🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <61g9uq$9hk$1@Mars.mcs.net>, Karl Denninger <karl@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>
>The issue and charge was whether PKers want to and in fact do demand 
>submission of their wives in an *unequal* relationship.
>
>>>In regards to women, they should express their belief in Ephesians 5:21-30,
>>>and how men must be like Jesus in terms of holiness, and that no authority
>>>can be expected without it.
>>
>>005:021 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. 
>>005:022 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the
>>Lord. 
>
>A wife is called to submit to her husband by this passage. You are correct.
>
>>005:023 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the
>>head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 
>>005:024 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives
>>be to their own husbands in every thing. 
>>005:025 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church,
>>and gave himself for it; 
>
>A husband is called to submit himself to his wife. This obligation is
>specifically stated to persist even *to the point of his own death* in 
>this regard.

The word "submit" does not occur in the passage you quote.

A captain is called to go down with a sinking ship.  Do you maintain that
he submits himself to the ship?  Or is he the ship's master?

>Sounds rather like an equal commitment to me.  5:25, of course, is the part 
>of the scripture that the feminists conveniently leave out of the discussion,
>likely because they closed their Bibles immediately upon reading 5:22 and 
>never completed actually reading the passage.

Actually, I left it in there deliberately, so I'm unsure why you are
saying feminists conveniently leave it out.  Ephesians 5:23-5:25 is advice on
how to /rule/, not submit.

>>005:026 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water
>>by the word, 
>>005:027 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having
>>spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be
>>holy and without blemish. 
>>005:028 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that
>>loveth his wife loveth himself. 
>>005:029 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and
>>cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 
>>005:030 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 
>>005:031 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
>>be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 
>
>Husband and wife are called to be as *one* person, not two, and in that 
>one person to submit to *one another* in the fear of God.  They are called
>to do this by submitting their pride and will to *each other*, not only
>from one side, but from both.

Not based on the words above.  The exhortation to men above is to be a
good ruler, not to submit.

>>I'm sorry, but the PKs can either promise not to dominate their wives, OR
>>they can endorse Ephesians 5:22-30.  (Ephesians 5:21 is a part of a
>>different sentence.)  Ephesians 5:22-24 is quite explicit that this is
>>not a partnership of equals, but a hierarchical relationship wherein the
>>husband is the head of the wife.  Exhorting the husband not to abuse this
>>power does not change the nature of the relationship.
>>-- 
>>Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love 
>On the contrary.  It is not a partnership at all.  It is a combining which
>leaves you not with a partnership (which can be broken) but with *one
>person* when you are finished with it -- which cannot be separated.
>
>Now you can argue that this is unrealistic, wrong, or whatever.  But the
>words in the scripture are clear on this point -- it is not a matter of
>hierarchy, or of dominance.  It is a matter of joining two people together
>to become one, and further, that in doing so BOTH parties submit to the
>other even to their respective deaths.  This point is specifically made 
>and underscored so that there is no way to misinterpret what is required.
>
>What greater sacrifice and submission can you point to which can be made
>than this?

It certainly is a hierarchical relationship based on dominance, and in 
it's plain language.  Look at the analogies the text itself supplies:

Man:Head==Woman:Body
Man:Christ==Woman:Church

The only submitting Christ did was to YHVH.  The Church submits to Him.
YHVH doesn't submit to Christ, and Christ doesn't submit to the Church.
That's a hierarchy of dominance and submission.  

>Thank you for quoting the *WHOLE* passage Dan; you and I appear to disagree
>about what it says, even though I believe the passage is self-evident and
>written in clear language. 
>
>But you *are* honest enough to provide the entire text, where many others
>stop immediately after 5:22.

Oh, I think 5:23 - 5:25 is crucial to my point.

This isn't some radical interpretation of the passages I'm giving here.
Until very recently, historicly speaking, societies at least informed by
Christianity and at most explicitly Christian have explicitly codified
the dominance of the husband and the submission of the wife into the law.
As recently as this century, when they were arguing that women should
have the vote, the counter-argument was that their husbands were casting
their votes for them.


Now, if the PKs do not interpret the Ephesians 5:20-25 as a hierarchical
relationship where they are called to be good rulers, but rulers
nonetheless, they're welcome to say so.  But phrases like "take back my
role as leadership," "Don't ask for it, take it," "Someone has to drive
the bus" don't strike me as the words of people who envision their
marriages as a relationship between equals.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love 
and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. --  The
word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.