|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 2, 2009 12:04:44 GMT -5
jlp and krwordgazer have been helping to work on a FAQ specifically addressed to QF women who are burning out, questioning the legitimacy of the lifestyle ~ but who have no desire to give up on the bible and their faith. So, in other words, this FAQ will be all about the bible, Christianity, etc. A lot of work has already gone into this ~ but there's still much work to do since jlp and KR have never personally adopted the QF way of thinking ~ which means that so far, this FAQ has been mostly addressed to a more mainstream Christian audience. In order to make this info. truly helpful here at NLQ, we need to make the questions and answers QF-specific. So ~ I'm posting some of what we have so far ~ along with comments which have gone back and forth between jlp and me ~ in the hopes that we can get the ex-QFers on this forum involved. (Rebecca and Ruby ~ I'm really hoping that you'll add your input here too.) I'm really pretty encouraged about this FAQ ~ and I so appreciate jlp and KR's patience and determination to stick with this project and develop a really quality FAQ that will actually resonate with QFers' way of thinking. Thanks for all your help.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 2, 2009 13:41:12 GMT -5
What I am posting here is a very rough draft of the FAQ which we have so far. After jlp and KR submitted the first (second?) draft, I wrote back and asked for permission to mark it all up with questions and comments which would make the FAQ more QF-specific ~ they are happy (? ~ maybe determined is a better word) to do it, so this is part of the marked up copy (the red stuff is all me) which I sent back followed by comments from jlp. This portion of the FAQ only deals with patriarchy. krwordgazer has prepared a segment dealing with quiverfull/birth control ~ but she's on vacation right now ~ so we'll work on that one when she gets back.
NOTE: Please realize that I no longer believe any of this ~ and so these arguments and objections which I'm raising in the red comments are only coming from my former way of thinking and approach to the bible ~ I'm sure it will be frustrating to Christians.
Sorry ~ it's just that we really need to address these issues in such a way that the QF women will even listen. There is a mindset and a special language which only a QFer really understands. So ~ if my comments seem completely bizarre or unreasonable ~ it's because the QF mindset is bizarre and unreasonable. Doesn’t Genesis 3:16 prescribe that husbands are to rule their wives?QF does not teach that husbands 'rule' their wives ~ the language is much more subtle. The husband is viewed as "protector, provider, and priest" ~ so it's appealing to a woman/mother's deepest desires and playing on her fears ~ it promises a husband worthy of her respect, honor and obedience. In QF, the husband is portrayed as benevolent ~ he loves his wife as Christ loves the Church. So a lot of the language is the same ~ it's the meaning behind the words which is so subtly different but which makes all the difference. We really have to deal with the QFer's actual wording ~ which will take a little more work because the words are essentially the same as what regular / egalitarian Christians use ~ so we'll have to define what they mean and then respond. A good place to look for the actual submission language would be the ladies against feminism website ~ also, Above Rubies and Vision Forum ~ go to the created to be his help meet site if you can stomach it ~ that's where you're going to find the exact wording which QF/Pers use in describing the husband's authority over his wife.NIV - Genesis 3:16 Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Whatever you want to prove from the bible ~ you're going to have to do it from the KJV ~ most hardcore QFers (they're all hardcore) do not recognize any other version ~ except maybe the Geneva bible. I know this will make it a hassle ~ sorry.Some scholars believe Genesis 3:16 is a description, not a prescription. They believe it describes what will happen to the relationship between husbands and wives as a result of the fall. In other words, it’s not telling wives that their husbands are to rule over them. It’s telling us that as a result of the fall husbands will rule over their wives. In order words, it’s not a prescription that men should rule, but a description that they will. Okay ~ so what's the difference? If the bible is describing the way things are between husbands and wives ~ pre- or post-fall, on what basis are we to dismiss this description as normative? In the QF ~ strict literalistic ~ approach to the bible, these fine distinctions between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" are considered manipulations of the authoritative Word of God ~ in other words, the interpreter is merely looking for way to get around what the bible actually says. God Calls Patriarchal Headship A Sinful Desire ~ now this is an awesome link! I hope you will rely heavily on Mr. Burleson's arguments in this FAQ ~ he is addressing the specifics of the QF movement leaders and he does a pretty convincing job of it. Doesn’t using the word head in Ephesians 5 mean that the husband is the wife’s leader or authority?NIV - Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. In English the word “head” has the metaphorical meaning of leader or authority. However, it did not have that meaning in the Greek of the Paul’s day. To see the possible meanings for kephale go the Liddell Scott Greek English lexicon. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English LexiconScroll down till you see the word kepha^lê. Underneath is a list of the many ways kephale (head) was used in ancient Greek. There is no entry for kephale as meaning either “leader” or “authority”. If the word “head” did not have the metaphorical meaning of leader or authority in the Greek of Paul’s time, what did it mean?
