This is an interesting idea that ECM thought of and shared with me in our conversations. I went around the office and tested some of the engineers who were atheists and found that ECM was 100% correct. But let me explain ECM’s thesis in brief.
ECM thinks that science fiction (made-up fantasy stuff) that people read when they are younger causes them to believe that the religion is anti-science and that the progress of science always disproves religion. The stories they read colors their views of science and religion for life, before they ever get to assessing evidence. And that’s why when we produce evidence for them in debates, they will believe in speculations rather than go where the evidence leads. So they believe that maybe unobservable aliens caused the origin of life, and that maybe the untestable multiverse theory explains the fine-tuning of cosmological constants, and that maybe this universe has existed eternally despite the well-supported Big Bang theory which shows that the universe began to exist. Maybe, maybe, maybe. They seem to think that untestable speculations are “good enough” to refute observational evidence – and maybe it’s because of all the science fiction that they’ve read.
Here’s an article in the American Spectator that talks a bit about it. (H/T Denyse O’Leary via ECM)
Excerpt:
A magazine I frequently write for (not this one) recently published a review of a book of essays advocating atheism. The reviewer pointed out with some enthusiasm that a large number of the contributors were science-fiction writers.
This left me somewhat nonplussed. I publish a good deal of science fiction myself, I have also read quite a lot of it, and I am quite unable to see why writing it should be held to particularly qualify anyone to answer the question of whether or not there is a God.
[…]Historically the contribution of the Catholic Church to astronomy was massive and unequalled. Without it astronomy might very well never have grown out of astrology at all. Cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris, Rome and elsewhere were designed in the 17th and 18th centuries to function as solar observatories. Kepler was assisted by a number of Jesuit astronomers, including Father Paul Guldin and Father Zucchi, and by Giovanni Cassini, who had studied under Jesuits. Cassini and Jesuit colleagues were eventually able to confirm Kepler’s theory on the Earth having an elliptical orbit. J.L. Heilbron of the University of California has written:
The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions.
Science fiction is, by definition, fiction, that is, it deals with things which are the product of a writer’s imagination and are not literally true. In any event, what is and what is not science fiction is hard to define. Simply to say it is about science is meaningless, and while some science-fiction writers are qualified scientists, many are not. Probably even fewer are trained theologians.
Science fiction makes the mysteries of the universe seem easy to an atheist. Everything can be easily explained with fictional future discoveries. Their speculations about aliens, global warming and eternal universes are believed without evidence because atheists want and need to believe in those speculations. In the world of science fiction, the fictional characters can be “moral” and “intelligent” without having to bring God or the evidence for God into the picture. That’s very attractive to an atheist who wants the feeling of being intelligent and moral without having to weight actual scientific evidence or ground their moral values and behavior rationally. The science fiction myths are what atheists want to believe. It’s a placebo at the worldview level. They don’t want cosmic microwave background radiation – they want warp drives. They don’t want chastity – they want holodecks.
Why do people become atheists?
My theory is mainly that atheists adopt atheism because they want pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, without any restraints or guilt. They want to believe that sex without commitment has no consequences, especially a consequence like God judging them for it. Another contributing factor may be that atheists want to be thought of as smart by “the right people” – to sort of blindly accept whatever the “smart people” accept without really searching out reasons or dissenting views. They do this so that they are able to look down at some other group of people so they can feel better about themselves and be part of the right group – without actually having to weigh the evidence on both sides. And lastly, atheism may also be caused by weak fathers or abandoning fathers. But I think that ECM’s science fiction theory has merit, as well. I think that all four of these factors help to explain why atheists believe in a discredited worldview in the teeth of scientific progress.
I wonder if my readers would take some time out to investigate whether their atheist friends have been influenced by reading science fiction and whether they still read it. We really need to get to the bottom of why atheists are so hostile to science, morality, and reason. If we can also find out why they are so desperate to take on the views of people around them because of peer pressure, without caring to hear both sides of questions (e.g. – global warming), that would also be interesting.
Science fiction
- Physicist Frank Tipler weighs in on Stephen Hawking’s theory
- Peter Atkins claiming that nothing exists, (the physical universe is actually nothing)
- Stephen Meyer debating Michael Shermer on the origin of life
- Richard Dawkins explains why he won’t debate William Lane Craig
- How good are the arguments in the new book by Richard Dawkins?
- Richard Dawkins cites fraudulent research, runs from public debate
- Richard Dawkins thinks that aliens may have caused the origin of life
- Richard Dawkins cites German professor as authority on historical Jesus
- Analyzing Christopher Hitchens’ case against God
Not science fiction
- The origin of the universe from nothing
- The fine-tuning of the cosmological constants to permit life
- The fine-tuning of the galaxy, solar system, and planet to permit life
- Origin of the building blocks in the simplest replicating cell
- Origin of biological information in the simplest replicating cell
- Sudden origins of all major body plans in the Cambrian explosion
- Irreducible complexity in molecular machines
- The limits on what natural selection and random mutation can do
- Peer-reviewed paper says there is no atheistic explanation for the Cambrian explosion
- Does the Cambrian explosion disprove Darwinian evolution?
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Most of the card-carrying atheists I know are sci-fi buffs. Science fiction is useful in feeding Scientism – the “one day science will have all the answers” fantasy. However, maybe it’s because atheists prefer constructing their own reality that they are drawn to the fantasy element of science fiction, rather than science fiction predisposing them to atheism. i.e. maybe it’s the other way around. (After all, I escaped unscathed, despite watching a good bit of Star Trek as a wee sproglet.)
LikeLike
I am cross-posting from Facebook to see if any of your readers can answer my question.
As a lifelong science fiction reader, I think it does because there is a trope that scientists and other “smart people” are atheists. Also, a lot of influential writers make no bones about their atheism. On the other hand, I probably beca…me a committed Catholic Christian through science fiction. I became innured to religion v. science arguments by such classics as “The Quest for St. Aquin” by Anthony Boucher and “A Case of Conscience” by James Blish. In fact, through stories like those I came to admire St. Thomas Aquinas and the Jesuits. Then, there was Walter Miller’s “A Canticle for Liebowitz” that made the broad sweep of Catholic history seem accessible. In a way, I’m working my way through the Summa Theologiae today because of the science fiction I read as a kid.
Then, there was a Fred Saberhagen story which had a character modeled on Don John of Lepanto who sacrificed his life for others with the observation that “being a Believer is hard.” I’d like to find that story again. The example, of sacrifice for God was something tha appeals to young men, I think.
Let me put it out there, is there any quintessentially evangelical Christian science fiction like there is Catholic science fiction like the kind I mentioned?
LikeLike
Hi Peter,
A good evangelical/anglican sci-fi writer who is highly regarded by the likes of Ursula K. LeGuin would be Cordwainer Smith. He has a novel, and scores of short stories. I’d recommend his short story, “Scanners Live in Vain”.
LikeLike
Thanks, Brandon. Great minds think alike. Down below I observed that there was something quintessentially Episcopalian about Cordwainer Smith’s fiction, even if there were no explicit references to religion.
Actually, though, in his Instrumentality of Man universe, don’t the “underpeople” adopt some kind of religion, even after jaded, corrupt, lost humanity lose religion and their humanity?
I think someone reading Cordwainer Smith would be exposed to a subversive Christian ethos even if no one ever said “Jesus.”
What do you think?
LikeLike
Hey Peter,
I agree, Cordwainer Smith’s stories reflect his worldview, even if they don’t explicitely name names. However, the short story I mentioned, “Scanners Live in Vain,” is an amazing Christian allegory about the jewish leaders and the law during the time of Jesus. Jesus is even a character in the story called “Adam Stone”. This short story made the top 100 list of Sci-fi short stories on this site: http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/topscifi/lists_short_stories.html
Oh, and I have read “A Canticle for Leibowitz” and certainly agree with you. A truly great novel!
Actually, I almost forgot to mention my favorite Christian speculative novel of all time. Lars Walker’s “The Year of the Warrior”. I wrote a review up at my blog here: http://christiansciencefiction.blogspot.com/2009/11/profoundbrilliantyou-must-read-lars.html
LikeLike
Interesting topic, and I think ECM is on to something here.
In fact, I was just talking to ECM yesterday about how Ender’s Game, while a superb novel, uses an evolutionary paradigm to explain the overall worldview of its characters. This always seemed to be a poor fit for the rest of the novel.
Growing up, I read a ton of Michael Crichton novels, which aren’t always science fiction but many are. Crichton wrote with a more open minded view, I think, and his novels always had an “everything possible” kind of tone that didn’t make me skeptical. And of course you had State of Fear, which is just an awesome book.
But another aspect of Crichton’s writing is that it wasn’t utopian, which is a big problem with a lot of science fiction. I think a lot of science fiction presents a universe that jettisons basic human nature (think Star Trek’s totally unworkable society where there is no money) which appeals to the budding atheist.
Ultimately I think this issue stems from the simple fact that the real drivers of the genre were atheists, people like HG Wells and the like. Whereas fantasy novels were heavily influenced by the very Christian Tolkien and Lewis. CS Lewis tried to get into the genre with Out of the Silent Planet, which I think was popular in his day.
LikeLike
Yeah, Michael Crichton is an atheist, but he is definitely an exception to what I am describing here.
LikeLike
I have yet to find an atheist who thinks “aliens caused the origin of life” (which is a pretty nonsensical concept — are these aliens not alive?)
However, your post is a good example of what I see theists do all the time; make up an answer and say it’s true because it matches your preconceptions.
LikeLike
You need to do a web search for “directed panspermia”. That is the theory that aliens caused the origin of life. Specifically, note that it is the view of Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA), Fred Hoyle (creator of the steady state universe theory), etc.
And be sure to watch this video with Richard Dawkins:
That’s right, dude. Richard Dawkins. And no one has ever observed these aliens that Dawkins fancies. It’s just put out there to explain the origin of DNA because there is no naturalistic solution to the problem, as Dawkins notes in the video.
