Thousands of Southern Baptists overwhelmingly voted Wednesday to advance a formal ban on women pastors in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, sending a clear message that men alone should preach to these conservative evangelical congregations.
Yes. It. Did.
In europe, arranged marriages were normal until ww2. The practice of arranging marriages didn’t even begin to decline until the 17th century and marriage-for-love only became common after 2nd-wave feminism. the way we go about marriages today is very different than it was in the first century. neither the first century jews or gentiles (greek or roman) had what you describe.
So. if obedience and love (or service, since you brought that up,) are the same and equivalent things… why make distinctions. Why not say “husbands obey your wives?”
Because love and obedience are different things. You can go to the greek, if you want. still different words. ὑποτάσσεται, is the word use- literally “subjected to” in 22 gets its verb from 21, “Being submissive”. Two different words with two different meanings.
So yeah. seems very patriarchal to me. Jesus doesn’t obey the chruch, or submit to the church. He commands it, and “the church” is to submit.
At least in the UK, that’s just not true. It was a thing nobility did, but it anyone who wasn’t generally married for love. Even the Bible documents marrying for love on separate occasions in old testament times.
Service, obedience and love aren’t the same things. A good policeman serves his community, but he doesn’t submit to them. A lot of the time, service does involve hearing out their opinion, and loving them, but not submission. If two partners were to submit to each other, how does it work when the wife orders her husband and her husband orders her to not order him, in which she returns by ordering him to not order her to not order him, and so forth? Which one is in the right here?
Exactly. But he serves the Church by interceding for them, granting miracles, teaching them, and most of all, going through torture and pains, even that of death, to save them. He is patient and ever-forgiving with us. He doesn’t forsake us no matter how much or how badly we screw up. And Husbands are ordered to do the same.
I’m not denying that this is patriarchal - there is an element of patriarchy to Christian families. But I wouldn’t use the term patriarchy due to it’s secular undertones where it’s perceived that the man doesn’t display Christ-like love for his wife. God laid out the structure that the husband is the head of the wife and that God is the head of the husband. Across the Bible, even by some extent in the book of Genesis, Marriage is depicted as a picture of Christ and His Church. That’s what marriage is - it’s a picture to show us our relationship to God. The Church is the Bride of Christ.
So British were… Christian now? Some were, sure. But only in the later first century.
Rome only invaded the isle in 40 c.e or so. Paul was on the other side of the world. He may have been “aware” that they existed, but he certainly wasn’t influenced by them. And frankly given how he didn’t write them any letters… I find that dubious.(he died around 65ad, and the letter furthest west was to Rome.)
Paul’s instruction to how women should behave in their daily lives is “wives, obey your husbands” and there’s no similar command to husbands to obey their wives , it’s inherently patriarchal.
You keep trying to say that’s okay because husbands are supposed to love their wives. But that’s not equality, it’s misogyny.
Remember, Paul also used the language of obedience and submission to slaves and masters. He also says that Christian’s are slaves to Christ (probably getting the idea from the mosaic covenant, where Israelites are slaves to god.)
The point being that relationship is inherently unequal. It’s patriarchal and misogynistic. It doesn’t matter if masters are to love their slaves or husbands love their wives.
“But I’m a kind master” doesn’t make owning slaves okay. “But I’m a loving husband” doesn’t make controlling and subjugating your wife okay.
Not in the modern era.
You said “until WW2”. Britain was Christian within that wide timeframe you provided. I know for a fact from my own family history that wasn’t the case.
It’s not supposed to be equality by the white, western secular definition of it. A woman can also choose not to marry, as to which she’d be subject to the same authority structures as men. Marriage is choosing to submit to a man of your choice. The Bible and Christianity doesn’t have to conform to 21st century white society. In fact, Christianity has basically always opposed society, everywhere and anywhere. In USA ‘Republican’ circles, it condemns their greed and selfish attitudes. In USA ‘Democratic’ circles, it condemns their fornication and rebelliousness. In China, they don’t take issue with the views of marriage, but do take issue with the charitable aspects and demands of Christianity. At times in history Husbands didn’t love their wives, at other times, wives didn’t obey their husbands. There is no historical point in time or person other than Jesus where this has been practiced properly. In fact, men cannot be perfect like Jesus is, but it’s what’s expected of them. And this is all from the fall:
Genesis 3:16
I don’t have an issue with this. Far better than the alternative - being a slave to Satan.
It definitely does matter.
A loving husband doesn’t control and subjugate his wife. Your sentence here doesn’t make any sense at all.
The Bible doesn’t tell men to control and subjugate their wives. It tells them to love (agapos) them, lead them, and guide them.