Talk to me about Vision Forum

[purple_kangaroo]

Originally Posted by Kiara.I

I don't think so. Either male leadership is mandated, or it is not. There's not much middle ground there. Patriarchal or husband-is-the-head-of-the-house says that male leadership is mandated. As bolt points out, a family can be led by the man without believing that the man *must* lead, which is then because the dynamic of the family works well that way and everybody in the family is content with it (as implied by the "husband offered servant leadership and wife gladly accepted.")

I suppose you could say there is middle ground, where one spouse is convinced that male leadership is mandated and the other isn't. Or where both are convinced the same way but are not happy about it. Or something. But those aren't philosophical middle grounds, just middle grounds of application.

I think you can believe there is some sort of difference in roles or responsibility before God in a marriage where both spouses are believers and walking with God, not abusive, etc. without believing that it's a sin for the couple to decide together that the wife should take leadership in some areas, or a single mother is head of the house, or a women whose husband is not a believer or is abusive is free to take on leadership, or that the "headship" the Bible talks about is something spiritual from God's perspective and is essentially invisible and doesn't change how we interact much if at all from a human perspective, or that the Bible teaches mutual submission and never talks about someone making someone else submit and that being a leader means making the greatest sacrifice and laying down yourself for another, etc. etc. There are all kinds of variations that don't fit into one of those two categories.

[Annainprogress]

Hmmm that single mother is a very good point. Presumably in uber-patriarchy thought I sinned by asking my husband to leave following his admission of adultery, and then starting divorce proceedings when it became clear the marriage wasn't savagable. But would they more think I should move back in with my parents (actually illegal without xh permission due to how far away they live) or would they accept I'm head of the house for now? And what about single mothers/women due to widowhood?

[BarefootBetsy]

The Bible doesn't tell anyone to make others submit to them any more than it tells parents to force their children to obey. The command is given to the ones who should obey (children) and to the ones who should submit (all believers).

[TestifyToLove]

The main difference between soft Patriarchy and Uber Patriarchy lies in how the woman obtains salvation. In soft Patriarchy, the woman is to submit to her husband. However, if his will differs from what she believes God's will to be, then she is to answer to God for her salvation and obedience ultimately. In Uber Patriarchy, the ONLY requirement for a woman is to submit to her DH and her very salvation lies not in how well she obeys God's commands but how well she obeys her DH. In Uber Patriarchy, the husband answers to God for his salvation. The wife's salvation comes THROUGH HER HUSBAND. She is charged both with ensuring he can have his salvation AND with always obeying him, unless it violates the law. She is to submit to her husband and accept that God will honor her submission even if it meant she disobeyed God because it was obeying her husband, which is all she is responsible for doing.

VF and others in Uber Patriarchy are VERY big into the concept that a wife can only obtain salvation by properly submitting to her husband. Micheal Pearl and Bill Gothard are both very vocal about their belief of this stance as well.

[newday]

Originally Posted by purple_kangaroo

I think you can believe there is some sort of difference in roles or responsibility before God in a marriage where both spouses are believers and walking with God, not abusive, etc. without believing that it's a sin for the couple to decide together that the wife should take leadership in some areas, or a single mother is head of the house, or a women whose husband is not a believer or is abusive is free to take on leadership, or that the "headship" the Bible talks about is something spiritual from God's perspective and is essentially invisible and doesn't change how we interact much if at all from a human perspective, or that the Bible teaches mutual submission and never talks about someone making someone else submit and that being a leader means making the greatest sacrifice and laying down yourself for another, etc. etc. There are all kinds of variations that don't fit into one of those two categories.

The situations you have described are simply not mandated in the Bible, but if any of them are taught as BIBLICAL then the teaching is erroneous. So, any of the scenarios you can come up with may very well be fine for the people who practice them, but that doesn't automatically imply it is God's plan or express will.