LikeLike
“You need to do a web search for “directed panspermia””
That’s not the origin of life, that’s the origin of life on earth (and I don’t see Crick as having done anything more than suggesting it as one of many possible hypotheses). As for the Dawkins video, Richard Dawkins has shot this one down himself, “dude”:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2394
LikeLike
The origin of life on Earth is the origin that needs explaining. Where did the specified complexity in DNA (amino acide sequences, protein sequences) come from? You’ve only got a few million years to come up with it from the time the Earth cools to the first chemical signatures of living cells. (The Hadean era ends at 3.9 bya, and first life appears at 3.86 bya) Dawkins admits in the clip that there is no naturalistic explanation and suggests that unobservable aliens may have seeded the Earth with life. That’s the best atheist response there is at the moment – unobservable, untestable Flying Spaghetti Monsters from space… hey – just like in science fiction!
Some peer-reviewed papers from the Journal of Molecular Biology on the odds of getting even a single protein by chance:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/doug-axe-explains-the-chances-of-getting-a-functional-protein-by-chance/
From the post:
“The final probability of getting a functional protein composed of 100 amino acids is 1 in 10^125. Even if you fill the universe with pre-biotic soup, and react amino acids at Planck time (very fast!) for 14 billion years, you are probably not going to get even 1 such protein. And you need at least 100 of them for minimal life functions, plus DNA and RNA.”
LikeLike
Wasn’t Ender’s family Mormon?
The original Enterprise had a chapel on it.
And I’m not talking about the nurse.
Not that anyone cares, but Christian Speculative Fiction, which include Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Allegory, is a growing market.
http://www.marcherlordpress.com/index.html
I have other links for anyone interested but will have to do some research to find them again since it’s been some time since I’ve been to them.
LikeLike
What the heck.
Here’s another link for those who like Spec Fiction but don’t want their Christian sensibilities to be insulted by blatant atheism.
http://specfaith.ritersbloc.com/
This link will lead you to to the names many Christian Authors in this genre.
LikeLike
I love science fiction and the thought of technology that is to come. I think our society needs science fiction to present us with a dream of where we are going so our entrepreneurs and innovators can work there (even though the Utopian novels can be quite socialistic).
I am a Christian but have noticed that most of my friends who love sci-fi are atheists. There must be something that selects for atheists in sci-fi fandom. I think Peter is on to something in that both atheism and hard science fiction are tests that get you into the smart people club.
LikeLike
“I talked to technically minded people that enjoyed reading in their youth and it turns out they are atheist.” I don’t think we need any theories. People with intelligence and interest enough in the questions in the first place tend to decide that atheism or at least agnosticism is the most reasonable/useful position. Those that are not technically minded, do not like to read, and are not interested enough to make a decision usually stick with whatever was handed down to them.
LikeLike
You claim that we don’t need any theories, then posit your own theory, but unlike Wintery you merely speculate.
LikeLike
Funny, I would’ve thought sci-fi drove atheists away from Christianity when their books of fictions are more logically consistent than the books of faith.
But the boobs angle is good too. Everyone likes boobs.
LikeLike
I read a lot of fantasy and science fiction. In fact, it’s the only kind of fiction I enjoy. Everything else I read is news, biography, history, politics, or apologetics.
I think the problem is not inherently with science fiction or fantasy fiction. Even C.S. Lewis delved into it. The problem is that very few Christians attempt to write it, therefore the population of sci fi works is skewed toward nonbelievers.
My writing partner and I intend to write a lot of science fiction from a Christian perspective.
LikeLike
What would writing from a Christian perspective look like? If it was preachy and ended in something like an altar call, that would be more of a polemic than fiction.
When we see science fiction that incorporates Catholic and Jewish elements, it is the cultural elements that are incorporated. Often times in the context of incorporating cultural elements, we learn a fair amount of theology as backdrop. What I learned about Manicheaism from “A Case of Conscience” forms the backbone of my knowledge of heretical forms of Christianity. I like to think that Roger Zelazny gave me good dope on Hindu theology.
So, how would you work an evangelical background into your stories?
Incidently, the best example I can think of is “The Book of Eli.”
LikeLike
“The Book of Eli” is a good example.
What I’m thinking of is not necessarily something preachy, just something that incorporates philosophy from a Christian point of view, as opposed to a nihilistic one. Science fiction is supposed to be about asking questions, not answering them. We just want to ask better questions.
LikeLike
Check out Mike Flynn; especially his book Eifelheim.
LikeLike
I have Eifleheim, but haven’t read it. It sounds like Poul Anderson’s “The High Crusade.” Flynn is Catholic and is very steeped in history and Thomism, according to what I’ve seen in his blog.
The Adherents’ list of authors by denominations is interesting.” There really is something about Cordwainer Smith that is quintessentially Episcopalian, without there ever once being anything overt in any of his books.
LikeLike
What would writing from a Christian perspective look like?
It’s not scifi, but Tolkien would be an outstanding example.
IIRC, all of the Inklings were great Christian writers.
LikeLike
What about atheists who don’t read science fiction?
LikeLike
I know I subscribed to science fiction philosophy (for lack of a better word)once upon a time. I liked the idea of multi-verses and infinite time.
The Matrix, while not a novel, has actually become a religion for some; it’s called Matrixism (Google it and you’ll find their website).
LikeLike
See, this is exactly what I am talking about. They don’t like the standard Big Bang (e.g. – Geoffrey Burbidge) and the fine-tuning (Martin Rees), so they go off into crazy speculations like an eternal universe and the multiverse. It’s just weird. The wise man doesn’t believe what he likes because he likes it. The wise man believes what science shows us.
Atheists like Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe believed in directed panspermia (aliens seeding the earth with life) as a way of getting around the origin of life problem. It’s just craziness.
LikeLike
I love Sci-Fi, there are thoughts of what could be that just astound me, but I also know that it can be used as a vision of the future, visions of things that can be made, conquered or done, to make man’s life better, but it isn’t a fullfilling life without God. I also Love God! And the two can co-incide with each other. To just take one view and not the other is small minded. How can one look into the stars and not see God? How can one think we are a mistake? A chance happening? Please, if evolution was a reality, then why aren’t we being pushed aside by the next generation of animals that have evolved? Why aren’t they smarter then us, and showing up? Why aren’t they walking out of the ponds, coming out of the tree’s and making us stop and say WOW! People wake up, God is as real as anything out there, and accountability is going to happen.
LikeLike
It’s been a while since I read an article that actually offended me. This quote in particular was astonishing in it’s ignorance:
“My theory about how atheism is caused is that atheists adopt atheism because they want pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, without any restraints or guilt”
To say that the idea of rejecting primitive religious dogma is merely the result of uncontrolled sexuality is so far off base that I have trouble putting it into words.
On a lighter note, I did laugh at your comment about “blinding following.” It’s like you don’t even realize the hypocrisy.
LikeLike
Wintery, do people ‘become’ atheists or do they ‘stay’ as atheists? In other words what im asking is, is a baby born with an innate belief in God, which is then stripped away as he/she ages, or is a baby born an atheist?
LikeLike
According to Michael Murray, babies start with a belief in some sort of omnipotent mind.
Here’s something about it:
http://www.discovery.org/a/6091
Murray has more details in his new Oxford University Press book:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/AnthropologyofReligion/?view=usa&ci=9780199557028
Sorry for my snarky post, I just decided to be mean to atheists today… And we got about 500 of them so far reading this post… that’s why it’s #1 today in the “Popular posts” list.
Sometimes I get into these snarky moods and behave kind of badly.
LikeLike
Wait…atheists hostile to science? Is it my imagination then, that the degree of religiosity drops in direct proportion to one’s level of education (in particular, that of science) and one’s standing in the field? Whereas about 10% (let’s adopt an easy number) of the general population consider themselves atheist/agnostic, the number grows to about 40% in baccalaureate holders and even more with advanced degrees–much higher than that of the general population. The American Academy of Sceicnes is apparently, overwhelmingly non-theistic (see here for some results from 1998: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html).
So, regardelss of your misdefinition of science fiction (really: have you read anything published since 1950? Today’s science fiction is considered both a legitimate branch of literature and is grounded–in some cases, at least–in legitimate modern science), your argument seems to be full of holes from the get-go…
LikeLike
Is it my imagination then, that the degree of religiosity drops in direct proportion to one’s level of education (in particular, that of science) and one’s standing in the field?
I seem to remember that there’s a sharper degree of decline in relation to education outside of the hard sciences. (say, English rather than geology– I believe the statistics also tend to exclude all religious degrees)
It seems reasonable that the higher number of atheists or agnostics with degrees could be caused by agnostics and atheists being more likely to pursue secular learning, since their religious impulses aren’t channeled into, say, a Doctorate of Theology.
LikeLike
The Academy I am referring to is the National Academy of Sciences–a club of some prestige (http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer). The data I was referring to are quite well-known, and I have seen them discussed in many publications. The link given was simply a first out of many: here is another one: http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists.
No, there is no extra parenthesis in the link (believe it: I write lisp code as well, and compose most of my replies in vim…:) so I am quite careful about my parentheses!). But that is irrelevant. The selection criterion is not simply someone’s personal preference. The other link I provide gives more specifics; in general, however, members of NAS can safely be considered as “greater” in the relevant sense: one’s academic standing is one of the main criteria for membership in the organisation.
Meanwhile, anecdotally, while I agree that many of the professors in humanities seem to be atheistic/agnostic, my personal experience is not with those, and I can safely claim that the overwhelming majority of the physicists, biologists and astronomers I know personally or whose work I am familiar with are atheistic/agnostic. That includes pretty much everyone in the following fields: exoplanetary detection, local interstellar medium, chemical evolution of the Galaxy, galaxy formation, stellar structure and evolution (in particular that of substellar objects), physical cosmology and astrobiology. Mathematics and geology, on the other hand, seem to have a slightly higher proportion of theists. (And, as a matter of fact, philosophy is dominated by atheists). I would be interested in finding out whether a poll correlating fields of expertise to their religiosity has been done.
