play?

as an aside: -- I would be completely comfortable taking the position
of "this is tradition speaking" when it comes to how the inequality came into being;
since, believing as I do, many things have been credited to Holy G-d that weren't
things He actually said in the way we have them now, (and I can support some of
this from what is recorded as words Jesus spoke, uh-huh, !) but that's a thread-thought
that belongs with "the Word of G-d", and one I'll get back to when this &
"creature/animal/image" has been exhausted, since I see them as conjuctive in nature--

back to the topic at hand -- Since, from where I sit, we're created equal, only
when we as man and woman are operating outside of G-d and His ways,
does the imbalance surface. I believe, after reading what sisters Maggs & Maddie
have had to contribute, that since, praise be to G-d, they have wonderfully blessed
marriages, that this actually plays out in reality-- there is no "me man, you woman,
rub my feet, bake a cake, draw my bath and no, you can't talk to your sister tonight,
cause I said so! " routine going on in their relationship.
It appears that since both sets of marriages are based in G-d's Spirit of Truth,
and with Messiah Jesus as their anchor, that the way marriage was originally created to be,
has been restored! *happy dance for sisters/brothers* --

I started this thread with reference to a book I'm dipping my toe into here-and-there -
(to wade into it fully would require a bucket for horking to be near-at-hand, ,
it is sooooo distasteful how much of scripture in this book has been taken out of context,)
and in it there are references made to the woman's husband as something along the lines of .
"a scholarly bible student, well versed in scripture" and the icing on the cake.
"he has approved everything I am writing" ---

--she refers often to the redundant KJV reference in Genesis 2:18,
where woman is considered a "help meet", yet, while she is correct in
stating this is the only place in the bible you'll find that term, used in that
way, she hasn't even begun to do her real home work;
she makes it abundantly clear that she won't leave out one or the other,
or even hyphenate the two words, even though, were she to truly dig into
the original hebrew translation, both words mean exactly the same thing!;!
you find the exact replica of the meaning/reference/word for both "help" & "meet".

What I found truly fascinating was that when one digs into the words..
"ezer" (said -"ay-zer"), which is derived from "azar" (said - "aw-zar"),
it means..........*drum rollllllll *- (hold onto your bloomers here girls!!)..
"to aid, in the sense of protecting and to surround"..
along with "to succour".. which in all references to that word, means to provide assistance,
especially in times of need or danger -- which is often how David used the word in the Psalms,
and I believe (off the top of my head) it's in the NT book of Hebrews, in reference to G-d assisting
us in times of trouble..

*** ahhhhhhhh.. I can just hear folks going.. "nooo, really? oh wow!,.. hmmm.. this IS interesting"..
to which I say "yeah, ain't it though?" LOL ***

What kills me about this whole thing, and I'll refer once more to what this woman writes,
though I'll be paraphrasing as not to get hammered for breaking intellectual laws ( ),
she says that women who don't desire to do G-ds will in reference to their hubbies are
tantamount to those rejecting the idea of "a G-d" altogether, and are simply looking for ways
not to be obedient, they are simply rejecting G-d's reasons for true submission & servitude;
she advises that women who see it differently than she, change their minds/ways and
conform to the way we're created! grrrrrr *spit, hiss, snarl... * ! ..

So, to wrap it up.. I reckon that those who desire to have their husbands rule over them,
must want to stay in the old "sin ways" of doing things?????

Rather than, to be like our Lord Jesus: I find He actually stepped out of the cultural boundaries
of that time, and embraced women into His clutch of close followers, befriending many
and allowed them to be re-elevated to the status He knew G-d had designed for them originally.

I know for my part, (and I mean no ill towards those who feel comfortable where they are) I'm
satisfied with what I have had revealed through prayerful study -- Setting aside everything
but "the Living Word" a.k.a. Messiah Jesus, G-d's Son, .. I believe that if we love one another,
as He loved us.. sacrificing and serving with the ultimate goal in all things to glorify Father G-d..
then this hierarchy thing would dwindle not only in the home, but also in other areas -- am thinking
Deborah, in Judges---(which will no doubt be cause for another hot-topic debate, ) ..

To finish this off.. (completely).. just one thought (to solidify my position on this, )
.. when man and woman were created, don't we read "and they shall leave mom and dad,
merge into eachother's lives, and become ONE flesh" (my paraphrasing here).. ??? so..
does "one-flesh" conote divison? --

if I hear folks going to pull out what Paul writes in his LETTERS, with reference to Father G-d,
Jesus, head-of-church, likeness-to in marriages.. ah.. Who was it
that said "my Father is greater than I" & "I do/say what I hear from Father" ??? hmmmm??
I know.. more prod, prod, ponder ponder.. (and rattling cages, )

At least, that's my take on things,
_____________________________________________________
waits for more feed back,

as always, may love abound more and more from Father G-d, through
our Eldest Brother, Messiah Jesus.. peace and blessings in His name,

sis-Pearly

okay, well, since I started this thread, it seems only fitting that I should post my view
somewhere along the line;
-- other than to cackle uproariously @ Pops' tongue-in-cheek "submission", (achem, )

heheheh. Shame on me.

