The Tenets Of Biblical Patriarchy

[CecilW]

Men need to be tough enough and men enough to be able to swallow their pride and be willing to have other men they look to in their life as their leaders and mentors.

Leading and mentoring? Sure. No problem. I willingly accept various men into those roles in my life in specific areas all the time, and have all my life. Sometimes women as well. Men and women on this board among them!

Authority? Right to issue rules and orders and impose consequences in my family? Not so much. Sorry. Woman -> Husband -> Jesus -> Father God (YHWH). Full stop!

Wives have the right to leave if they believe I misuse my position, and one has (over PM specifically).

We've had this discussion elsewhere, and I truly didn't mean to side-track this thread. Merely to admit my own minor yet manageable caveat with the OP document.

 

[CecilW]

Sola Scriptura: Right on! Let's keep marching to the beat of the Heavenly Drummer, as the world dances and twirls its way into oblivion!

(What? You haven't heard of the heavenly worship band? Gabriel & the Angelettes? You really MUST hear their rendition of Marching to Zion. Their drummer is out of this world! :lol: )

 

[blugrniz4u]

To Dr. Allen and Pastor Whitten,

Please accept my sincere apology. I had no right to sound so 'snarky' when answering your posts. I promise not to post when I am tired and cranky, as it seems I cannot make complete and coherent thoughts.

Suzanne

 

[blugrniz4u]

Well Suzanne, how would you word it? We would be delighted to hear how you would convey the same concepts. Oddly enough i understood it to mean pretty much what Keith and John wrote and was unoffended despite my 8th grade education. Thanks Fairlight for a very interesting post.

Cindy

Dear Cindy,

Please accept my apology. My post sounded rude and I shouldn't comment when tired and cranky.

As for how would I word it? That will take me a few days, but I will post it by Friday.

BTW, Scarecrow understood my point and his version is more in line of what I was trying to convey.

 

[blugrniz4u]

I think I understand what blugrniz4u is trying to say. It is not that the message is incorrect, rather that the message may be more effective in today's society if worded differently.

My feeble attempt:

14. While a married woman may have a greater opportunity to stay at home to fulfill a domestic calling, an unmarried woman is more likely to work alongside men in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). Exceptional circumstances that prevent a woman from fulfilling a domestic calling, whatever they may be, do not redefine the God-ordained social roles of men and women as created. It is most fitting, whenever possible, for the woman to fulfill her domestic calling.(Gen. 2:18ff.; Josh. 1:14; Jdg. 4; Acts 16:14)

Everybody happy now?

Thank you Scarecrow for understanding my incoherent point.

 

[blugrniz4u]

females should have the right to expect to not be forced into the role of protector and provider.
if a man has to work in a factory or drive a truck in order to provide for his family, so be it. his wife should not have to. she has an equally, if not more important, role to play in the family and society.

i think that we have, largely, lost sight of the effect on society that women could have when we make them our partners in the responsibilities that YHWH gave the men in Gen. 3:17-19. forcing them to equally carry the yoke that was designed for us in the curse is not my idea of equality.

a woman should not be forced to choose a profession in which to provide for herself and her family.

AMEN !!!!!!

 

[blugrniz4u]

Hear, hear, Steve!

John & Keith, too.

But I do share blugrniz4u's discomfort... *sigh* Too easy to misunderstand in common loose conversational usage of terms and phrases. Could be better.

And the more I look at Scarecrow's version, the more I like it. Fairlight, any chance of submitting it to the authors?

Thanks for understanding me even when I'm tired and cranky :lol:

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

To Dr. Allen and Pastor Whitten, Please accept my sincere apology. I had no right to sound so 'snarky' when answering your posts. I promise not to post when I am tired and cranky, as it seems I cannot make complete and coherent thoughts. Suzanne

Accepted and understood. We all experience those times and days like that. And besides it is making us all think about the importance of words in confessions (the patriarchal confession, not yours above). Trying to discern the original intent of their words and how to best convey these thoughts in modern terms is a worthy mental endeavor. Catch up with ya later.

 

[Taller on my knees]

Wow! I think that was the virtual equivalent of a group hug! Very touching....we all need that at times.