That’s a tough question to answer, as can be seen by looking at the Liddell Scott lexicon. However, different people have tried to answer that question. Here are links to some of their answers. I really think that the question needs to be addressed *in the FAQ* ~ not by linking because it leaves a lot of room for QFers to either, not follow the links or to follow them and then dismiss the arguments if the sources are at all questionable as to their commitment to biblical literalism. It would be most helpful if you (and whoever is helping you) go through these links ~ pick out the strongest, most plausible arguments and then write them out in the FAQ using the Q & A format. Of course, we can credit sources at the end of the FAQ.The Kruse Kronicle - Household: Synopsis of the "Head" Metaphor in the New Testament ~ this is a good one.Household: "Head" as "Origin" or "Source" ~ this one makes no sense. If the man is the "origin" or "source" ~ how is that different from him being over the woman in the hierarchical scheme of things? Actually, this argument would seem to support the idea of the man being the authority ~ after all, God is our source ~ and he has absolute authority over mankind ~ we are to submit to His will.Is the Head of the House at Home? ~ this is an interesting, well-researched and thoughtful one ~ but it seems to contradict the "head" as "origin" argument above because this man says that Christ is the head of the home ~ and his intent is clearly to say that Christ rules, has authority. Seems to me like you can't have it both ways ~ if you use the "origin" argument ~ this one will undermine it completely.
Ugh ~ this is a lot of red, isn't it?What Paul Really Said About Women ~ QFers are aware of John Bristow's book and they are not convinced ~ linking to this article will detract from the FAQs credibility. It might be acceptable to glean Bristow's strongest arguments and give credit with a little * at the bottom of the FAQ.Is there any scripture which would indicate that Paul did not see the husband as being the leader or as having authority of his wife? NIV - 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. There are two things to note about this. First, Paul says the husband and the wife have authority over each other’s bodies. Second, Paul suggests that should they decide to deprive themselves, they should do only by mutual consent. If Paul saw the husband as the leader or authority of his wife wouldn’t he have instructed the husband to make the decision? This is good ~ but it really needs to be KJV.But doesn’t using the word “submit” in Ephesians 5:22 indicate that wives are supposed to obey their husbands?NIV - Ephesians 5:21-22 21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. In Ephesians 5:21 it says for Christians to submit to one another. In the next verse, Ephesians 5:22 it says for wives to submit to their husbands. In the earliest version of the New Testament - manuscript p46, the verb “submit” is left out of verse 22. In p46, Ephesians 5:21-22 goes like this: 21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22Wives, to your husbands as to the Lord. The importance of submit not being in verse 22 is that it shows that it is a continuation of the thought from verse 21. In other words, in the same way that believers are to submit to one another, wives are to submit to their husbands. Are believers expected to obey each other? No. If submit is not used to mean obedience in the relationship between believers, why is submit used to mean obedience in the relationship between husbands and wives? It’s apparent that Paul was using “submit” in Ephesians 5 in a manner that does not indicate obedience. If Paul is not using submit in the sense of obey in Ephesians 5, how is he using it?Here, jlp provided the following links in response to this question: www.christian-thinktank.com/not2obey.htmlwww.beenthinking.org/2009/03/14/submission-and-the-bible/primalsubversion.blogspot.com/2006/05/hermeneutical-question.htmlwww.gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/ephesians.htmwww.geocities.com/about_biblical_equality/Ephesians52122.htmI think we need to summarize and write out the best arguments for NLQ readers rather than depend on links. But aren’t wives supposed to obey their husbands like Sarah obeyed Abraham?NIV - 1 Peter 3:1-6 Gotta use KJV ~ sorry!
1Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. Many people assume this passage is about wives submitting to their husbands. But is it? It appears from the bolded text in 1 Peter 3 that what Peter was asking wives to do was to demonstrate behavior that in that culture was the most likely to win their unbelieving husbands to Christ. It’s not about submission; it’s about behavior that would advance the gospel. In ancient times wives had no rights, their husbands were their masters. Okay ~ thinks the QF mind ~ in that culture, husbands were their masters ~ that culture was biblical ~ therefore, husbands as masters is biblical. Women were expected to obey their husbands. Peter was telling wives to be submissive (as in obey) because that is what that culture expected of women. For women to go against that cultural standard would have been considered socially unacceptable and would have hindered the advancement of the gospel. Today the opposite happens because our culture is so far from God ~ simple and obvious biblical principles like the headship of the husband and submission of wives are foreign to our culture because we live in a godless society , when churches tell women to obey their husbands, it hinders the spread of the gospel ~ that is not the point! bible principles are not pragmatic ~ it doesn't matter if fewer women are attracted to the gospel because the church is telling them to obey their husbands. These are women who have itching ears and only want to hear whatever suits them ~ they are rebellious and they will have to answer to God Women are to obey, not because it's the popular or culturally accepted thing to do ~ they are to obey because that's part of God's program ~ the bible says it and that settles it .It’s important to note (as in Bilezikian’s and Keener’s quotes mentioned below) that Abraham obeyed Sarah as much as Sarah obeyed Abraham. God even told Abraham to listen (could also have been translated obey) to Sarah in Gen. 21:11-12. Interesting point.And consider this, in 1 Samuel 25:1-36 there is the story of Abigail. David was going to kill the male members of her household because Nabal, her husband refused to feed David and his men. If we follow the thinking that many have that 1 Peter is about wives obeying their husbands, Abigail should have not taken any action contrary to her husband’s wishes. Instead she should have just trusted God to keep David from killing the male members of her household. But is this what Abigail did? No! She took action, and sent food to David! She went directly against her husband’s orders. And in doing so, she saved her household from disaster. And for this action David, the great King of Israel who God called a man after his own heart, praises her. I really think it's a strong point for the egalitarian argument ~ BUT ~ it needs to be played up more because ~ there's a wide range of feelings regarding Abigail. I'm pretty sure that Debi Pearl teaches that what Abigail did was totally out of line and it is due to her interference that Nabal was killed. I know that S.M. Davis uses Abigail as an example of a woman who took matters into her own hands with disastrous results for her husband. For more information: About Biblical Equality - 1st Peter 3:1-7The first quote on the above link, by Linda Belleville explains the culture of day in which wives were required to obey their husbands. The second quote, by Gilbert Bilezikian list 3 scriptures (Gen. 16:2 and 6; 21:11-12) as examples of Abraham obeying Sarah in Genesis. In the third and final quote, Craig Keener explains that the term translated in some Bible versions as "listen to" in Genesis 16:2 and 21:12 also means “obey”. In those passages Abraham “listens to” or “obeys” Sarah. Are women supposed to obey their husbands even if they ask them to do something sinful?I still have my copy of Me, Obey Him? ~ I'm going to dig it out and use it to formulate my own questions because I think the wording of this question is sort of a straw man ~ I'd have never considered obeying my husband if he asked me to do something sinful ~ however, I did "honor" and show respect to him (giving my tacit approval) when Warren was berating and belittling and just generally abusing the children.
NIV - Acts 5:1-10 KJV please ;-) 1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet. 3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God." 5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him. 7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?" "Yes," she said, "that is the price." 9Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also." 10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. In this instance a woman agrees with her husband to deceive the church, and is struck down dead. Good point!NIV - 1 Samuel 25:1-36 (This is a condensed version of the text) 10 Nabal answered David's servants, "Who is this David? Who is this son of Jesse? Many servants are breaking away from their masters these days. 11 Why should I take my bread and water, and the meat I have slaughtered for my shearers, and give it to men coming from who knows where?" ….. 14 One of the servants told Nabal's wife Abigail: "David sent messengers from the desert to give our master his greetings, but he hurled insults at them. 15 Yet these men were very good to us. They did not mistreat us, and the whole time we were out in the fields near them nothing was missing. 16 Night and day they were a wall around us all the time we were herding our sheep near them. 17 Now think it over and see what you can do, because disaster is hanging over our master and his whole household. He is such a wicked man that no one can talk to him." 18 Abigail lost no time. She took two hundred loaves of bread, two skins of wine, five dressed sheep, five seahs of roasted grain, a hundred cakes of raisins and two hundred cakes of pressed figs, and loaded them on donkeys. 19 Then she told her servants, "Go on ahead; I'll follow you." But she did not tell her husband Nabal….
32 David said to Abigail, "Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, who has sent you today to meet me. 33 May you be blessed for your good judgment and for keeping me from bloodshed this day and from avenging myself with my own hands. 34 Otherwise, as surely as the LORD, the God of Israel, lives, who has kept me from harming you, if you had not come quickly to meet me, not one male belonging to Nabal would have been left alive by daybreak."
In this situation Abigail does the exact opposite of Nabal’s wishes. The result is that David blesses her in God’s name. See my note above ~ some QFers see the exact opposite result ~ her husband is killed and she ends up as a part of David's harem.
Doesn’t Paul give directions to wives in Titus 2 to be submissive housewives?
NIV – Titus 2:3-5
3Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
People often think that Titus 2 is about women being submissive housewives. But is that what it is really about? Paul is not prescribing trans-cultural roles for women; instead he is encouraging them to act in such a manner that in their culture they would cause no one to say damaging things about the gospel. Same as above ~ the culture was biblical ~ therefore, the women's roles in that culture are biblical.
For more information:
About Biblical Equality - Titus 2:4
But shouldn’t women have a sign of authority over their heads?
NIV - 1 Corinthians 11:10
10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
TNIV - 1 Corinthians 11:10
It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
Notice that the NIV leaves out the word own, while the TNIV includes it. In fact, most versions of the Bible leave it out. But it should be there because including it is a more accurate rendering of the original Greek. This verse is not talking about a woman being under authority, but rather about a woman having authority over her own head.
For more information:
About Biblical Equality - 1 Corinthians 11:10
Doesn’t the Bible prohibit women from teaching or holding authority over men?
NIV - 1 Timothy 2:12 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
There are SEVERAL difficulties with the translation of this verse.
One difficulty is the tense of the verse. Gilbert Bilezikian says the following: Scholars have already pointed out that the present tense of Paul's "I do not..." has the force of "I do not permit now a woman to teach."
From the QF perspective this only works for those egal Christians who want their bible and their women's rights too. They are willing to find a more acceptable translation to suit what they are already determined to believe. Rather than trying to get around this verse by changing the "word of God" ~ it would be better to find an argument that deals with the verse AS WRITTEN. I know there are some arguments out there which do not change the wording ~ if you have trouble coming up with something, let me know ~ I might still have some resources around.
For more information:
About Biblical Equality - Tense of 1 Timothy 2:12
Another is the word translated as authority. Many scholars do not believe that the word in the original Greek, “authenein” referred to normal positive authority. It’s a word that is difficult to translate, and scholars differ over its meaning. The one thing for sure that is that it doesn’t mean authority.