LikeLike
That’s a wiki, dude. Those really aren’t good evidence. You can sometimes get good info from them, but you really should just get the info and link it, instead of linking the wiki.
And yes, there IS an extra parentheses. Click on the link, notice the address of the error page, remove the end symbol and hey, it’s the article.
Since you either didn’t even bother to pay attention to what I wrote about the study, or are flatly ignorant of the original, century-old study, I can only hold you up as an excellent example of the modern “scientifically” minded person who, though they may work with science and technology, simply can’t bring themselves to consider their views could be wrong.
LikeLike
Incidentally– since the link deadends– did you mean the American Academy of Arts and Sciences? Or the US National Academy of Sciences?
I can’t find any record of “the American Academy of Sciences” outside of a rather…er…. 1995 web page.
*fiddles with link*
K, you put an extra “)” in there.
Obvious initial response: the surveys are over different areas. One is a random sample of scientists selected, by the taker, as “greater”; the latest is a sample of a specific group. Utterly ignores a chance of selection bias. (Not an unreasonable concern, even if we were to ignore proper methods.)
Where is the original study or even the original article? This is a secondary, which involves a lot of interpretation; there’s not even a name for the article in the citations.
No note on the sample sizes involved.
This (also secondary) source shines a bit of light on the situation, as the oddly unnamed 1997 article from Nature was titled “Scientists Are Still Keeping the Faith.”
According to this secondary source, the latest survey was of American Men and Women of Science. Possibly, they then went through their sample and selected those that were also members of another body.
LikeLike
See above. Again, the “greater” in question is not simply a questioner’s preference. The title of the article in Nature refers to the fact that there is still a number of scientists–across the fields–that are theistic; however, their relative numbers are much lower than those in the general population. The sample size is about 50% of the NAS members who have responded to the questionnaire. (in the link I provided above, scroll down to the “Among scientists” section.)
LikeLike
I think it’s not so much that sci fi makes folks atheist– any more than fantasy makes them pagan– it’s just that, without a sufficiently formed faith, people are looking to fill that hole, that hunger, the yearning.
Sci fi and fantasy are powerful because they touch on the powerful “give life meaning” themes, the two sides, rationality and emotionalism; logic and myth; that which yet may be and that which was, when that which is falls short, somehow.
I’ve read good Catholic sci fi and fantasy, both; I’ve no idea why there isn’t more of it, since it’s nicely suited… ah well.
LikeLike
Foxfier, I think you’re spot-on here.
LikeLike
That is nicely put, Foxfier.
I have often noticed that Religion, Science, and the Arts (including writing) all have at least one thing in common.
They try to make sense out of a world that doesn’t always make sense.
That is the human condition and a natural and healthy response.
To put it bluntly. They are ALL coping methods.
Arrogance on the part of one coping system against another is really uncalled for. Debate and even snarky exchange is fine. But not arrogance. It’s not very pretty coming from anyone.
LikeLike
Mara, do you think that science and theology are coping mechanisms, or do you think that they are methods of gathering truth about objective reality? Please answer, this is important.
Also, do you think that science and theology are “true” in the same sense that art is “true”. Please explain the differences between math and science and theology and art, on your view.
LikeLike
I’m going to think on this and get back to you.
But I can say this up front:
Being objective in anything is very difficult. Many people who feel that they are being objective in anything really do have a strong bias that they support without being aware of it.
People can look at the same data and come up with different conclusions just as people can look at the same scriptures and come to different conclusions. Escatology (sp?) comes to mind.
Since I understand this about human nature across the board, science, religion, etc, I’m also aware that I am just as vulnerable as any other and am careful about believing that I KNOW something when it is possible that I just WANT something to be true and see things through that particular lens.
I’m sure this appears to be very wishy washy to such a black and white thinker as yourself.
But I believe my position is a little more honest than stark black and white thinking.
P.S. I like being asked these kinds of questions because it pushes me along on my understanding of this somewhat chaotic world.
LikeLike
Well… I know when I’m working with a gage with a known bias, and removing that isn’t an option, I just adjust for the bias. Bias is, after all, just another word for where someone starts from in their thinking.
Everything is black and white; in shedding light on a subject, white has all colors, and black is an absence of light. With enough detail, all the shades can be found.
I like being asked these kinds of questions because it pushes me along on my understanding of this somewhat chaotic world.
Kind of like the original philosophy stuff, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Arrogance on the part of one coping system against another is really uncalled for.
Depends on the coping system; I’d say that the systems that have a better result for the followers (on whatever range someone is interested in) can feel superior to those which have inferior results, pretty much by definition.
If you remove the frame of reference, there’s no way you can then impose a “no arrogance” rule. (Arrogance is, after all, just a belief in superiority that the person responding thinks is exaggerated.)
LikeLike
Brilliant! That’s where I was going but I wanted her to make it clearer first.
LikeLike
Oh.
If that’s all you wanted then why didn’t you say so?
Love is patient love is kind and not jealous. Love does not brag and is not arrogant… etc. (taken from I Corinthians 13, for those who care.)
There is a difference between being arrogant and being confident.
Confidence is usually attractive, at the very least, decent looking.
Whether displayed by a Christian or an Atheist, arrogance is always ugly.
And so is a superior attitude.
Says one who grew up among intellectuals who considered themselves quite superior. I’ve also been around self-rightous religious people. I have seen how ugly it can get on both sides.
If you want to got there, knock yourself out.
I’ll not be joining you.
LikeLike
I find your comments interesting because I am thinking about how skepticism of math, science, apologetics, theology and other rigorous disciplines might undermine a person’s ability to make good decisions. If a person doesn’t not recognize the authority of logic and evidence, how do they make decisions? Well, they make them by intuitions and feelings – which become black and white FOR THEM – while logic, science and evidence are gray, self-righteous, bragging, confident, ugly and arrogant. Inevitably, they will make errors, and then what will happen then? Will they blame themselves for not being more careful? Or will they blame others?
A comment that Mary made a while back scared me quite a bit. She said that some men were like Dr. Jeckyl/Mr. Hyde and there was no way of telling whether they were good husbands or not during courtship, and so women were justified in thinking that men are wolves in sheep’s clothing. To me, that is the same attitude that says that intuitions and feelings are on par with evidence and research, and it intuitions and feelings fail as a way of making decisions, then there really is no responsibility on the part of the person choosing. I.e. – women have no responsibility for having thought about rigorous ways to evaluate men using research and evidence because their intuitions and feelings are all they can use. I have often said that the scariest thing about some women is this tendency to make poor decisions and then to rely on others for support, or to point the finger at others and assign blame. Women choose men who they know are bad and tell themselves that those men will change AFTER MARRIAGE.
I showed that research on the importance of virginity to one Christian woman and she was offended that scientific evidence would have any effect on her decision about what man to marry. This woman has in the past committed pretty much every mistake with men imaginable by the way. But her first response was to reject evidence and to assert her right to choose any man she “felt” was right “for her”. She is also a constant man-blamer who rejects all male authority and all moral obligations to men or children.
What if women are just bad at making decisions because they are just bad at separating truth from feelings and intuitions. E.g. – science from art, theology from compassion? And what if we made public policy remove the responsibility for these mistakes by redistributing wealth and restricting liberty with bigger and bigger government? (E.g. – single mother welfare, punitive divorce courts, affirmative action, etc.)
I think that this trend will only get worse as women blame men and eject them from the home through higher taxation and increased coercion. Men like to be in charge, and when their authority is rejected, it seems to me that reason and evidence go with them. If I ever became a husband and father, I would consider it part of my role to get my daughters to see that the world is the way it is regardless of our feelings. That math and science are true whether we believe it or not. And that in a universe designed by God, there are consequences for failing to act in ways that take objective truth and the objective moral law into account. So far, most women I talk to are not really happy with me talking about these constraints on our choices. They are not happy with being judged, being limited, being led, being taught, being improved. They think that having an opinion about things is the same as knowing whether something is true. Like saying “I agree that rent control is bad” is equivalent to saying “I have studied the economics of rent control, and I KNOW that it is bad because when you fix the costs of a product or service lower than the market rate by government intervention, you reduce the incentives to supply, and increase the incentives to demand, creating a shorting of that product or service – as has happened in many cities in the past like New York and Chicago.” See the difference? Opinions are just personal preferences – only knowledge based on logical and objective evidence can be trusted and relied on.
LikeLike
If that’s all you wanted then why didn’t you say so?
Sometimes, circling around the side gives you a better view.
There is a difference between being arrogant and being confident.
Yes– but it’s dang hard to find a position everyone agrees is objective.
If you hold a belief that isn’t true, and you believe it is, then you’re being arrogant; if you hold a belief that is true, but someone else disbelieves, they’re going to thin you’re arrogant.
LikeLike
“A comment that Mary made a while back scared me quite a bit. She said that some men were like Dr. Jeckyl/Mr. Hyde and there was no way of telling whether they were good husbands or not during courtship, and so women were justified in thinking that men are wolves in sheep’s clothing.”
Oi! Wintery, don’t misquote me. I said that the way of telling whether men are good or not in courtship is *not foolproof*. I didn’t say it wasn’t useful. I think it’s very useful and necessary. Also, I don’t think it’s fair to label all men as wolves in sheep’s clothing so I don’t know where you get that from. Read my comments properly… [raised eyebrow]
LikeLike
Well, it doesn’t work as well if I quote you accurately!
I apologize for misquoting you just to make a point. I am am hyper-sensitive to any effort by women to avoid the responsibility for their own free choice of bad-boy alpha males.
