Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: ambitious women may approach the altar now ... Message-ID: Date: 3 Jun 91 04:19:29 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Lines: 108 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Re: Paul Hudson Jr. In article , hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes, in response to my article: >> (Ephesians 6:5-9), but I doubt very much if you, sir, would >> advocate the return of slavery for the sole purpose of fulfilling >> this Scriptural command. >). The question is: is the >> issue of "women submitting to men" one of those 1st century edicts >> that is no longer applicable in our day and age? I say yes. >The commands for slaves to obey their masters in no way mandates a >return to slavery. As a matter of fact, Paul says in I Corinthians 7, >that if it is possible for a slave to be free, he should take >advantage of it. The command is to slaves. If there are no slaves, >then it does not apply to anyone. Especially since we are exhorted to >be free if it is possible. But are their wives today? yes. There >are. So the command still applies. The command to for the wife to >obey the husband is based on God's own spoken words in Genesis. Dear Paul, I'm afraid you've glossed over some very critical points. In your explanation (i.e. the Scripture passage is not a call for the return of slavery, but supplies edicts for the [now vacant] set of all existing slaves), you make a dangerous implication: you seem to be suggesting that slavery is not only less than despicable, but that you think slavery to be tolerable. That is, you don't seem to have any problem with the idea of slavery, and you seem to be ambivalent as to whether it exists or not (i.e. if slaves exist, they should follow these laws; if not, then no). Nowhere in your argument is there any indication of the heinousness of slavery. Look at it this way: if something is an abomination (or a sin, crime, or whatever) in the eyes of God, then there should be no means by which a Christian community can either support that something, or allow it to continue uninterrupted. In your explanation, there would be no provision for REMOVING slavery, once it started (for whatever reason). Does this sound like a good scenario, to you? I hope not. >If there were slaves today, then they would have to obey their >masters. Forgive me, but... wouldn't this obedience preclude any attempts at attaining freedom (1 Cor 7)? If a slavemaster is unwilling to free a slave, then the slave is obligated (ref: Ephesians 6:5-9) to REMAIN a slave. Wherein is the POSSIBILITY for "taking advantage of opportunities for freedom" there? It is quite clear that this would be a problem, today, SHOULD (God forbid!) slavery return; there would be Scriptural basis for the MAINTENANCE of slavery, once established... and then what are we to do with the idea of holding slaves being a sin and a crime? No... we cannot allow ourselves to conveniently take advantage of the absence of slaves, and use that fact in such an argument. The price to be paid would be far worse than any benefits. > There are wives today, why should they not obey their >husbands? Obedience implies domination. I'd prefer "cooperation". It is axiomatic (in the Catholic Church, anyway) that women are equal with respect to all basic, fundamental rights (with, in my opinion, one noted exception; follow the other thread for info on that!) to men. Thus, one may not dominate the other without committing sin. Thus, there is no provision for allowing obedience to anyone save God. Of course, one could use "obedience" in a looser sense, somewhat in the style of "faithful" or "loyal"; in that instance, I'd argue that wife SHOULD be obedient to husband... *AND* that husband should be obedient to wife! >Let me ask you this? Does the husband have to love his wife as Christ >loved the church, or was that only for the time? Paul makes an >analogy between the relationship between the husband and wife, and >Christia and the church. Does the church not have to obey Christ any >more? Certainly, we have to obey Christ. But remember the audience that Paul was writing to; Paul wanted to get the notion of "be lovingly obedient to Jesus!" to the people of the time, and the analogy of "wife submits to husband" was a good analogy for 1st century minds to grasp. This would *not* be the case today; in the 20th century, Paul would have had to come up with some other way of emphasizing the need for complete, worshipful obedience to Christ. It is only ONE side of Paul's analogy... the part about wives and husbands... that has changed with time. The other part about obedience to God CERTAINLY hasn't changed. For you to assume that obedience to God should waver just because of changing gender relations (i.e. for the sake of keeping Paul's analogy valid) would be unwarranted; thus, your argument doesn't apply. There is a danger, I think, in being too fond of a literal interpretation of Scripture. I *do* cherish Paul's analogy as being a quaint, inspired plea for worshipful obedience... but I don't see any need at all of "straining" our consciences to accomodate that out-of-date 1st century analogy. The analogy is precious BECAUSE it's contained in a beautiful, sacred Book, and because it was obviously written in a spirit of utmost piety. Its lack of applicability in 1991 does not diminish this preciousness. ---- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu