Thanks for reminding that there is more involved than just a discussion of theology. It is a huge emotional issue - for both egalitarians and traditionalists - and we need to remember that. :-)

I am wondering about two things right now...

1)

I know traditional families with very controlling husbands, and very obedient wives.

The husbands forbid their wives to go to Bible study without them, to spend the money without their permission, and sometimes even leave the house without them. The wives seem to be mostly okay with that arangement - they obey their husbands out of respect for them (they feel that the husbands are acting out of love and desire to protect them). And yet at times they feel sad.

2)

Second situation is not unlike what Darrel described - traditional "talk" in the family, while practicing egalitarianism - and both husband and wife are truly happy.

So the question is this : should we try to convince the people in such cases to change their point of view? Won't it create more problems than solve? Is not the most important rule of maintaining a marriage - "If it's not broken, don't fix it" ?

(Oneko Ariel)

It's important that we remember that the Holy Spirit is the agent by which people's hearts and minds are changed.

Our focus needs to be on living and teaching the truth, rather than trying to make other people accept it.

I'm not suggesting we don't discuss the issue with dissenters, or exhort them to do what is right. However, we shouldn't expect to change people and we shouldn't be discouraged when God doesn't operate within our time frame.

( In my opinion ).

(Ruth)

Do you know they are truly happy? Do you know those couples close enough?

I'd say they life in "deep sin" and dont even know it, which is typical of us humans. Are we to wait for the final collapse before we talk the truth?? Hope not.

The question is how to "reach" these people who dont know they are "broken". I listen carefully to your personal testimonies under this thread. If you have been traditionalists before, you should be THE EXPERTS on knowing how you could be reached while in that frame of mind.

How could I have talked about this to DAve's wife those days? WOuld there have been any way at all? Dave forced the wife to think, but if I come from outside or as a friend, is there ANY chance what so ever -- until the marriage has run into problems the parties themselves can feel. Is there anything I can do when nobody around me sees the problem? Am I just killing myself by trying to make a difference?

(Anne)

Yes, there are truly happy traditional couples - as there are truly miserable ones. Yep, I believe I am close enough to them to make an accurate assesment.Sometimes traditional teaching is combined with egalitarian attitude...and this is very weird, but it seems to work out!

I hesitate branding any traditional couple as "living in deep sin" simply on the basis that they practice traditionalism.

What does everybody else think?

(Oneko)

I was provocative, sorry. Lets translate " live in deep sin" as a sinful attitude that is deep down under the surface, invisible to everyone. Well, thats the way I see it. Or would you say traditionalism, the Gen 3:16, is a consequence of the Fall the same way as death: we cant help it. We dont say dying is a sin, but I would say putting down or restricting over sex is a sin. You can choose not to do it! What do you think?

I quess I have problems with the model that says, sin is a wrongful deed or act,while you can think in your head whatever you wish and that counts as no sin, since you did not DO anything.

I may have some bias here.. Please correct me if you feel so. But I mean this seriously now.

(Anne)

Anne, I understand now what you are saying. Yes, I believe that Genesis 3:16 describes the consequence of sin - and that we can indeed fight with it.

I think that if, for example, a woman believes that her husband can make her do anything at all (whether it is right or wrong), she is sinning. I also think that if the guy believes that he has the right to be cruel to his wife, or to make her do whatever he wants to - he is living in sin as well.

However, most traditional couples are not like this! They believe that husbands authority over the woman is limited, that the husband has no right to treat his wife in any way that is wrong - and so on.

Their view of "headship authority" always comes with a dozen qualifications and exceptions; they respect each other & each other's opininon - and they truly do practice care and love for each other.

I am not sure if I can label them as "living in sin".

(Oneko)

Oneko,

Leaving aside the "sin" question, what do you think of this?

When two people live in a relationship where there is one-way submission (believed *or* practiced) then both of them are missing God's best for them. Both of them are being denied opportunities to become more like Christ. The one who does the one-way submitting misses opportunities to learn to listen to God, to learn to take responsibility. The one doing the one-way leading misses opportunities to learn submission, servanthood, giving up of self.

I think this happens even if the two are generally *practicing* egalitarianism, and just *thinking* hierarchy. The leader has to make contortions with the truth in order to explain away his/her submission as leadership, and the one doing the submitting has to make similar contortions in order to justify his/her leadership as submission. I once heard someone talking about his marriage. His wife handles all the finances. She makes all the financial decisions, and she doesn't consult him before making them. But he is still "leading" because he told her at some point to make them. So are you leading me if you now tell me to post to this forum, even though I was posting here before and will post here in the future? And am I submitting to your leadership?