See the quotes here from Theodore Dalrymple:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/you-should-read-theodore-dalrymples-life-at-the-bottom-for-free-online/
That’s similar to my experiences dealing with women. When it comes to courting and mate selection, some women have no plan at all except to judge men by appearance – using feelings, intuitions, etc. It is said that women decide whether they will sleep with a man or not in the first few seconds of meeting him – they put an inordinate stock in “chemistry” and are totally incapable of sitting still for a few hours to reason about means and ends (goals and resources) with respect to a Christian life plan. They want fun! And thinking about a life together self-sacrificially, over the long-term, is not fun.
Judging from her snarky little comments, that hook-up girl from Duke University had interesting ways of measuring men – appearance, sexual prowess, amusement, entertainment, sports accomplishments. I’m sure she was very surprised that those men did not want to marry her and be good fathers after they hooked-up with her in the back of a car. Based on her experience, she would think that men are unreliable and disappointing. If the men that feminists choose are all brutes, then they might think that ALL MEN are brutes! And this is where laws that punish men with taxes and regulations come from, and why men don’t marry.
LikeLike
“Well, it doesn’t work as well if I quote you accurately!
I apologize for misquoting you just to make a point. I am am hyper-sensitive to any effort by women to avoid the responsibility for their own free choice of bad-boy alpha males.”
Apology accepted.
Of course the supreme irony in this is that your reaction was, by your own admission, based on hypersensitivity. i.e. it was emotional and illogical – and you’re a MAN. Ha! Being illogical in your rant against “illogical women” is rather a humdinger, eh? [raises eyebrow again]
LikeLike
Yes, this is one of those things that just makes me so upset. That and the church’s refusal to learn apologetics and to take the question of truth seriously using reliable methods of discovering truth like science and the laws of logic and mainstream historical work.
LikeLike
*eyebrow raise* No credit for two thousand years worth of scientific advancement, and even the creation of the scientific method, eh?
LikeLike
I mean the modern church! The rank and file not being very interested in Big Bang research, intelligent design theory, historical Jesus studies, etc.
LikeLike
Heh, rank and file folks generally aren’t interested in high falutin’ theories; it’s unusual today because we have the leisure for it to be an option!
LikeLike
Well, look at the Lee Strobel “The Case for…” books. Those are written at a very easy to read level, in a journalistic style, but they are very useful books for learning all the arguments. There’s one lady in a church I know who has taught several classes on Lee Strobel books. All women classes.
LikeLike
Women who want to learn about apologetics and be reasonable and logical? Fancy that! ;-)
LikeLike
Wow. I thought this was a discusion on Atheism, Science, and Religion. I had no idea you were going to turn it into a tirade about women.
LikeLike
I wrote an entire post picking on Dan Barker for the exact same thing though! I’m sorry that I was mean to you.
LikeLike
Foxfier: “Well… I know when I’m working with a gage with a known bias, and removing that isn’t an option, I just adjust for the bias. Bias is, after all, just another word for where someone starts from in their thinking.”
Ahem.
Note that when you are the operator of the machine, you are on the outside and can adjust the gages from you objective point of view.
The problem with the human brain is that it is part of the machine of the human. It is much harder for the machine to see that there is a bias within itself.
Note also something else.
I was going to say earlier, but I refrained from it due to space and topic…
My measuring stick, my gyroscope that I keep re-examining myself by, is the Bible and God’s standards as explained by the Bible.
It is a delicate thing and not easy to do. Look at examples of all the groups that start off, biblically centered, and then move off center.
They continue to use the Word, but they become warped in their view elevating certain passages and ignoring entire books in the Bible in order to uphold their bias.
Also, different groups interprete the same scriptures different ways coming to different conclusions.
So how does a Christian keep after it and continue to seek the truth, even when so many under the umbrella “Christian” are so far off.
It would behoove the Christian to take care how they handle the Word, recognize that they are nothing special, and as the Bible says, take care while you stand less you fall. i.e. they can fall into error just as easily as anyone else.
It would also behoove the Christian to refrain from arrogance since pride goes before the fall.
It is better to take the position on certain things, that perhaps we don’t know as much as we think.
Again.
The example of escatology. Which version is right? They both believe they are. They both have charts and graphs PROOVING beyond the shadow of a doubt that their version of truth is the right version and all who don’t take their version are wrong. They have a bias. They are emotionally, logically invested in their version being right.
And as long as they remain in their arrogance, they will continue to have their bias.
This is why the Bible calls us to be humble.
It is to help us to not be so proud and invested in things, so that when the One, the Operator wants to adjust the bias, we can let Him.
They are many great truths in the Bible that are completely and totally understandable and undeniable and these should be our measuring stick for our understanding of everything else.
A few of them are: The 10 Commandments, the Two Great Commandments of Jesus, The Golden Rule etc These are crystal clear. There are other things that are not so, yet groups build entire doctrines on them giving them the weight of the 10 Commandments, 2 Greatest Commands, the Golden Rule and they even undermine the Words of Jesus to enforce their version of the Gospel making it a different Gospel.
Now, this is where I wanted to go, Wintery. If I had known you were just going to set me up so you can lambast my gender/sex, I’d would have never gone there.
LikeLike
Just because something is simple— say, making it a known bias, and then adjusting for it– doesn’t mean it’s easy!
Ironically, the very word “bias” has a bias built into it that it’s somehow bad to have a bias.
LikeLike
Rather than bias, how about the word, “lens” or “angle” or “spin”?
It is much easier for a person to see another’s bias.
Hence, the log/splinter parable.
But if a person is arrogant rather than humble and refuses to be told about their bias then it won’t ever be adjusted.
LikeLike
Angle and spin, again, have a bias built in.
“Perspective”? “Point of view”? “Starting point”?
If a person is excessively humble, they will be correcting for a bias that doesn’t exist, which is even worse– that then supports the person who is telling them to correct their bias in their arrogance.
Of course, talking about correcting bias or adjusting bias assumes there’s a proper frame of mind, an objective center, rather than just something to keep in mind when dealing with others.
LikeLike
And I guess that the objective center is based on the spiritual, the unseen that has created the seen.
You are right about being too humble or not confident and being tossed to and fro.
I was really only coming against the assumption that if someone thinks they are right, they have a right to be arrogant about it.
Being open to new evidence and keeping a ‘big picture’ way of thinking nearby help.
Continually focusing only on teachers or science that bolsters you bias without looking at anything else hurts.
Considering evidence you don’t agree with can be a scary thing. But if the truth you are holding onto really is the Truth, it will stand the test. If it isn’t, or parts of it aren’t, the parts that aren’t true are shaken off while what really is true is strengthened.
LikeLike
Wintery: “[Women] are not happy with being judged, being limited, being led, being taught, being improved. They think that having an opinion about things is the same as knowing whether something is true.”
Honestly Wintery. Do you really think that this attitude is limited to women.
I’ve watch men who think they are logical go on and on about something in total illogic, circular logic, etc.
And guess what?
When I call them on it, they don’t like it. They want to revel in their presumed superiority over me and don’t like being challenged by anyone. Especially by a woman. Because women are supposed to be illogical, intuitive, emotional. That’s what comp theology teaches that women are.
One of these days you are going to have to make a choice.
Realize that you really expect women to rise up out of the limitations that comp doctrine teaches and become an egal, or quit expecting women to go against their God-given, Biblical Womanhood as taught by you favorite comp teachers.
Personally, I prefer your, “I expect more from women” attitude and your challenges for women to do better over the drivel put out by comp authors who think women are only capable of the emotional and illogical.
But remember, if women are equally responsible for their actions, then it’s wrong for you to expect them to give up their authority to men. When they give up their authority, then they can no longer be held responsible.
LikeLike
Yes, men do it too, but they shouldn’t.
I like it when you challenge me!
I think your last point about my dilemma is an excellent point – it really is devastating to my view. I am going to have to think about it. For now, I would say that my view is that women are more responsible before they are married when they are really having to make the decisions about what kind of man they are going to marry. After the marriage, I think that women do have authority over lots of things, but if there is a dispute in a matter not delegated to the man or the woman, then someone has to make a decision, and I think it should be the man. (But he should listen to the woman first and consider it a good thing to change his mind). And then the man is responsible if that final decision is wrong. It’s not like the man makes every decision! That’s crazy. It’s more like delegating to an expert – so she is still responsible when she’s assigned tasks.
Mara, I have to tell you that I think that the submit thing is only supposed to be for when a man tries to get a woman to be a better Christian. For example, if I want a woman to be better at apologetics, then I recommend her to try to read a book or an essay. If she does it, then she is submitting. That’s what I mean by submitting. I mean that a woman considers what I am saying and decides if she thinks that she should follow my lead on a moral/spiritual issue. Before marriage, she has to choose whether to submit. After marriage she has to submit to my moral/spiritual leadership. She does not (in my view) have to submit to things that are not spiritual or moral. I.e. – you can’t make a woman submit to some household chore just to boss her around, I don’t think. Submitting is about submitting to the moral/spiritual leadership, I think. So I can ask her to submit to reading a book to try to change her mind, but I can’t make her change her mind just by giving orders. Its about leadership in these specific areas. If you run around ordering people to do things without convincing them first, you get a rebellion. Submission means that the woman promises to always allow you the opportunity to persuade her, but with no guarantee that she will change her mind. And if she needs time to study, then the man has to do all her work for her to give her that time to study! (Or pay someone else to take over her tasks to free her up)
I’m planning to write a post for you on how you have to let men have the dominant role in the family if you want them to be engaged in the family. And that’s why I insist that women are very careful about who they marry. If you have to give men this special leadership role in order to keep them engaged in the marriage, then you have to test them during courtship to make sure they don’t abuse that power. You can’t marry them and then marginalize them, because they cheat on you or drop out out the marriage emotionally or they shut down communications. You have to give them that lead position to get them to have their beneficial effect. That’s why they have to be tested first. It’s like drafting a quarterback. He has to play quarterback. He can’t play kicker or linebacker. So before you draft him, you better make sure that he can lead the rest of the team – i.e. – that he is not a jerk. I think that the majority of men are selfish jerks, and that Christian women are better off not marrying anyone if they can’t find a suitable quarterback. I would like to see women get training in how to evaluate men based on specific marriage/parenting scenarios so that they understand the value of apologetics, chastity, theology, earning capability, work history, etc. in men.