One thing for sure? Says who? Authority doesn't mean authority? This is just asking for scorn from the bible literalists ~ sorry!
For more information:
Ben Witherington - Literal Rendering of Texts of Contention -- 1 Tim. 2.8-15
About Biblical Equality - Authority in 1 Timothy 2:12
And another is concerning the word translated as “silent.” Some scholars say its meaning is closer to “peaceable.”
Again ~ this will never go over ~ "silent" really means "peaceable"? Ugh. If I came across this stuff as a fundamentalist ~ I would roll my eyes and move on.
For more information:
About Biblical Equality - Silent or Peaceable
Doesn’t Paul say women should not talk in church?
Now this question is totally relevant ~ in many QF home churches, the women are not even permitted to sing or share a prayer request. Again ~ the links are a problem ~ I'd much rather include the answer within the NLQ FAQ without having to refer to an outside link.
NIV - I Corinthians 14:34-35
34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Consider this verse: 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.(1 Cor 11:5) In this verse Paul is talking about women who pray or prophesy in church. If Paul had wanted women to be quiet, why was he was talking about women praying and prophesying in church?
1 Corinthian 14:34-35 has to be understood in its proper context. The following links contain information that brings light to the situation Paul was talking about.
Women in Ministry? Absolutely!
Did Paul Really Say, "Let the Women Keep Silent in the Churches"?
1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 concludes with Paul’s commands
Does the Bible require a wife to submit to her huband's physical abuse? (by KR Wordgazer)
I really think this is a straw man question ~ patriarch wives are not often subject to physical abuse. Hopefully this can be edited to address the real issue ~ even using the word "abuse" makes this question irrelevant to QFers since there's not a single one of them who would consider her husband to be abusive. Remember how difficult it is to recognize and define the abuse until much later ~ after you're out ~ certainly not while you're steeped in it.
There is no passage anywhere in Scripture that anticipates, allows, or assumes that husbands can beat their wives. On the contrary, a man was held to a high standard (in that time and culture) regarding treatment of his wife.
In Exodus 21:10, as part of the laws covering fair treatment of slaves, it says that if a man takes a female slave to himself as a wife, and then marries another, he may not deprive the first wife of her "food, clothing or marital rights (or "his duty to her in marriage")." If he breaks this command, she is allowed to leave him, to "go out free" (able to remarry). In Jesus' day, on the reasoning that what applied to a lowly slave girl should apply to all, these three things: food, clothing, and marital duty (physical and emotional affection/interaction), were considered the three conditions of the marriage covenant.
Covenants, as they were understood in Hebrew culture, were not unconditional. Each party to the covenant was required to keep the agreements of that covenant-- and if they did not, the covenant was considered broken, and the other party could not only consider him/herself free of the covenant, but had the right to seek justice against the party who broke the covenant. This is an excellent point.
Given this information, let's consider Malachi 2:14-16, in which God expresses His anger with the men of Israel who had returned to the Promised Land after the long exile in Babylon, only to abandon their wives to marry younger women they have met in Palestine: "Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, although she is your companion and your wife by covenant. . . For I hate divorce, says the Lord, and him who covers his garment with wrong (or "he covers violence with his garment")." This passage has been used to encourage women to stay with their husbands unconditionally-- but it is actually a statement of God's displeasure with men who break their (condtional) marriage covenants by doing "wrong" to their wives. The word "violence" or "wrong" there also means "cruelty." "Garment" is used throughout Scripture in a metaphorical sense: because it is the thing closest to our physical bodies which keeps us warm, it is referring to our most intimate physical needs for life. It can also mean that which covers and conceals the true nature or motive. In either sense, whether it means the man who abandons his wife to marry a younger woman is concealing his cruelty with his "garment," or whether it means his is covering his "garment" with cruelty-- the point is that the Lord hates it when men are cruel to and do wrong to their wives. This is also an awesome verse to use ~ however, I really think the emphasis should not be on physical abuse ~ "treacherous" behavior should be addressed.
If a slave girl who had become a wife, was allowed to go free (to marry someone else) in the Law if she was deprived of food, clothing or marital love, how much more a covenant-breaker should a man be considered who beats his wife? She then has the right to consider the covenant broken and to seek justice against him! It is the situation where a man uses the power given him by his culture to mistreat and wrong his wife, that the Lord hates. It was men in power whom Jesus was addressing in Matthew 19 when he said that a man who divorces his wife for "any cause at all" was committing adultery against her-- because they had no right to act as if the covenant only bound the woman and not themselves. But Jesus was not talking about a woman who flees physical abuse. There was no understanding in the culture of Jesus' time that a woman had any duty to stay with a man who was breaking the covenant by depriving her of food or clothing, let alone beating her! Such was not Jesus' understanding, nor the understanding of His audience-- and it should not be ours. I wonder if it would be possible for KR to address this to other types of abuse besides beating? The divorce question is a big one ~ and I worry that even mentioning divorce will scare the QF women away since in that mindset, divorce is unthinkable.
Doesn’t the Bible say that when a woman submits herself (submit as in obey, not as Paul uses it in Ephesians 5:22) to an abusive husband, she is glorifying God?