Originally Posted by TestifyToLove

The main difference between soft Patriarchy and Uber Patriarchy lies in how the woman obtains salvation. In soft Patriarchy, the woman is to submit to her husband. However, if his will differs from what she believes God's will to be, then she is to answer to God for her salvation and obedience ultimately. In Uber Patriarchy, the ONLY requirement for a woman is to submit to her DH and her very salvation lies not in how well she obeys God's commands but how well she obeys her DH. In Uber Patriarchy, the husband answers to God for his salvation. The wife's salvation comes THROUGH HER HUSBAND. She is charged both with ensuring he can have his salvation AND with always obeying him, unless it violates the law. She is to submit to her husband and accept that God will honor her submission even if it meant she disobeyed God because it was obeying her husband, which is all she is responsible for doing.

VF and others in Uber Patriarchy are VERY big into the concept that a wife can only obtain salvation by properly submitting to her husband. Micheal Pearl and Bill Gothard are both very vocal about their belief of this stance as well.

Practically speaking I think I agree with you. Both are taught as the TRUTH Of GOD Which is my main problem with the whole teaching aspects of it.
And the logical conclusion of a little patriarchy is actually a LOT of patriarchy.

[Mommainrwanda]

I'm getting the sense that this thread is winding down (and I'm coming in waaaayyyyy late ), but wanted to say that I've appreciated the discussion. My family was never explicitly affiliated with VF, ATI, IBLP etc. growing up, but so many things were implied in our homeschooling circles. A friend and I now joke that the only reason our families weren't "poster families" for the movements was because our mothers were the fervant adherents rather than our fathers.

However (I know I've posted elsewhere about this), the ideas of patriarchy that were planted in my childhood bloomed, bore fruit, died and rotted in the two years prior to my wedding day. I had to process everything I believed about my father being my "authority" when I met and fell in love with my dh before my family ever met him. I SERIOUSLY doubted my own ability to make the decision to marry because my father disagreed with me. I felt like my ability to be a good Christian was in jeopardy because I was outside of his authority on the subject. Now I realize how unhealthy that dynamic was. I'm glad I had a year to process everything (while I taught in W. Africa and future-dh finished university) and not have to make a choice right away. Without that year I probably would have chosen the approval of my parents over my heart. I'm so glad dh stuck with me when so many people around him were saying "RUN FAR AWAY FROM THIS GIRL AND HER FAMILY!"

I think that something that has to be addressed is how those teachings can be like quicksand during vulnerable times. I forget (sorry) who it was that posted about feeling like life difficulties were the result of marrying outside of her parents' authority. It's so easy to long for the illusion of protection that is offered by patriarchy when things get difficult. Then troubles can be blamed on persecution or "testing" and a wife can kind of "hide" behind her husband while he protects the family. Oh how I find myself wishing that I could slip into that role occasionally. But, you understand, I want it because then I can escape responsibility and that's not healthy!

I am a much more dominant personality than dh and more naturally a leader. So it surprises people to find out that I don't always trust my leadership simply because occasionally the old lessons play in my head that my leadership is not as strong as that of a man. It's so easy to doubt myself when things are going poorly and to want to turn back to those formative teachings.

So, to myself (and anyone that wants to join me) I say: "You are a perfect PERSON. God sees you as whole and beautiful because you belong to him - not because you are the perfect woman/wife/mother/daughter, but because he created you. Never let your role in any relationship erase that truth."

[Mama2MeadowRose]

When it comes to the Word of God, to say that there MUST be 2 extremes is well...extreme. Let's use the commands of God as an example. Some would say that we don't need to worry about the commands of God because grace abounds and the law no longer applies. But then again what about 1 John 5:3 "the commands of God are not burdensome"? Then there are others who think we are justified by the law and don't even use the microwave on Shabbat (man's tradition, not God's command). So yes, there are extremes when it comes to how we carry out the ways of the Lord.

I really think the same goes for families. Uber patriarchy supercedes the personal will of God by 'forcing' a child to carry in the father's will, not God's. But at the same time, God's personal will would never go against His general will. For instance, He would not desire that women view a career as more important than having a family/raising their children (financial necessities do happen and I believe there is grace for situations that arise). I don't believe that a woman's career should make her so tired that she consistently says no to her sex-deprived husband. (Just using it as an example!). Anyways, might not be the best way to explain what I'm trying to say, but I hope you understand what I mean.