I want to clear some things up...I never said I want my husband to rule me. I said I love the leadership the husband has in a relationship. I would readily help build a home from the ground up were I capable. Im not though because I dont have that skill. I want to be able to make decisions and be an active sounding board in my husbands life, but the final decision rests with my husband.

I never said I want to be a doormat or slave. Marriage is a partnership of loving mutual respect and trust. When the husband loves his wife like Christ loves the church and the wife submits unto her own husband there is exactly that.

So many different answers.... and none of them wrong.

I can see why in the OT/NT that is was important to divide labor, as was said hunter/gatherer. Or even in the 20, 30, 40, and even in the 50's where the woman stayed home and took care of the home while the man brought home the bacon.

Now, I don't believe in a 50/50 marriage, I believe it has to be 100/100. I believe it is up to each and every couple what works best for them on how they divide the labor in their house; but I do believe it needs to be divided.

I also believe there has to be just one head, one leader. If both spouse is trying to always be head, it won't be much of a happy home. And maybe the head changes for each situation... she leader of the home, he leader of the bacon, she leader of the kids, he leader of finances... etc. etc. etc....

I have been taught in my church, that the curse was that the man would rule over the woman, and her desire would be for her man {paraphrase} was more about the woman's curse. . . trying to usurp the man's leadership, and being frusterated in doing so. Jesus came and qualified that saying that a woman should submit to her husband, AS MUCH AS the husband is submitted to the Lord. If the husband is not a follower or is asking for something illegal or immoral, then the wife is not to submit as the husband is no longer submitting to the Lord. As long as the husband is submitting to the Lord and loving his wife as Christ loves His church, then the wife is to submit to his leadership.

Some areas I rule in, some areas my spouse rules in. If we are ever at odds, we pray, if we are still at odds, the husband leads the way. He also has to take the responsibility. This is something we agreed upon long before it ever became an issue.

Pops,
Do Moccasins count in the shoe count? I loved your responce
I do feel that a husband and wife should be partners. Sometimes one of them may need the other to be strong. IF it is the hubby or wife. A good team. Rick and I have a very special way of working on things. My mom never taught me to cook, I learned to work on cars with my dad. I was a grease monkey, I still love working on cars. Rick learned to cook from his mom. So when we got married we taught each other, we had alot of laughes during the learning also. We both cook,clean and work on cars and repairs together. He still cooks better then I do, but leaves a bigger mess then I do.

For women to stand back and not take on doing construction or road repair or whatever? Take the main chefs out of the kitchen then. For they are doing women's work.">) IF you can do it go for it!
dutches

AMEN dutches!!! Well said!!

Red I do like youre answers and agree with you...smile. Well put!!

from Pearl-of-Faith..."What I found truly fascinating was that when one digs into the words..
"ezer" (said -"ay-zer"), which is derived from "azar" (said - "aw-zar"),
it means..........*drum rollllllll *- (hold onto your bloomers here girls!!)..
"to aid, in the sense of protecting and to surround"..
along with "to succour".. which in all references to that word, means to provide assistance,
especially in times of need or danger -- which is often how David used the word in the Psalms,
and I believe (off the top of my head) it's in the NT book of Hebrews, in reference to G-d assisting
us in times of trouble.. "

I like that Protector thing...reminds me of movie Fifth Element with Bruce Willis-who tells the "Supreme Being" that he is on mission to save the world and they are in trouble.-to which she replies"Oh-You no Trouble-Me..Fifth Element..Me Protect You!" and then he gets put to sleep...............

(Bloomers??????-must be another time period-huh

cool response West...youre posting style is great too...smile. Im always giggling when I read your posts! HUGS Bro!

Well, it looks like this surely is a "hot topic" considering the responses,

One thing though:

Red wrote ~ "Jesus came and qualified that saying that a woman should
submit to her husband, AS MUCH AS the husband is submitted to the Lord."

Exactly WHERE did JESUS say this, please? ..
Jesus, G-d's Son,........ not Paul or Peter, but JESUS..
Gospel, Chapter and Verse, explicitly? ?


(knows the real answer, but this will no doubt lead to another "hot topic", - as
an expansion on "The Word of G-d" idea.. we may need to summarize the first thread, and
open a new "edition" on this.. ORRR... all agree to a time where we can gather in chat
to engage in real-time, **hint hint*)

____

ORRR... all agree to a time where we can gather in chat
to engage in real-time, **hint hint*

I'M GAME!