“You take away and add to scripture, you are aligned with satan and must seek forgivenness, for women are to be submissive to man and man treat women like Christ treats the church, this is why your evil feminist perspective is part of the destruction of the family and you are in great delusion or are a planted wolf, i shake the dust from my feet and rebuke you. May Jesus forgive you.”
I wonder who Anonymous is. His/her comment is fascinating. On the one hand she/he appears to agree with me, except I would say WIVES are to submit to their HUSBANDS and HUSBANDS are to love their WIVES self-sacrificially as Christ loved the Church, instead of referring to them as men and women. On the other hand, the writer says I am aligned with satan and have an “evil feminist perspective.” Considering that I at times quote scripture and at other times misquote it to show how others misinterpret it, the writer’s condemnation is extreme. Reread the post yourself. http://submissiontyranny.blogspot.com/2009/02/hijacked-christianity.html
It is pointing out that Christian teaching about husbands and wives is out of balance, that if we are going to have a doctrine that teaches wives to submit to their husbands no matter what, then we must have a companion doctrine that teaches husbands to love their wives self-sacrificially no matter what. Otherwise, wives are put into bondage and husbands make themselves into gods, which is hijacking Christianity.
Notice the name-calling that the commenter embedded in action phrases: “aligned with satan,” “evil feminist perspective,” your…perspective is part of the destruction of the family,” “you are in great delusion,” “or (you) are a planted wolf,” “I shake the dust from my feet and rebuke you.” All of them are either popular phrases used from the pulpit or by husbands to control wives. All of them either suggest or outright declare damnation for the woman who believes scripture teaches that the biblical command to husbands to love their wives self-sacrificially as Christ loved the church, has at least the same level of submission and surrender required from the husband as is required from his wife, and perhaps more (as some men, like Paul Hegstrom, claim).
The husband in my novel “Behind the Hedge” used such phrases, calling his wife Jezebel, and suggesting she was rebelling, which is as serious as using witchcraft. The aim of the comments like this is to coerce women/wives into giving up their God-given authority in the family structure. Yes, authority. I Timothy 5:14 “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” The Strong’s Concordance says “guide the house” means to be “head of the family.” Unlike Ephesians 5:23, Strong specifies that “head” in the definition of I Tim 5:14 means “rule.” The term comes from another word that means “master of the house” or “goodman of the house.” The word “head” in reference to husbands in Eph 5:23 does NOT mean rule.
In addition, as a previous commenter pointed out, the word “keeper” is referring to “guard” or “guardian,” and is not referring to cleaning and cooking. So when wives are told to be keepers at home, they are told to take an authority position.
Apparently the person who commented above, using condemning scriptural terms and hot-button words to express him/herself, feels threatened when scripture is rightly divided and the result is that wives and women are raised to a place of equality beside men, or men are lowered to a place of equality beside women.
Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com
Posts
I agree, that person who commented has many marks of an abuser, including the name calling and the denigration. Plus the rebuke being followed by a patronising "may Jesus forgive you" that just emphasises how the speaker sees him/herself as being on the high moral ground.
ReplyDeleteThere is also the matter of mixed singular and plural syntax: "women are to be submissive to man and man treat women like Christ treats the church"
It is hard to see this just as a typo because the error occurs twice. It seems more like one of those slips of the tongue that betray what the speaker truly thinks: ie, that ALL women should be submissive to (ONE) man, namely, him.
It sounds like he (if it is a he) feels himself to be greatly hurt and ill treated by a woman who has left him after having alleged that he is an abuser.
For readers who may be in this position, I suggest you look up Joel and Kathy Davisson's site http://www.godsavemymarriage.com/
You paraphrase the guy, and seemingly find it quite reasonable (not the hyperbole about satan etc, but the beliefs) then proceed to say it is abuse and will lead to physical abuse.
ReplyDeleteYou lost me at hello
To Anonymous: I'm sorry I lost you. My paraphrasing was of my own "Hijacked Christianity" post. None of the paraphrasing was of the commenter's writing. Even in the sentence "he/she appears to agree with me," I write how I would have put it. Perhaps I should have highlighted that the writer APPEARED to agree with me in his/her statement about submission and Christ-like treatment. As Barb commented, there are a number of hints that the writer is likely an abuser. One of the hints neither she nor I mention is how he/she worded "women are to be submissive to man and man treat women like Christ treats the church." The use of the word submissive in reference to the wife, but the non-use of anything about love or self-sacrifice in reference to husbands,suggests the writer leaves it open to the individual husband--particularly to himself--to interpret how Christ treated the church, and how he can then treat his wife. The majority of Christian teaching on the subject focuses on Christ's being the head OVER all, and this is what husbands frequently use to decide what is appropriate treatment of their wives--the use of authority OVER her. It was clear to me from the writer's statements that although he/she wanted to APPEAR to be bibilically correct, that she/he was actually reserving for husbands a position of power OVER the wife, which is NOT biblically correct. Christ has power OVER all principality and power, and OVER all things, but this is TO THE CHURch. Although Christ could take an authoritarian position OVER the church, He does not. Instead, He gave His life for her. He loves her so much he sacrificed his very life for her. He uses his power over everything else to bring benefit to the church. See Eph 1:22 and Col 2:10 We are to be rooted and built up in Him, Col 2:7, not bossed by Him. Col 2:8 is especially applicable. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." The husband as the top dog of a hierarchy is a tradition of men, and is not after Christ. Even King Ahazeurus used that tradition. It was clear from the rest of what the writer said that he was not in agreement with my blog--even though he paraphrased scripture, albeit incorrectly. (from the writing, I am guessing the writer is a male). I hope this clarifies things for you.
ReplyDelete