Dear reader, before you go any further, I recommend you read the following story about a dancer named Eva who had an abusive husband:
pastoretteponderings.blogspot.com/2006/10/domestic-violence-story-of-dancer.html
Of particular importance in Eva’s story is this paragraph:
What was the pastor's counsel? (He told me this with tears in his eyes.) He had told her to be more submissive. He told her to obey her husband and to strive to please him in every way. He told her that if she did what the Bible said, God would take care of her and her children.
Dear reader, if you believe that a wife’s submission to her husband’s abuse glories God – the first thing I want to ask you is this: did the murder of Eva by her husband glorify God? If you were a non-believer, and you knew a Christian woman had been told to submit to her abusive husband, and consequently she was murdered would this glorify God to you?
This won't fly with hardcore QFers ~ they might just as well ask, if Vyckie would have died while giving birth to her "reversal babies" would this glorify God? Well ~ to someone who's read Mary Pride ~ absolutely it glorifies God. A bad outcome doesn't necessarily detract from God receiving glory ~ it totally depends upon the woman's FAITHFULNESS ~ if she is faithful, then God is glorified ~ whether she lives or dies.
There is no verse in the Bible that tells women that submitting to abuse will glorify God. Some people think Peter was telling wives to do that in 1 Peter 3:1-6 (see scripture above). This is a misunderstanding of what Peter was trying to say. In his time, wives had no rights. For a woman in that time to not obey her husband was socially unacceptable. Husbands considered themselves their wife’s masters, and expected obedience. Peter was telling women to practice behavior that their husbands expected, so as to win them to Christ.
WARNING: Rant to follow! And I want to be clear that my intention here is not to start a heated comp. vs. egal. debate on this thread ~ I'm just expressing my frustration in the hopes that this endeavor is not actually so impossible as it seems.
Husbands considered themselves their wives' masters ~ because that's what their scriptures taught them!! Ugh ~ I don't know if this FAQ is even possible. I just don't see how you can get around the patriarchal nature of the bible ~ it's even in the godhead ~ God the FATHER ~ chief authority. This is why I tossed it all out.
I really don't want to discourage you, jlp. I, myself, am quite discouraged because, as much as it would be very convenient to actually find egalitarian principles in the bible ~ I just really don't see it. I'm not trying to be argumentative either. I think that it makes a big difference in how a person approaches the bible ~ so long as you're taking it literally, you are going to get QF/P. It made a big difference to me when I read Brian McClaren's "Adventures in Missing the Point" ~ in which he points out that the bible was never intended to be taken "literally" in the first place ~ it's a pre-modern book written by people whose minds were completely unaffected by the enlightenment or modernist thinking ~ for them it was all about telling stories and passing on their heritage ~ not a technical manual or legal fine print. That made sense to me ~ still, I am so burned out on the bible that I don't want anything to do with it. Ugh. Sorry.
I am going to work on a set of questions to add to this list. I think some important topics to be addressed include the father/daughter relationship, the "help meet" crap taught in Debi Pearl's book ~ philosophia still has that one ~ maybe she'd be willing to pick through it and come up with some good questions ~ look for Debi's most convincing arguments and then turn them into questions so that we can provide a good rebuttal.
I think a really good strategy would be to use biblical fundamentalists' own info. ~ how about quotes from The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website? We can use that in two ways ~ 1) find their most convincing crap and formulate it into questions and then respond, and 2) find their less radical ~ most reasonable stuff and capitalize on those points ~ emphasize where even John Piper allows for a certain amount of personhood for women and children.
Also ~ Cindy at www.adventuresinmercy.com has a lot of good info on her site ~ it could be way too cumbersome for the average QF mom (who is overwhelmed with too many kids and too much responsibility) to dig through and make much sense of ~ I'm sure she would be willing to let us summarize some of it so long as we give a referral to her website.
So ~ if you haven't given up or pulled all your hair out yet ~ cool. Maybe with all of us working at it from different perspectives, we can come up with something that really is helpful. Right now ~ it's just frustrating me.
A few extra comments from jlp ~ just to give everyone else here an idea of what we are hoping to accomplish:
Why don't you send me a set of questions to answer? I will look into the Quiverful movement and the writings of those who have left it but not their faith. My experience has been around people from the Moody Bible Institute and like institutions and churches. Now I see that what I put together was for that audience. And if you know any ex-quiverful people who would like to be involved in creating the faq, let me know.
Sometimes I think Christians forget that the Bible centers around the story of Jesus. One egal, Don, said that whenever he interprets anything in the Bible, he interprets in in the light of what Jesus said and did.
When I read through your explanations and some other stuff by quiverful like people, I almost feel like the real issue is a lack of self-esteem and massive codependence. The quiverful like beliefs almost show women who do not love themselves very much. Perhaps a better approach would be Jesus' interactions with women. I'm used to men convincing women with self esteem, to give their up self esteem. But the quiverful women don't seem to have self esteem in the first place. They really don't love themselves.