LikeLike
WK: I’m really not liking your use of the term “dominant” for the man’s leadership role. Leadership is not the same as domination. Domination is the man’s sinful tendency of “ruling over” the woman that God cites as a consequence of the Fall in Genesis 3. It is the sinful male counterpart to the woman’s sinful tendency to usurp her husband’s leadership.
LikeLike
I am taking the term from the essay I sent you that I want to write about. It’s not my term, I am reporting what the essay says.
LikeLike
Ah. Well, in that case, I must take exception to the writer’s use of the term “dominant” and your adoption of it.
LikeLike
Link:
http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=711.0;wap2
Here’s a quote from the article:
Steven Goldberg was the Chair of Sociology at City College, City University of New York from 1970 to 2005.
LikeLike
The quote is good. Thank you.
LikeLike
“After the marriage, I think that women do have authority over lots of things, but if there is a dispute in a matter not delegated to the man or the woman, then someone has to make a decision, and I think it should be the man. (But he should listen to the woman first and consider it a good thing to change his mind). And then the man is responsible if that final decision is wrong.”
I am not sure I agree with this. Or may be I don’t understand your point. Are you saying after much deliberation the man should take the decision even if the woman has a better solution? Where’s the common sense in that? I do appreciate you saying the man would be held responsible if the final decision is wrong, but you are not exactly mentioning the consequences of his decision. It’s not like it would affect only him. His wife and children would have to face the consequences of the wrong decision as well, and many more decisions have to be made to face those consequences. It really isn’t that simple as a man taking responsibility and everything going back to normal, is it? That hardly sounds realistic!
LikeLike
Hi Shalini :)
I am going to use an analogy which I think you will appreciate… ;-)
Have you read “The Mythical Man-month” by Fred P. Brooks? If not, I recommend it. It’s all about software engineering, but actually has applications to broader project management too. And it’s a classic, which, in my opinion, every computer scientist ought to read. You can read it online here: http://issuu.com/developer/docs/mythical_man_month
Well, in one of the chapters he advocates a “surgical team” approach to programming, involving 2 programmers, one of which is the chief programmer. Guess what analogy he uses?
“A team of two, with one leader, is often the best use of minds. [Note God’s plan for marriage.]”
Yep, FPB (my favourite computer scientist!) is a Christian – and a complementarian. If you “reverse engineer” his analogy, I think it will help in understanding the dynamic Wintery has outlined.
So, the chief programmer takes responsibility for decisions which are made. But he makes those decisions in consultation with the other programmer working with him. If the other programmer has a better solution, then he should use that. That is wisdom. But sometimes they will not agree on what is the best solution. There are no two people on the planet who agree all of the time. To resolve this deadlock, the chief programmer makes the call and takes full responsibility for the decision and the consequences. His decision affects the other programmer too, but someone has to make the decision when there is a deadlock. The different roles provide for deadlock resolution.
LikeLike
Not only that but he signed the dissent from Darwin list.
Thanks for understanding what I was trying to say, Mary. I’m surprised Shalini didn’t get this, since she is also involved with software engineering – just like us.
LikeLike
Wintery, you are most welcome. :)
LikeLike
Other famous Christian computer scientists are Guy Steele and Donald Knuth.
LikeLike
Now I didn’t know that. Thanks WK! :)
LikeLike
Mary,
Agreed it makes a whole of lot of sense when you put it that way. But I still feel there’s a point being missed here. I do want to know whether the chief programmer and the programmer are of the same hierarchical standing in the organization. Assuming they are not then yes the decision obviously gets taken by the chief programmer in case of a deadlock. And considering their organizational standings though both will face the consequences it will be the one who took the decision would bear most of the brunt. That’s how it works in organizations. Does it work like that in families?
And, thanks for the book suggestion. Will look into it. :)
LikeLike
Heh, other than that in most families I know, the lady makes most of the decisions, and God help the man if he throws his weight around for less than a very big reason… Elf and I have an understanding that he has the tie breaker. When it comes down to making a decision where we disagree, most of the time is spent figuring out who really is big on something, and who is less-so.
If you assume both sides love each other and thus won’t do mental or physical harm, women are MUCH better at making things uncomfortable than men are.
LikeLike
Foxfier, your view is perfect – that’s my view too. While I am at work tapping keys for money, she has all the time in the world to do research to convince me. She’s master of the home life. During courtship, I am testing that she has the decision making ability for all the little things that will happen when I am not there – I can’t micromanage her from work. I have the final say, yes, but for all that courting is the time to test to see what she will do with me and the children and the finances, etc. when I am not there.
LikeLike
I don’t think you have enough emphasis on the epic tail-kicking that she can lay down, too, WK. That might be the root of the conflict.
LikeLike
Shalini, you bring up an excellent point.
Many a woman has submitted to things that has had dire consequences for her.
Mary, one problem with your picture is that the programmers ONLY operate this way on the job in limited time and space. Once they leave they are autonomous human being who make their own choices for their own lives. The head programmer is not the leader over every area of the other programmer’s life. Yet the comp position teaches that a man is leader over every area of a woman’s life. A woman can’t ever get away from it, ever, until death. And I’ve met more that one women who thought her own death would be sweet release from the life she’s living.
Also, the secondary programmer can always move on to another job and even eventually become the head programer.
Not so the woman, ever, under comp teaching.
Also, I didn’t have time last week, but wanted to bring it up this week.
How much logical sense does it make for a woman to have all her own authority while she’s young and stupid, until marriage, then she gives it away to another young and stupid person.
One young and stupid person takes charge over another.
Then as the woman grows and matures and gets to the point that she might have some good leaderships skills, too dang bad. She’s not allowed.
And honestly and logically, how many of you men want to enter a relationship where you lose your authority over yourself?
Why do you expect women to do what you would NEVER do. That is being a POOR leader. A leader never asks a follower to do what the leader would never do.
I really don’t think it’s fair to ask women to take a demotion upon marriage.
Marriage should be a promotion for both, otherwise why should any woman want to enter it?
They do so thinking the husband might actually consider her more than himself like the Bible tells him to. Sounds wonderful in theory. In practice, it often becomes something altogether different. Soooo many women have found this out
To use the phrases:
Might does not make right.
Might is to defend right.
A person being vulnerable is not reason enough for another to enforce his might or authority over her. He uses his might to defend her right to be a whole thinking, leadership quality human being at his side. And she appreciates his doing right, knowing full well that he doesn’t have to in our culture. Therefore she reciprocates honor and respect so he knows that when he lays down his life for her, he can trust her NOT to try to take him over or lord over him, but rather to mutually submit as prescribed in Ephesians 5:21, (the foundational scripture for the rest of Ephesians 5).
A more fair position in a marriage of two people who are bound together for life and can’t get away from each other when the work day is done, is for cooperating and designating areas of authority based on ability and even gender, if you like. If a woman is responsible for keeping the house, she ought to have full authority over it and final say in it. etc. Why should she have all this responsibility but her authority can always be trumped at any time?
How many men would like this sort of relationship?
I would venture the guess that NONE of you would want to enter this sort of relationship. Yet you expect it of women.
This is not doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
You should not be breaking the words of Jesus Christ in order to obey your preferred interpretation of the words of Paul.
LikeLike
Mara, lately I find your comments enormously useful because it makes me sensitive to these issues even though I still don’t agree. I like listening. I keep throwing it back to you that this is what courting is for – you have to pick someone you trust and you test them first. The woman should say “these are my concerns and fears, these are the typical scenarios for marriage and parenting…” and the man should say “look how I will do this degree, get this job, abstain from sex and alcohol, be transparent, avoid television and movies, etc.” so that she can observe whether he is responsive to her concerns. There are going to be times where the man should decide against her wishes, I think, but not on issues where the man wants to be bad.
LikeLike
… why would you choose someone who would abuse his authority?
Just because the guy gets the tie-breaker doesn’t mean he’s an absolute authority, and somebody has to have the tiebreaker.
LikeLike
Wintery: “There are going to be times where the man should decide against her wishes, I think, but not on issues where the man wants to be bad.”
It’s the first part of you statement above that concerns me the most.
It assumes the man knows what’s right and the woman doesn’t.
And in my observation, no man WANTS to be bad. Even bad men want to be the hero in their own story.
Many a man, good or bad, has done bad all the while thinking it was good. And in marriage and in the comp situation, there is none to oppose his good intentions leading to hell.
In an egal situation, there IS someone who can oppose him to his face like Paul opposed Peter.
This is the kind of helpmeet a man needs once in a while. One suitible to keep him on course. He doesn’t need a yes woman. A mostly affirming and loving one, of course. But not one he believes he has the right to trump every day of the week 24 hours a day. He needs a full and equal partner with as much say in the matter as he has. It’s her life too. It’s not just his life he is messing with.
They need to come together in agreement.
I like Micheal’s take better than yours because he assumes better things of women than you do. But I still believe it is wrong for one person to have that much authority over another in a relationship.
Jobs and managment situations are different. But then, the head programmer doesn’t sleep with the secondary one, nor does the boss sleep with the secretary, at least not without being frowned upon by society. Same goes for senior officers sleeping with those of lower rank. Very much frowned upon.
People who come together in marriage are coming together in a relationship, not a management or military authority situation.
Courting is important. But it can’t spot everything. Nor can early, excellent courting done by the wife stop a man, hell bent on doing what he thinks is right and drunk on his own percieved ‘authority’ that the church teaches he has.
Power corrupts
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Checks and balances are needed in government, churches, and homes.
The kids can’t check and balance their dad. That’s the mom’s job.
Not to lord over him or boss him around. But to check and balance him. Men NEED checks and balances just a women do in the family.