[Can'tTurnLeft]

Originally Posted by Mama2MeadowRose

When it comes to the Word of God, to say that there MUST be 2 extremes is well...extreme. Let's use the commands of God as an example. Some would say that we don't need to worry about the commands of God because grace abounds and the law no longer applies. But then again what about 1 John 5:3 "the commands of God are not burdensome"? Then there are others who think we are justified by the law and don't even use the microwave on Shabbat (man's tradition, not God's command). So yes, there are extremes when it comes to how we carry out the ways of the Lord.

I really think the same goes for families. Uber patriarchy supercedes the personal will of God by 'forcing' a child to carry in the father's will, not God's. But at the same time, God's personal will would never go against His general will. For instance, He would not desire that women view a career as more important than having a family/raising their children (financial necessities do happen and I believe there is grace for situations that arise). I don't believe that a woman's career should make her so tired that she consistently says no to her sex-deprived husband. (Just using it as an example!). Anyways, might not be the best way to explain what I'm trying to say, but I hope you understand what I mean.

I'm unsure who I'm talking to here, M2MR or her husband as this has the tone that the husbands posts have, but whatever. Can you give me scripture to support ANYTHING you are saying? Where does it say that a woman can't have a career that she highly values. Perhaps so much that she doesn't want to have children?

[Hermana Linda]

Originally Posted by purple_kangaroo

Wow, that seems harsh. I'm still wrestling with this issue myself and learning about it, but some of the comments in this thread and some others really make me hesitant to even explore and try to ask questions and learn about different ideas on this issue here in this community. I didn't see anything in the board's statement of beliefs that you have to believe in complete gender equivalency in order to fit in here. Can someone hold complementarian views and still practice GBD?

Some of us have never even been exposed to arguments from people who believe in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible but deny that there is any sort of headship or spiritual authority of the husband/father at all, ever, even if it is only in God's eyes and doesn't actually affect the way things work out or look in practice from the human perspective. I hope everyone can be gentle with our attempts and process of understanding where these alternative views are coming from and whether they make sense to us or not.

I'm so sorry that you are feeling that way. I totally understand your concerns. Please understand that these comments are referring to things from past threads. And thank you for speaking up about your concerns.

[bolt.]

Isn't there some range of shades in between? It seems to me that there are a lot of possibilities between/besides these of how people understand Scripture and work it out in their own lives.

Well, I'm a bit of a yes-or-no thinker, so the 'yes-or-no' question about patriarchy is quite simply, "Is essential authority over others granted by God to some people due only to the facts that they are male and married." -- Any methodology that says 'yes' is patriarchy, and any methodology that says, 'no' is not. The 'yes but' and 'no but' change what the situation looks like, but I'm just talking about whether or not a situation can be accurately called patriarchy.

I think you can believe there is some sort of difference in roles or responsibility before God in a marriage where both spouses are believers and walking with God, not abusive, etc. without believing that it's a sin for the couple to decide together that the wife should take leadership in some areas,

That would be 'not patriarchy' if there is no belief in inherent male authority due to maleness, and it would be 'patriarchy' if the male believed he had, and was using his inherent authority in a delegative fashion.

or a single mother is head of the house,

There is no such thing as a head of a house -- neither male nor female. Marriages have heads. Houesholds have leadership structures.

or a women whose husband is not a believer or is abusive is free to take on leadership,

No Christian is free to 'take on' leadership over another adult person. Christians are free to offer leadership to others as a ministry. They are also free to run their own lives and make decisions about their own actions in their relationships -- including marriages.

or that the "headship" the Bible talks about is something spiritual from God's perspective and is essentially invisible and doesn't change how we interact much if at all from a human perspective,

If invisible spiritual headship implies something other than inherent authority of the man over the woman (which it does!)... that would be 'not patriarchy'. If invisible spritual headship implies inherent male authority over his wife, that would be patriarchy. (If the couple doesn't know what it implies, but they think it might or might not be authority -- that's simply being undecided... so I guess I can call that a grey area.)

or that the Bible teaches mutual submission and never talks about someone making someone else submit and that being a leader means making the greatest sacrifice and laying down yourself for another, etc. etc.