You come up with the questions, and I will do the research to find out how former quiverful like people answered those questions for themselves. I think we have to make this personal. For example, if you give me a question I will look for the answer from a former quiverful person who has written about it. I will condense what the person said (for the busy Moms) and provide a link for those who want the original and longer answer. So if you ask something that Molly at Under Much Grace has answered, I will condense her answer and provide a link. The quiverful women may not listen to a woman talk about the meaning of scripture, but perhaps they will listen to a personal testimoney of some woman whose opinion of a particular scripture changed. Because there is a high lack of self-esteem in the quiverful women and a massive amount of codependence as well, personal testimony may work better than just explaining scripture to them from an egalitarian point of view. What do you think? When I attended 12 step groups for the first time and heard the personal testimony of those who had been helped through therapy, I became willing to go through theraphy myself. Before as a Christian I was not willing to do it. But then in the 12 step groups I would run into people who were Christians. They would share their stories and part of it involved going to therapy. This removed the barriers in my mind to going myself.
jlp
Okay ~ so there you have it. Ugh ~ huh? LOL I'm actually kind of halfway optimistic that it can be done ~ so let's get to it. Who wants to help?
Please raise your hand and say, "ME!!"
|
|
lectio
Full Member
growing...
Posts: 128
|
Post by lectio on Aug 2, 2009 15:54:53 GMT -5
PS> Totally unimportant, but: Cindy at www.adventuresinmercy.com has a lot of good info on her site .... So if you ask something that Molly at Under Much Grace has answered, I will condense her answer and provide a link. I am guessing you mean Cindy at Under Much Grace, not Molly at Adventures in Mercy (that's me).
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 2, 2009 16:58:44 GMT -5
PS> Totally unimportant, but: Cindy at www.adventuresinmercy.com has a lot of good info on her site .... So if you ask something that Molly at Under Much Grace has answered, I will condense her answer and provide a link. I am guessing you mean Cindy at Under Much Grace, not Molly at Adventures in Mercy (that's me). Ooops! You're right, Molly ~ sorry about that.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on Aug 2, 2009 20:22:13 GMT -5
No Molly, I meant you. I read a lot of good stuff on your blog. I will check out Adventures in Mercy also. I got confused.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Aug 2, 2009 20:57:06 GMT -5
Charis is still a Christian right? I know she managed to get out of the QF lifestyle but without even divorcing.... that possibility is something many QF women might like to know exists... the big "D" word is very scary to them and knowing they have a chance of making it work, even if they may later decide the marriage is too much for them, might be helpful in getting them to start taking action to improve the situation.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on Aug 3, 2009 13:36:21 GMT -5
Yes, Charis is still a Christian and a fine one at that! I don't believe she was in the Quiverful movement although she has 8 kids.
Molly - when I put this together I forgot about your website. I will add it where appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Aug 3, 2009 13:49:01 GMT -5
JLP - That was a bit of work! I sure am glad that Vyckie's 'apostatedness' (?) didn't keep you down
|
|
|
Post by charis on Aug 3, 2009 17:51:05 GMT -5
Yes, Charis is still a Christian and a fine one at that! I don't believe she was in the Quiverful movement although she has 8 kids. Awe shucks... Thanks JLP. I considered myself QF, though I was never KJ only, nor was I ever into the Vision Forum dress code (I like pants and shorts). I was a subscriber to the QF Digest e-mail loop in the middle nineties until I got too tired and busy with my growing family. My husband didn't believe in BC and I was on there asking lots of hard theology questions... Around that time, I was also a subscriber to Douglas Wilson's "Credenda Agenda" and I got into homeschooling movement. Way back in '85 I attended seminary in preparation for the mission field. Women were not allowed to take homiletics (preaching) but we were allowed to take hermeneutics (teaches how to dig beneath the surface of scripture). KR and JLP WOW what a lot of work you two did putting all that together! I like Vyckie's idea of using quotes from their own "authorities". I have one from John MacArthur which comes in handy in supporting the overlooked biblical teaching that wives are supposed to be the "master of the household": An interesting greek word is quite overlooked by most comps. The word is oikedespoteo. It means master of the household. See the word “despot” in the middle there? While the Bible calls the husband “the head of the wife”, there is nowhere in Scripture where the husband is called oikedespoteo “master of the household”. The wife is called the oikedespoteo. Even John MacArthur acknowledges the wife’s oikedespoteo role John MacArthur: Click Here for the verse in 1 Timothy (KJV) where Paul refers to the wife as the ruler of the home. I have also found in "KEEPER AT HOME" much more than meets the eye and my blog on this was linked by QF generation cedar (see generationcedar.com/main/2008/09/who-has-keys.html I did not make her link hot because I prefer to stay incognito) Created to be his HELP MEET YES! But it means something a whole lot different that what Debi Pearl makes it (I had that book and it made me sick to my stomach, couldn't keep it) ETA: Here's a link to an article I wrote: "God's Calling to Women". I discuss Help Meet (Gen 2), The "Titus 2 Woman" and "Keeper at Home", Ephesians 5, etc
|
|
|
Post by charis on Aug 3, 2009 18:10:55 GMT -5
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on Aug 4, 2009 15:45:08 GMT -5
I didn't know you had written an article, Charis. Have you written anymore?
|
|
|
Post by charis on Aug 4, 2009 17:06:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 7, 2009 20:58:40 GMT -5
Okay ~ jlp and I have concluded that posting this whole long FAQ like I did was probably overwhelming ~ so we're thinking it might be more manageable to work on this one question at a time. I'll start with the first question ~ if you have experience with this topic, please help us out by responding with any personal "testimony," verses, or whatever helped you to come to a balanced and healthy understanding of this in respect to your Christian beliefs. (Remember, in this FAQ, we are addressing Christians who are questioning their QF/P lifestyle but not interested in tossing out the bible or Jesus.) If you have a question of your own you'd like addressed, please add it here. Q: What exactly does the term "help meet" mean?