A woman can’t check and balance a man who has been led to believe that’s not her job by comp teachers.
LikeLike
Foxfier: “… why would you choose someone who would abuse his authority?
Just because the guy gets the tie-breaker doesn’t mean he’s an absolute authority, and somebody has to have the tiebreaker.”
No woman wants to choose someone who would abuse his authority.
The problem again lies in the fact that no where in scripture does God instruct the husband to TAKE authority over his wife or to LEAD her.
NO WHERE.
Anyone ever asked to produce such a scripture can’t. Because it doesn’t exist.
Unless you think since both the words “love” and “lead” are four letters long and start with ‘l’ that means they are interchangable?
The comparisons of husband to Christ in Ephesians is talking about love and sacrifice. No where, in talking to husbands, are they told to lead.
Wives ARE instructed to submit. But this is after everyone is instructed to submit to everyone.
Also, keep in mind, the verb used for submit is a passive verb and can mean just as much that she already is submitted because of the cultural context of this letter.
Back then, women weren’t just expected to submit, they were expected to obey. And I mean obey. The husband’s words WERE law to them, back then.
Paul was lifting this burden of total obedience that was culturally expected of first century wives up to the level of submit.
So yes, wives are to submit and husbands are to lay down their lives and love.
But NO ONE IS INSTRUCTED TO LEAD. It simply isn’t there.
Men have assumed because wives are told to submit, that implies they are to lead. But it is an assumpition. It cannot be proven by any instruction given to the man.
They are both to submit to one another. The man’s submission isn’t servant leadership. That’s a 20th century spin. The man’s submission looks like love and sacrifice.
LikeLike
Yes, Mara. That was the point I was trying to make. Thanks for elaborating my point for me.
In the sense Mara has outlined, an organizational decision making isn’t exactly that compatible with family decision making. Honestly, I don’t care who the tie-breaker is, as long as there is serious wisdom applied to the decision being made. If this position is taken from the example of Jesus and His disciples, you are missing the point that Jesus was/is infinitely wise than His disciples. And my real serious grouse is the fact is that nobody seems to be mentioning what God’s role is in all the decisions being made? When you say decisions is it only about schooling, finance and other mundane stuff or are actually considering other situations where definite risk-taking will be involved? I hope I am being coherent.
And, just because you people mentioned 2 people scenario where one holds a higher position, I am thinking Peter and Paul. Of course, I am seeing that with a Catholic perspective. Give it a thought as to how that played out.
LikeLike
Oh my!! I though Peter and Paul too. Though I have to admit that I see the position they held as comp and not egal as you’ve mentioned. It’s beautiful as to how people see the same thing with different views with the end result being not all that different. Am I making sense at all?? Best I log out now!
LikeLike
Mara-
I nowhere mentioned scripture, let alone claiming that it ordered the husband to take authority.
I tend to argue from more general directions, since religion gets…complicated.
If I were to go from Faith, I’d probably put forward something like this and this.
They have relevant chapter and verses; the word “authority” isn’t used, but “submit” is.
LikeLike
Foxfier,
Went to your first link.
Saw that it was rather long for the time I have to respond. And even in skimming saw problems with it.
Do hope to give it a better look after a bit and get to your second one eventually to at least look at it.
Overall, people keep missing that submission is for everyone.
Did you know that the word ‘submit’ doesn’t even exist in Ephesians 5:22. Men have cut off verse 22 from 21 and separate them by a space. This is unfortunate because when you do that, you gut verse 22 of its verb. It refers back to the verb in 21 saying likewise. The submission in verse 22 is not a stronger submission than in verse 21. It is a likewise submission.
I’m not advocating a woman fighting everything her husband does. I think in most cases husbands and wives can defer to each other often if not most of the time. I believe in deferring to my husband, and in fact DO defer to him a lot.
This submission thing has it’s place and is needed in order to get along.
What I’m against is this unilateral authority that the Bible gives to neither the husband nor the wife.
I’m not even against authority or leadership.
I just know that not all authority and leadership should be taken from the wife and given to the husband.
He needs his areas of leadership that she respects. And she needs hers. They need to be able to come together in agreement as much as possible. But no one should have one way trumping power.
Even in our government the different branches have their different spheres of authority.
It keeps things balanced.
A good man can go into a relationship with good intentions. But it is hard to not let unlimited authority affect you.
Young men really don’t have the maturity to be given this much authority over another.
And it’s not fair to expect them to not be affected by it.
It is corrupting, especially to a very young mind.
LikeLike
Shalini: “I don’t care who the tie-breaker is, as long as there is serious wisdom applied to the decision being made. If this position is taken from the example of Jesus and His disciples, you are missing the point that Jesus was/is infinitely wise than His disciples. And my real serious grouse is the fact is that nobody seems to be mentioning what God’s role is in all the decisions being made?”
Shalini, I’m not in an egal marriage. Nor am I really in a comp one. So I have no personal experience with this.
But my egal friends who speak about this say that they about never get to the point where there has to be a tie-breaker. They say that if they do get to that point, they go and pray about it and do nothing until they both feel in agreement with each other and with God.
Like I said, I have no experience with this so I don’t know how well that works.
They also bring up emergency situations where a decision must be made fast. This is the place where trust is involved. Whoever is in that position just has to make a choice, whether it be the husband or wife. Things like where there’s been an accident involving a child or the other spouse who can’t make the choice for themselves conceerning treatment.
LikeLike
And even in skimming saw problems with it.
Like what? It’s really not fair to say “there’s issues with this” and then beg off for time.
Ephesians 5
22
Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
23
For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body.
24
As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.
25
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her
26
to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
27
that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
You say:
What I’m against is this unilateral authority that the Bible gives to neither the husband nor the wife.
Possibly, if “unilateral authority” is the way you see this, you’re looking at it the wrong way.
That’s…. argh, ‘the wrong language for the situation’ is as close as I can get; I’m horrible at speaking simply and directly.
Let me use the language of contracts and obligations, since that’s the ‘way’ (again, my language skills fail me) that you object:
if the husband fails to obey his obligation to act out of love as for himself, even to the death (since he is called to lead like Christ),
then the woman is not obliged to submit.
The authority is not unlimited; its very abuse would destroy it.
Similar to how all human life is precious, but I still have to violate that and kill any SOB that threatens to kill my Kit; the good of preserving his life is lesser than the good of protecting the innocent life I’m entrusted to defend.
LikeLike
And STILL you leave off Ephesians 5:21, the absence of which leaves Ephesians 5:22 devoid of any verb at all in the original Greek.
This was one of the issues. And I did address it briefly.
Sorry if my guilty feeling of needing to get back to my day job came across as not wanting to deal with the issues.
I really do wish I had more time to get into it. I’ve just stayed out of things before for this reason and it frustrates me.
The other major issue I saw was in relating marriage to the Trinity, something the Bible doesn’t do. This is added to the doctrine. So who is the Holy Spirit? The children?
The Bible relates marriage to the Jesus and the Church and only the husband to Jesus.
Comp teaching does the following: They take the Authority of Jesus and give it to men and the submission of Jesus and give it to women. Something the Bible never does. This is the doctrines of men supperimposed over Ephesians 5:21-33
Although I appreciate you view of looking at Ephesians 5:21-33 as a contract, I don’t really agree with that view and this may be where we are just going to have to drop it.
From this view I understand that if the guy doesn’t keep his end of the contract, the woman is released from hers.
This appears to be a decent loop-hole in the contract view of Ephesians 5.
Yes, I believe marriage is a contract. But only on the surface, because really it is so much more.
I look upon Ephesians 5 as more of an ‘attitude adjustment’ toward a marriage that already exists. I look upon it as more of a heart issue than a surface, contract, role issue.
Authority never comes into play in this attitude adjustment. And this attitude adjustment is most needed in marriages. Men don’t need women fighting them at every turn, nor do women need men who are only looking out for themselves.
What I’m seeing from teaching male authority rather than male sacrifice and agape love (which is what Ephesians is really teaching) is a bunch of young, entitled bucks growing up bemoaning ‘evil women’ who won’t ‘submit’ causing the whole world to go to hell. They blame women for everything and while refusing to deal with the issues of their own hearts.
I’m seeing men say, “Well, if women would just submit, marriages would be healed,” ignoring the brokenness of their own hearts that is also contributing to the demise of the marriage. Men and women need their broken hearts healed. Playing roles doesn’t mend hearts.
Healthy hearts on the part of both men and women will build strong marriages whether they be comp or egal. Broken hearts won’t work in either. And broken hearts in a heirarchy construct will just add fuel to the existing flame of destruction.
Don’t sue me. But I gotta go. I’m late getting ready for work.
LikeLike
Mara-
of course I left 21 off, since it was unneeded in light of 25-30, which spells out how they are to interact. ‘As Jesus to the Church’– same Jesus that washed his follower’s feet, which was as basic and low a service as possible?
I primarily posted it that way because you made a specific grammatical claim, and the cut-paste shows that’s not so.
Although I appreciate you view of looking at Ephesians 5:21-33 as a contract, I don’t really agree with that view and this may be where we are just going to have to drop it.
I put it in the language of a contract because that is how you were objecting to the possible abuses of it.
What I’m seeing from teaching male authority rather than male sacrifice and agape love (which is what Ephesians is really teaching) is a bunch of young, entitled bucks growing up bemoaning ‘evil women’ who won’t ‘submit’ causing the whole world to go to hell. They blame women for everything and while refusing to deal with the issues of their own hearts.
Humans sin. Big shock. Folks abusing a teaching is no reason to try to deny the flat, obvious meaning of the text; it doesn’t matter for the truth that people will try to selectively quote other folks’ responsibilities, ignoring their own.
I’ve seen what happens when folks focus on the authority and not the love; the man who beat my sister, his wife, is the product of such a marriage. His only view of marriage is in terms of power, because that was his mother’s view– everything was power. Her husband is a husk, her children are shells… until one realized that he could bully his wife, my sister. Anything she cared about and he knew she cared about would be broken the next time they disagreed.