 

[blugrniz4u]

As promised, here is my version of tenet 14 ----->

14. While unmarried women have more flexibility applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, their circumstance (being single) ought not redefine the God-ordained social roles of men and women. (Gen 2: 18; Pro 12:4; Song 6:2-3; Song 8:11-13; Eph 6:22-24; 1Pet 3:1-6; Titus 2:3-5)


Suzanne

 

[CecilW]

14. While unmarried women have more flexibility applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, their circumstance (being single) ought not redefine the God-ordained social roles of men and women. (Gen 2: 18; Pro 12:4; Song 6:2-3; Song 8:11-13; Eph 6:22-24; 1Pet 3:1-6; Titus 2:3-5)

Interesting. My first reaction was to say that I didn't like it, that it denied male sphere's of responsibility. Then I wised up and kept my mouth shut (for a change) long enough to go back and read 12 and 13.

12 = Men's Sphere.
13 = Woman's sphere.
14 = Exceptions to 13, particularly for unmarried women

Looked at in this way, this version is pretty good, though I'd refine it just slightly further, to say:

14. While unmarried women have more flexibility applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, their circumstance (being single) does not redefine the God-ordained primary social roles of men and women. (Gen 2: 18; Pro 12:4; Song 6:2-3; Song 8:11-13; Eph 6:22-24; 1Pet 3:1-6; Titus 2:3-5)

However (not counting the variance in scriptural references attached), I think I still like Scarecrow's best. It says the same thing, but is stated so positively. Perhaps warmly?

 

[Anonymous]

Never fear...The little nit-picker, Fairlight, is here! :lol:

14. While unmarried women have more flexibility applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, their circumstance (being single) does not redefine the God-ordained primary social roles of men and women. (Gen 2: 18; Pro 12:4; Song 6:2-3; Song 8:11-13; Eph 6:22-24; 1Pet 3:1-6; Titus 2:3-5)

A "God-ordained primary social role" may suggest that there is a God-ordained "secondary role".

 

[CecilW]

Fair enough. Improve it.

 

[Anonymous]

Fair enough. Improve it.

Just remove "primary" and "being single" (redundant)

 

[Doc]

Hey you guys,

I can create a shared folder using Microsoft OneNote, and invite you as editors and we can collaborate the document as our schedules permit. Would anyone be interested in that?

Doc

 

[CecilW]

Perhaps, Doc. But I kinda like what is goi g on here.

Fairlight, I agree that the "(being single)" phrase is unnecessary, and forms a bit of an inadvertent redundant dig.

The word "primary", however, I would argue for retaining. Why? God ordained that certain roles be primary. That doesn't mean that He had to either "ordain" or "forbid" others as secondary. He can simply bless them. We may all fill all sorts of roles, depending on time and circumstance and place, etc. But as a general rule, God does seemed to have ordained that certain roles be out primary ones.

So, I would argue for a polished version to say:

14. While unmarried women have more flexibility applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, their circumstance does not redefine the God-ordained primary social roles of men and women. (Gen 2: 18; Pro 12:4; Song 6:2-3; Song 8:11-13; Eph 6:22-24; 1Pet 3:1-6; Titus 2:3-5)

Your turn. Or blugrniz4u or scarecrow ...

 

[steve]

14. While unmarried women have more flexibility applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, their circumstance does not redefine the God-ordained primary social roles of men and women. (Gen 2: 18; Pro 12:4; Song 6:2-3; Song 8:11-13; Eph 6:22-24; 1Pet 3:1-6; Titus 2:3-5)

i see no reason that we need to create a distinction between married and unmarried.
there are women whose children have grown and childless women whose calling may no longer be domestic.

can we just understand that there is a general calling on women, but there is no need to be legalistic about it? let each woman and family be led of the Lord and let others not judge them.

steve, the ever-reasonable

 

[Anonymous]

i see no reason that we need to create a distinction between married and unmarried.

I think the distinction needs to be made. The duties of a wife differ tremendously from an unmarried woman.

can we just understand that there is a general calling on women

The calling is a specific one for married women.

let each woman and family be led of the Lord and let others not judge them.

Agreed