I don't see the world in terms of black & white; in many things, there are multiple approaches or choices none of which may be wrong but some of which may still be better than others (some of them may be wrong also). I don't know what is right and wrong in many situations, and I think in many situations right and wrong may in fact be difficult to determine. I don't know if this is one of those situations or not. But I do think that if someone is making a choice that is not the best one (even if it is not sinful), and you care for them, then you will want to help them make the best choice in whatever caring way you can do that. There are no guarantees that your attempts are going to make things easier for them, and that is the scary thing.

([email protected])

I think that you are completely right. What you are saying makes perfect sense.

I agree that the traditionalism results in twisting of definitions and in both parties missing out on opportunities. (Especially the husbands - it would appear that they would be missing out on the opportunity to honor their partner as equal and in the opportunity to practice submission - and actually admit to doing that.)

Thanks for pointing this out.

(Oneko)

Happy or not, they should know the truth. We need to tell them, even if it makes them unhappy or causes issues to arise that need to be dealt with. Why? Because it is the truth and is therefore worthy of whatever cost.

(Dave)

Sounds like you are pretty "fanatic" about this That's cool. Sorry, about picking on this, but I used those words myself and gotten wierd looks for that, that stick with me and made me wonder at times if I really lost perspective on what is important.

Have good a weekend dear people! I am taking off homebound and finally leaving an exhausting working week behind. See you on monday.

(Anne)

Thank you, Anne, Amanda, Dave, Eve, Ruth.

Sometimes I forget that it's not only the practice of traditionalism that hurts - the "talk" hurts, too. Perhaps even more than anything else - because it damages people's view of themselves, and of each other.

I revisited the CBMW website after a while (last time I browsed there extensively I was not 100% egalitarian yet) - and for the first time I could fully appreciate how opressive and damaging the stuff that they are writing up is.

You are right, people. The fact that there are "traditional" situations that work fine is irrelevant - sort of like "happy slaves of the South" argument is irrelevant to advocating the entire system of slavery.

Once again - thanks, people.

(Oneko)

Good point, thanks for pointing that to me.. Indeed talk hurts... that is sinful talking-- putting down 50% of people. It is a powerful thing with which you can "curse" other people. Words can kill. We all do that. I definitely do that. And sure I want to be pointed out when I use my sharp toungue to hurt and damage. It is sin. Worse than many other forms of sinful deeds as far as I am concerned.

Couple of weeks back I visited a free chruhc in the countryside with my mother. In that denomination women cannot be pastors.. yet in this particular congregation there are no men pastors, or leaders. So I asked the "pastor/leader" how she is restricted by her gender. The answer: she can do everything that male pastors could do except to perform weddings!!! (the congregation members are old women mostly, no one in the wedding age). So I asked what her title then is. Answer: She is THE LEADER OF THE CONGREGATION!! SO, is there anything sinful here? She is not restricted in any ways in practise. Yet she is put to a "less than" category because of her gender, in front of the congregation. NO SIN DONE??

Indeed Oneko, you said it: talk hurts. It does indeed. It is sinful.. and thats why CBE is here as far as I understand.

(Anne)

The churches that are trying to practice 'egalitarianism' while teaching 'traditionalism' paint themselves into the corner. Often they end up saying that it is okay for the woman to do everything, as long as it is done "under male headship" - and she does not get any recognition for her work. I wonder how this biblical principle came about? ;-)

(Oneko)

I find it ironic that the woman in the church you mentioned can do everything but perform weddings. It is ironic because there is no biblical basis for pastors performing weddings! This is something that comes to us from tradition.

This week a member of my church told me he is uncomfortable with calling a woman a pastor, though he does not object to her doing all the things she is doing and he admits that if she was a man, he would not object to calling him a pastor. Ironically, the english word "pastor" only appears once in the NT (Eph 4:11) and there it is plural. Nowhere does the Bible specificly say women cannot be pastors, since the only place where the word occurs is here. Ironically, again, of the other positions named in this verse, there are biblical examples in each case of women holding those positions! Why then would the pastoral position be the sole exception? The arguments to that effect are weak.

(Dave)

Exactly, it is ironic to the fullest extent. Thats why I keep telling the story. It just proves the point so wonderfully. It seems the "titles" are the last chance for men to keep up their "betterness". But combining that with biblical justification is just so utterly ridiculous. I'll make it the point to take those stories to surface at my close range. Expose the ridiculousness when I can

(Anne)