I know his mother came from an undamaged family, other than letting her grow up with the view of marriage as power instead of in terms of love and authority.
There will be a balance of power; unhinged from the constant drum-beat of sacrificial love, it will be abused.
“Humans suck” is a shock to no-one.
LikeLike
Ephesians 5:21 is never unneeded unless you want to remove the foundation from the rest of the verses and present a less balanced view.
Ephesians 5:21 is the connection to the words of Jesus which is the foundation of the words of Paul. If you would be great in God’s kingdom, then learn to be servant of all. You see how the Gentiles have benefactor who rule over them, it should not be so among you. Submit to one another. How do you do that in a culture that is all about rule and authority? Well it should probably look like this. The one in the greater position should take the attitude of Christ. The one in the lesser should continue to remember that we are all to submit to one another. Do not take advantage of the one who is instructed to take the attitude of Christ. Paul continues this in his instruction to masters and slaves. It all follow the same theme. Submit to one another. Hard to do in a culture that is repulsed by such an attitude. But it can be done and Paul explains beautifully how.
Remove verse 21 if you want, but it is part of the same sentence as verse 22 and 22 refers back to 21. And so does all that follows. It is an unnatural and underhanded chopping off that men do to these passages.
Play into it if you like. But if you do, you miss the entire point.
LikeLike
Mara,
You seem to be really obsessed with the issue of the Biblical teaching that affirms the man as the leader of the family, and go to GREAT lengths to explain away Ephesians 5.
What’s your take on 1 Peter 3?
1Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
7Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you[a] of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.
LikeLike
We’ve been through this before.
Submission is what we are all called to.
This Peter chapter is speaking specifically to women of that culture who were subject to their husbands by law anyway AND were married to unbelievers. It was good instruction for them to let their lives display the gospel instead of nagging the crap out of these men. It is also good instruction to women today.
Living out the gospel IS to have a submissive attitude.
It’s not LIMITED to women just because there are special instructions given to women to continue to do so but with a heart after God rather than as a response to an oppressive culture.
Just because husbands are instructed to love in Ephesians 5 and wives are not, this doesn’t mean wives are exempt from loving. Because we are all to love. We are all to submit.
Note: When Peter talks about Sarah calling Abraham Lord, you must remember that God changed both of their names. His name meant a male ruler, or king and her name meant a female ruler or queen. And they both called each other by these royal names from the time God told them to.
Also remember that Peter would have been quite aware of the fact that God told Abraham to obey Sarah.
In a patriarchal culture, women have no choice but to obey. They have no power.
Not so in the kingdom of God.
We (men and women) are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation etc.
In the beginning God gave the instructions to BOTH the man and women, rule and subdue the earth.
Any doctrine designed to take away the authority God gave to women (along side men, NOT over men) and hand it over to men is not based on a knowlege of the heart of God from the beginning of the matter to the end (Gen-Rev).
Yes, I’m opposed to much teaching and interpretation of male headship because it has caused great grief.
The ten commandments and the golden rule and the two greatest commandments of Jesus don’t say a word about male rulership. Nor did Jesus EVER promote it. In fact, if anything, Jesus spoke against it.
If it were that important, if women not being ‘subject’ to their husbands as defined by so many was really going to destroy society as we know it, don’t you think God the Father or Jesus Christ would have mentioned it directly instead of through the letters of the apostles. Those letters were written to help encourage and instruct people how to live out this glorious gospel while still trapped in the a darken world obsessed with who is in charge?
If I’m obsessed with this it is because men have become overly obsessed with PROVING their LORDSHIP over women when really, from the beginning, it was not what God intended.
He simply allowed concessions for it because it is how fallen nature rolls, like polygamy and people wanting to divorce.
Note to self: Mara, look up the word heir in 1 Peter 3:7 to see if it means a male heir since back then, only men could be heirs. Check this out because perhaps this was Peter’s way of dethroning the male ‘rulership’ notion in the minds of first century men obsessed with their own preeminence and helping them ease into understanding of the Words of Jesus “Not so among you”.
LikeLike
Mara:
I find the egalitarian analysis of the passages on submission and headship rather counter-intuitive. Foxfier has addressed this comprehensively, so I will not go into it any further at this stage.
However, on a purely psychological level, we needn’t see complementarianism as in some way damaging or counterproductive to the marital relationship. The exhortations to submission (for women) and to love (for men) are very practical. Men and women are (on average) psychologically different. (An understatement, I know!)
On average, when a woman thinks about relating rightly to someone she thinks in terms that tend towards an emphasis on love. That’s how she’s wired. Of all the things that she needs psychologically in a relationship, she needs love the most. It is the relational dimension whose lack she will feel most acutely. And it is the relational quality that comes most easily to her to give to others.
On average, when a man thinks about relating rightly to someone he thinks in terms that tend towards an emphasis on respect. That’s how he’s wired. Of all the things that he needs psychologically in a relationship, he needs respect the most. It is the relational dimension whose lack he will feel most acutely. And it is the relational quality that comes most easily to him to give to others.
And so, when a man and a woman get married, if they each relate to their spouse in the way that comes most easily, with little understanding of the otherness of their spouse, things can unravel. In their fallenness, they will tend towards a self-focus. And from that base, they each give what they want to the other and too easily neglect what the other wants. And this mismatch leads to marital discord. Paul is pointing them each towards a Gospel-driven other-focus that emphasizes what the other needs before what the self needs. That is what makes Christian marriage so formative inthe Christian life. It teaches us to die to self. Women therefore need to be exhorted to submit to / respect their husbands and to focus on that, and men need to be exhorted to love their wives and focus on that.
Next, on the abuse issue:
I am glad that you bring up the subject of abusive relationships. We need to root that sort of thing out of the church.
However, I would like to make two observations:
1) Abusive relationships do not display complementarianism as preached by its chief advocates. I know many excellent marriages which are complementarian. If the teachings of Grudem et al are followed correctly, this leads to harmony, not abuse. The teaching needs to be warped in order to justify abuse.
2) Just because abusive men may use complementarianism as an excuse, it does not follow that the abuse is the result of complementarianism. Good men do not become abusive because of complementarian teaching. Bad men will be abusive because of evil tendencies, not because of complementarian teaching. They would be abusive even if such teaching did not exist.
So abuse cannot be blamed on complementarianism.
LikeLike
Mara,
Thanks for your reply. My response follows:
you said:
//Note: When Peter talks about Sarah calling Abraham Lord, you must remember that God changed both of their names. His name meant a male ruler, or king and her name meant a female ruler or queen. And they both called each other by these royal names from the time God told them to.//
Your argument is a real grasping of the straws. In Genesis 18 the scripture says:
9They said to him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” And he said, “She is in the tent.” 10The LORD said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.” And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him. 11Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. 12 So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?” 13The LORD said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’ 14 Is anything too hard for the LORD?
The context of this scripture clearly indicates that Sarah simply thought of Abraham as “her lord”, and that she was not performing some honorary ritual of referring to Abraham by a royal title. There wasn’t even anyone around to hear her talk to herself, so the whole “honoring royalty” spin you are trying to put on the passage seriously fails.
And this is relevant because the apostle Peter was holding up Sarah as an example to Christian women to live up to.
you said:
//The ten commandments and the golden rule and the two greatest commandments of Jesus don’t say a word about male rulership. Nor did Jesus EVER promote it. In fact, if anything, Jesus spoke against it.//
This is patently false. Where exactly did Jesus speak against it?
you said:
//If it were that important, if women not being ‘subject’ to their husbands as defined by so many was really going to destroy society as we know it, don’t you think God the Father or Jesus Christ would have mentioned it directly instead of through the letters of the apostles. Those letters were written to help encourage and instruct people how to live out this glorious gospel while still trapped in the a darken world obsessed with who is in charge?//
Are you suggesting that the teachings of the apostles are somehow inferior and that we can take them or leave them at our discretion?
Jesus also never said anything about polygamy, homosexuality or beastiality. Does that mean that these practices are acceptable?
But Jesus DID say in Matthew 16:18
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
which completely annihilates your position.
Finally, I would ask you how you explain away I Timothy 3, which states that a pastor must be a “husband of one wife” who “rules his own house” well?:
1Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money; 4one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5(but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
LikeLike
Maybe it might be helpful to also point out that in a godly marriage, the vast majority of the decisions should be made together, husband and wife both agreeing on a decision. This will be because they have tested each other before marriage to make sure that they are on the same wave length on most important things in life, on what their policies are going to be with regards to budget, children, work hours etc etc.
So granted that almost all decisions will be made together, what happens on the really small number of situations where the husband believes one thing to be better and the wife the other? Here basic arithmetic tells us that one on each side leads to deadlock and there is no majority. Obviously, though, a decision has to be made. Someone has to have the casting vote. The Bible teaches that in this rare case, the husband, in all his humility and gentleness, is to be the one to take the decision whilst simultaneously loving and honouring his wife. He is to act as a servant leader, looking to serve his wife rather than dominate her. In fact when the Bible talks about treating your bride as Christ treats the Church, of course this means you must be willing even to die for her.
Given these contexts and qualifications, I think the Bible’s guideluines for proper conduct in marriage makes a lot of sense and also defuses the debate a bit instead of using strong words which end up causing more heat than light.
LikeLike
Well said, Michael.
LikeLike
I completely agree with Mara that being illogical is not a “female” trait. I spend far too much time almost every day trying to convince illogical men of the lack of logic in their beliefs.
I don’t think it’s a complementarian thing though. I think it’s something certain men have come up with where they try to recast women as illogical because they don’t understand them. But I think that they use the complementarian view to try to pin illogic on women. And I won’t have it!
I also prefer Wintery’s “I expect more from women” attitude. The current “women are baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad” rant is distasteful, to say the least.