If that means it is the inherent responsibility of the husband to lead well-and-gently, because of the authority of his male-ness, that patriarchy. It that means anybody can offer leadership, and this is how they can offer it, and how they should do it if the offer is accepted -- that's 'not patriarchy'.

There are all kinds of variations that don't fit into one of those two categories.

I just don't see it that way. There is 'males have authority over their wives because that's what's right' (with all the ways a couple can live according to that belief among other their beliefs) -- or there is 'nobody has inherent authority over other adults' (with all the ways a couple can live according to that belief among their other beliefs). There are also couples who haven't decided yet, or who have re-entered indecision on the issue, or who have decided not to try to comprehend it.

It's not about saying patriarchy itself is extreme. It's just that the word has a meaning, and it accurately discribes some situations and beliefs, and it is not accurate to apply it to other situations.

It's simple accuracy-in-vocabulary, and not intended to be insulting. Christianity has flourished in patriarchal environments for centuries -- patriarchy is not an ideal environment for the faith... but very few things are capable of standing in the way of the Christlife. Many of the NT passages about sumbmission are saying that point-blank: "The laws of your society grant authority to male family leaders. There's no reason to let that stand in the way of either of you living out the Christlife of submission -- here's how you can make that happen even in your situation."

---

But would they more think I should move back in with my parents (actually illegal without xh permission due to how far away they live) or would they accept I'm head of the house for now? And what about single mothers/women due to widowhood?

They would decide who your spiritual head was (either still your husband, if they assessed your divorce to be sinful, or your father if the divorce was OK with them, or your eldest living brother, uncle or male cousin etc.) then they would consider the right action to be for you to contact that person, ask him how you should arrange your living arrangements, and follow his instructions (everything would be his decision, including whether you abided by the court order or not). If you did not follow those instructions you would be in the sin of rebellion against your so-called head.

And what about single mothers/women due to widowhood?

They would revert to their fathers, or male next-of-kin for headship, until/unless he selected a new possible husband for her to strongly consider consenting to marry.

If there was literaly no one, she would be considered like an orphan, and probably a pastor or elder would graciously minister to her by acting as her head.

[cobluegirl]

I am having a spin off thought..but not sure which forum to put it under...regarding husband/wife/expectations/submission etc.... ideas?

[Hermana Linda]

Originally Posted by cobluegirl

I am having a spin off thought..but not sure which forum to put it under...regarding husband/wife/expectations/submission etc.... ideas?

LOH?

[BarefootBetsy]

Originally Posted by cobluegirl

I am having a spin off thought..but not sure which forum to put it under...regarding husband/wife/expectations/submission etc.... ideas?

Loving our Husbands?

ETA - cross-posted again!

[cobluegirl]

That is what I was thinking....

---------- Post added at 09:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 AM ----------

http://www.gentlechristianmothers.co...49#post3713749

[CelticJourney]

Originally Posted by Mama2MeadowRose

I really think the same goes for families. Uber patriarchy supercedes the personal will of God by 'forcing' a child to carry in the father's will, not God's. But at the same time, God's personal will would never go against His general will. For instance, He would not desire that women view a career as more important than having a family/raising their children (financial necessities do happen and I believe there is grace for situations that arise). I don't believe that a woman's career should make her so tired that she consistently says no to her sex-deprived husband. (Just using it as an example!). Anyways, might not be the best way to explain what I'm trying to say, but I hope you understand what I mean.

It's been a long thread, but I think you are missing the focus of this. These individuals and organizations are not concerned with 'traditional roles' or even 'wos', they are preachinig the false docterine of male spiritual supremacy and female worth being tied to her committment to submission - body, mind, soul and spirit. I know your passion for advocating for traditional roles and wos, but this teaching is well beyond that in the theological realm.