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Aug 8, 2009 8:05:04 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I'll be no help but I am looking forward to the responses
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Aug 8, 2009 8:39:52 GMT -5
"Meet" meant something like "suitable"; something that would meet the needs of. So God was creating "help" (as in "you just can't get good help anymore") that would be suitable for Adam. Of course, once the use of "meet" in that sense became obsolescent, people began hearing "help meet" as a compound word of some sort and it became "helpmate" in common speech.
|
|
|
Post by charis on Aug 8, 2009 9:57:51 GMT -5
Q: What exactly does the term "help meet" mean? I found the Eldredge's book "Captivating" healing to read. This clip about "help meet" was edifying and empowering:
From Captivating by John and Stasi Eldredge~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ QUOTE: When God creates Eve, he calls her an ezer kenegdo. “It is not good for the man to be alone, I shall make him [an ezer kenegdo]” (Gen 2:18 Alter). Hebrew scholar Robert Alter, who has spent years translating the book of Genesis, says that this phrase is “notoriously difficult to translate”. The various attempts we have in English are “helper” or “companion” or the notorious “help meet”. Why are these translations so incredibly wimpy, boring, flat… disappointing? What is a help meet, anyway? What little girl dances through the house singing “One day I shall be a help meet?” Companion? A dog can be a companion. Helper? Sounds like Hamburger Helper. Alter is getting close when he translates it “sustainer beside him.” The word ezer is used only twenty other places in the entire Old Testament. And in every other instance the person being described is God himself, when you need him to come through for you desperately. Most of the contexts are life and death, by the way, and God is your only hope. Your ezer. If he were not there beside you… you are dead. A better translation of ezer would be “lifesaver”. Kenegdo means alongside, or opposite to, a counterpart. ENDQUOTE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ and I found this Hebrew understanding intriguing (from here):~~~~~~~~~~~ QUOTE: The Torah Study for Reform Jews says, “From the time of creation, relationships between spouses have at times been adversarial. In Genesis 2:18, God calls woman an ezer kenegdo, a "helper against him." The great commentator Rashi takes the term literally to make a wonderful point: "If he [Adam] is worthy, [she will be] a help [ezer]. If he is not worthy [she will be] against him [kenegdo] for strife." This Jewish study also described man and woman facing each other with arms raised holding an arch between them, giving a beautiful picture of equal responsibility ENDQUOTE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on Aug 11, 2009 9:50:22 GMT -5
Here's a good explanation of the Hebrew words: pastoretteponderings.blogspot.com/2008/09/heirs-together-part-3-back-to-garden.htmlThose two words, “help meet” or “suitable helper” are from two wonderful Hebrew words, EZER KENEGDO. Ezer is used many times in the Old Testament, but never for a subordinate or a lesser being. Always for a strong help! EZER is most often used for GOD! Is God an assistant, or beneath us in a hierarchy of command? Here are a few examples: Psalm 118:7 "The LORD is with me; he is my helper (ezer)" Psalm 33:20 “We wait in hope for the LORD; who is our help and our shield. Psalm 20:1-2 “May the Lord answer you when you are in distress; May the Name of the God of Jacob protect you. May He send you help…” Psalm 121:1-2 I lift up my eyes to the hills— where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth. But what about that adjective, KENEGDO? The word the King James Version translated "meet" or "suitable" is NEGED (or depending on usage,KENEGDO),"counterpart to, matching, corresponding, like." So put together, EZER KENEGDO means: “one who is the same as the other and who surrounds, protects, aids, helps, supports.” The same as? We know men and woman are different. But the creation account emphasized that the woman was like the man, suitable in every way, figuratively standing right beside him. One writer described it as, "eye to eye, vis a vis, a matched pair." This couple illustrates the ‘eye to eye’ relationship of the man and his “ezer kenegdo”. Because of this passage from Genesis, I have a bumper sticker on my car that says PUT WOMEN IN THEIR PLACE: Right Beside Men.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on Aug 11, 2009 9:57:21 GMT -5
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on Aug 11, 2009 10:02:59 GMT -5
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on Aug 11, 2009 14:18:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 11, 2009 14:55:59 GMT -5
I hope it's ok for me to briefly go back to one of the points Vyckie was making before the agreement to focus on one question at a time. I think the whole issue of how to read the Bible is foundational, and that it may do very little good to simply try to refute the QF position while accepting, hook, line and sinker, their hyper-literalistic, non-historical methods of Biblical interpretation. Even starting from the viewpoint that the Scriptures are God-breathed (which I believe), the idea that the cultures into which the Scriptures were breathed were "biblical" in the sense of "God-approved" is an assumption that I believe QF members should be asked to question. Even the fact that there are major cultural changes that take place between the Old and New Testaments should be used to raise the question in the QF mind: If God giving the Law to the Hebrews shows that the culture of the Hebrews was God's will for all mankind, including us today-- then why doesn't Jesus try to bring the Jews of the New Testament back to the Hebrew culture? Why doesn't Jesus do what they were expecting him to do, and become a military leader like Joshua, toss out the Romans and return the Jews to a Davidic earthly kingdom?