LikeLike
Mary,
It’s difficult being a logical female in a world that thinks logic is strictly a male trait.
It’s refreshing to go places where your logic and reasoning are accepted, appreciated, and good-naturedly challenged.
Guess that’s one of the reasons we like it here.
LikeLike
I freaked out when I met that woman and talked to her for 30 minutes straight. I gave her compliments, called all my friends over to meet her, etc.
LikeLike
Wintery, I’m relieve at your response because I feared I might hit a hot button and incure you wrath.
Wish I had more time to chat.
There is so much to consider.
Like the fact that comps claim that egals claim that there are no differences between male and female.
I’ve met a very few egals who take this view, but they are a small percentage. Most accept the differences. They just don’t accept the boxes constructed by culture as being “God-ordained”.
Wish I had more time but will have to let the rest go for now.
LikeLike
You know, Foxfier.
Thinking of this ‘Ephesians 5 as a contract’ has me concerned over something else.
Who gets to define what submission is and what it looks like?
Conversely, who gets to define what sacrificial love looks like?
I think we really get into trouble when men want to define submission and women want to define sacrificial love.
I heard an old, wise preacher say once that he only reads the parts of the Bible that apply to him.
In other words, he read Paul’s words to the husbands and worked on his part and left his wife to read her parts and gave her space to figure that one out for herself.
(This, btw, involves a great deal of trust.)
We get into trouble with the ‘contract view’ because instead of being concentrated on what our part is, we get overly concerned over the other party’s responsibilities.
Men want to define ‘submission’ for women and if women don’t submit as defined by men, then men feel no need to keep up their end of the bargain and visa versa.
Women need to look to God to help them figure out what their submission is to look like. It is something they are going to have to wrestle with Him about. Letting a man define it for her rather than letting God work it through her will not work. I can’t tell you how many women I’ve met who have reached a crisis point in this, have had to fall back and regroup and work out their submission with God’s guidance that bucks the guidelines some men have come up with.
I suppose it goes the same for men.
Men should not be defining sacrificial love as best suits themselves. Nor should women.
Women have all these expectations, when really they should just step back and encourage men to take this issue up with God. What does God expect of them? What does sacrificial love look like on a day to day basis, according to God?
It might not look anything like what either the man or the woman originally thought with their limited understanding.
LikeLike
Amazing; my pointing out the implications of your objection’s phrasing brings up more of the same, even if it does manage to bring up that women can suck, too.
Amusingly, it also ((This, btw, involves a great deal of trust.)) gets back to the root of the deal, namely: don’t marry someone you can’t trust.
You are GIVING them your heart and body, and yet your main objection seems to be “but dumb guys will do stupid things if we pay attention to these verses.”
One of the joys of being Catholic is that folks already thought about this and, if they are faithful to the Church, I don’t have to trust my own failing, human nature and limited time. Naturally and counter to many claims, that doesn’t mean I can turn my brain off– but there is a great resource of love the house He built with St. Peter.
LikeLike
(wish links were a bit more obvious)
LikeLike
I usually bold the links with bold tags around the link text.
LikeLike
Foxfier: “One of the joys of being Catholic is that folks already thought about this and, if they are faithful to the Church”
I’m sorry I should have picked up on this much sooner.
I have to admit to you that I am a bit reactionary. But it IS because an obsession with hierarchy IS overtaking portions of the protestant branch of Christianity.
It’s strongly infiltrating the home school movement to the point that children coming out of it believe home schooling should be banned.
http://chandra-bernat.blogspot.com/2010/08/in-need-of-your-voice.html
Women who used to call themselves reformed are either turning to Orthodoxy:
Or dumping Christianity all together:
http://nolongerquivering.com/2009/03/12/to-those-who-may-be-shocked-disappointed-and-hurt-by-the-news-of-my-apostasy/
Since I have noted this in the reformed movement and the home school movement and have watched it seep into mainstream protestantism I’ve stood against it.
I should have made the connection that since you are coming from a catholic perspective you may not be seeing this going on.
LikeLike
Ah yes… the old “ooh, you’re CATHOLIC, here let me avoid go poof.”
Incidentally, fear of Papist style sympathies is hardly new, especially in English language areas.
I could care less what whichever flavor of faith you claim has produced blog post horror stories. See prior statements about people sucking.
Try making arguments, rather than appeals to authority. (Funny, isn’t it, the Papist appealing to reason and the protestant pointing to popular opinion?)
LikeLike
Foxfier, what are you on about? Mara isn’t expressing “fear of Papist style sympathies”. She just said that you may not have seen the same weird abuses that occasionally occur in the Reformed churches because you’re not in one. Relax. ;-)
LikeLike
Thank you Mary.
Sometimes I really stink at offering the olive branch. I’m glad you are around to interpret for me.
Foxfier, my online friend in the second link who is turning to, I believe it is, Eastern Orthodox is reacting to this reform movement.
I appreciate her move to keep God but to reject the authoritarianism that she’s encountered. Her becoming Catholic doesn’t bother me a bit. As long as she holds onto faith in God, I don’t care much how she expresses it.
My acquaintence in the third link has been burned far worse and has given up God all together. It makes me sad.
You are right there are bad people out there doing bad things. But my beef is more so with the bad doctrine that further enables bad people and encourages good people to do things they normally wouldn’t.
Sorry for wasting so much of you time with this talking past each other thing we were doing.
LikeLike
I just want to point out that I am opposed to the strange Reformed homeschooled patriarchy movement that you are hinting at, Mara.
LikeLike
I know, Wintery. But it’s not limited to the reform and home school movement. It has serious creeping power and is infiltrating other sections of Christianity.
I really don’t like the attitude some young men are picking up from this crap.
This is what I was trying to say to Foxfier while we were debating past each other.
Because of this doctrine these young men are turning all their frustration on all women while walking around oblivious to the contributions men have added to the problems of our culture.
I really would like to see change and would like to work with people in that direction.
But if men are convinced women ARE the problem, there is no working with them because instead of dealing with the issues, they are wagging their finger at me. And who can cooperate with that?
Thanks to you and Mary for trying to bridge the gap and your work to create a more unified effort for change in restoring conservative values.
I’m learning better not to wag my finger in the face of all men for the sins and excesses of the few.
LikeLike
Wg and Mary,
You both bring up a lot of good things.
Wish I could address them all here and now.
I don’t have time so I can only look at a couple of Wg’s points.
But first, Mary I am glad you brought up, again, what Foxfier said because, believe it or not, I did like and agree with several things and would like to get into the ‘intuitive’ and ‘psychological’ side to these verses and teachings. If only I had more time.
But the main thing I wanted to bring up, WG, is that Matthew 16:18 holds no water for our particular debate because, as a protestant, I look at this verse differently than a Catholic.
Because, you see, we don’t see Peter as the rock on which Jesus built His church.
We see the words that Peter said under Divine inspiration as the Rock on which Jesus built His church. Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
And this is backed up by other verses calling Jesus the Chief Corner Stone and the Stone that the builders rejected.
The other thing I wanted to address for sure, even if I couldn’t get to the other parts, is your assertion that one of my claims was patently false. That was the claim that Jesus not only didn’t speak in favor of the male rulership version of “headship”, but if anything He spoke against it.
Here is my scriptural support for this claim.
Matthew 20:25 You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
vs 26 But is shall moth be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
vs 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.
For whatever reason, men somehow think that their interpretation of Ephesians 5 and the Peter verses you like to throw at me somehow cancels out the words of Jesus here.
THIS is patently false.
Gender doesn’t nullify these words.
No matter how much men WANT gender to nullify them, or the words of Peter and Paul to nullify them in their relationship to their wives or women in general, it still doesn’t.
Jesus is the cornerstone and foundation and rock on which the church is built.
You gain understanding on the words of Paul and Peter through the lens of the words of Jesus. And you understand why Peter and Paul never tell men to lead their wives. It wasn’t an oversight on their parts. They were just carrying over the revolutionary things that Jesus said and were trying to make it culturally relevant and applicable.
When you look at it through the lens our own preferences, the traditions of men, and cultural expectations then it’s easy to come to a comp view. When, instead, you let scripture define scripture, rather than culture define scripture, the egal view is much easier to see.
P.S. I know you think the Timothy verses you gave me say that men are to rule their wives, but I must point out that, even though Paul mentions children specifically, he doesn’t mention the wives. Now why would he do that? Do wives rank even below children so they don’t need to be mentioned?
Hint: Look up I Timothy 5:14 then do a word study on ‘guide’ in a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. The word should have been translated ‘rule’ or ‘head of the house’. But due to the historical gender bias of male translators and the general repulsion of men to the idea of co-rulership with women, the word was translated as ‘guide’.
The Word of God is infallible. Human translators are not. And this is only one place that men have mishandled translation. Don’t worry. Anywhere else I show this bias in translation, if I ever go there again, I’ll only do so in ways you can look up yourself in a Strong’s or something. I don’t want our debate to deteriorate down to “My Greek scholars are better than your Greek scholars.” [sung to the tune of ‘nanny nanny boo boo’ ;)]
Again, thanks for your comments.
It helps me sharpen my arguement.
I hope it does the same for you.
LikeLike
Old, old thread.
I know.
So sorry.
Just wanted to give a heads up to the few here who like science fiction that there is a place to get a little dose of science fiction in flash fiction form three times a week from people with a Christian worldview. Interesting story world, many authors, some new, some published. You may like some better than others.
Take a gander if you care to.
http://avenireclectia.com/
LikeLike
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy here. Folks of a scientific bent enjoy reading science fiction. Folks of a scientific bent tend to become scientists and engineers. Folks of a scientific bent tend NOT to be religious.
Correlation, not causation.
LikeLike
Do you have any evidence for your views?
For example, here is evidence that your views are false:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/new-study-scientists-and-the-general-public-similar-in-religious-practices/
It’s good to believe things based on evidence, don’t you agree?
LikeLike