In short, is there not substantial evidence within the Sciptures themselves that God was accommodating Himself to the cultures in order to uplift them? That the change in cultural norms and values between the Old and New Testaments show that God does not approve any one culture, but works within cultures to change them? And by inference, that the counter-cultural callings placed on women like Deborah, Ruth, Huldah, etc., show God's intention to try to change male-female relations to where women could once again be "face-to-face strong helpers"?
I fear that Vyckie is right-- as long as we concede to the QF'ers their foundational stance of Biblical interpretation, we are going to be unable to convince them. They must at least listen to the idea that the Bible was first of all spoken to certain groups of people in certain times and places in history, and that if we don't try to understand how they would have understood the message, we are bound to misunderstand what it should mean to us. QF'ers can certainly keep their belief in the Bible as inspired and God-breathed-- but it is necessary to get them to question their understanding of it as intending to impose the cultural norms within which it was spoken, as God's intended cultural norms for us today.
That said, I must also address this:
JLP said: There is no verse in the Bible that tells women that submitting to abuse will glorify God. Some people think Peter was telling wives to do that in 1 Peter 3:1-6 (see scripture above). This is a misunderstanding of what Peter was trying to say. In his time, wives had no rights. For a woman in that time to not obey her husband was socially unacceptable. Husbands considered themselves their wife’s masters, and expected obedience. Peter was telling women to practice behavior that their husbands expected, so as to win them to Christ.
Vyckie replied:
WARNING: Rant to follow! And I want to be clear that my intention here is not to start a heated comp. vs. egal. debate on this thread ~ I'm just expressing my frustration in the hopes that this endeavor is not actually so impossible as it seems.
Husbands considered themselves their wives' masters ~ because that's what their scriptures taught them!! Ugh ~ I don't know if this FAQ is even possible. I just don't see how you can get around the patriarchal nature of the bible ~ it's even in the godhead ~ God the FATHER ~ chief authority. This is why I tossed it all out.
We are talking about the Book of 1 Peter. This book was NOT written to Jewish Christians who "considered themselves their wives' masters, because that's what their Scriptures taught them." Leaving aside for now the question of whether the Jewish Scriptures teach that men are "masters" over their wives, the Book of 1 Peter was specifically addressed (verse 1 of 1 Peter) to "God's elect. . . scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, . . Asia and Bithynia. . ." What JLP is saying is that Peter was writing to those who lived in non-Hebrew, non-biblical cultures, where the Roman and Greek gods were worshipped. The passage in question is to women and slaves in THAT culture (and specifically, by context, to wives and slaves of unconverted, non-Christian men), which even a QF'er could not define as God-approved! It is true that in THAT culture men were considered lords and masters of their wives, children and slaves, in ways that went far beyond anything the Jewish Scriptures ever say or even could be construed to imply. Misunderstanding the audience will cause a misunderstanding of Peter's intention, and thus of what God was breathing to Peter.
This historical disengagement simply has to be addressed, or we will get nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 11, 2009 21:04:17 GMT -5
This historical disengagement simply has to be addressed, or we will get nowhere. KR ~ thanks so much for your comments ~ I absolutely agree that the QF/P approach to scripture ~ that is, the fundamentalist/literalist interpretation ~ must be addressed. The frustrating part of this is the way everything connects ~ QF/P is internally consistent with its presuppositions ~ so you can't address one issue without at the same time addressing all of it. The connectedness of it all is partly why I gave it ALL up. Too many threads and links to unravel and sort out. Sorry that it's so complicated ~ I do appreciate your sticking with it though. So ~ do you think the hermeneutics of QF/P should be addressed in a separate FAQ? I do.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 11, 2009 21:53:12 GMT -5
Yes, Vyckie-- I think the hermeneutics/interpretation issue should be addressed in its own FAQ -- and in terms of a "read this first" message to any QF'er who plans to read the other Biblical FAQs.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 11, 2009 22:06:10 GMT -5
Yes, Vyckie-- I think the hermeneutics/interpretation issue should be addressed in its own FAQ -- and in terms of a "read this first" message to any QF'er who plans to read the other Biblical FAQs. Okay ~ glad you agree. Tomorrow morning, Berea, Chassé and Hazelle are having MRIs to look for bone spurs in their spinal columns ~ that's going to take up most of my day ~ so, if you don't mind ~ could you start the new FAQ? I've fixed it so that members can start a thread in this FAQ Workshop area. Thanks ~ I look forward to seeing what you come up with for the interpretation FAQ. I hope you'll be able to utilize some of the arguments from the Emergent church thought ~ Brian McClaren is my favorite. I also kind of like the way John Shelby Spong "rescues the bible from fundamentalism" ~ although you may feel he goes too far. NT Wright is always good.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Aug 11, 2009 22:25:40 GMT -5
Vyckie, I am almost completely unfamiliar with emergent church thought-- though my understanding is that it's pretty much all over the map. . . As for starting the new FAQ, I don't know when I'll actually be able to do that-- so if anyone else beats me to it, I won't be offended.
|
|