May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will leave the world a little better for your having been here. -- Ronald Reagan

Sunday, August 14, 2011

On Submission

Apostle Paul Writing Epistles

Byron York: “In 2006, when you were running for Congress, you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea. And then you explained, “But the Lord said, ‘Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.’ ”

“As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

Bachman: “Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th. I’m in love with him. I’m so proud of him. And both he and I — what submission means to us, if that’s what your question is, it means respect.
“I respect my husband. He’s a wonderful, godly man, and a great father. And he respects me as his wife.”

“Submission” is seriously misunderstood and misapplied word; one of those words that has transformed away from its original meaning. It’s important to know the source of ideas and words, especially in the case of Bryon York’s question.

Most think of submission as being exploited or dominated or manipulated, that it’s not voluntary. The word derives from the Greek hupotasso “to submit”, and regards military structure. The idea in scripture, which York and most others seem not to understand, has an entirely different meaning from their modern belief system.
Matthew 8:5-10 Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him, saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented.”  And Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”  The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!
We live in a hierarchical universe, like it or not. The centurion speaks of being under authority, and he willingly submits to that authority. He gives orders based on that authority. His subordinates willingly obey that authority. When this happens everyone benefits. The mission gets accomplished. The goal is reached. There’s purpose to the group.

Would York have a job writing for the various organizations he does if he didn’t submit to the rules, the authority, of those organizations? I don’t know if York has children, but if he, or anyone does, I would hope he expects submission of them to him. If he’s married I would hope his wife listens to his suggestions and ideas and vice versa. Oversimplified, but to the point, everyone has a boss. You don’t have to submit, you can’t be forced. If one is forced, that not submission, that’s oppression or slavery.

The question York asked comes from the misunderstood and misapplied passage in Corinthians 11:2-16  
“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her[a] for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”
The word “head” in various forms is used nine times in Scripture, mostly having to do with the physical head. There’s a lot more to this, but the veil for women Paul wanted used in church was egalitarian in nature. “To get married” and “to veil” were the same word. If a woman was veiled she could also be a widow. Women in the upper classes had their hair styled, which the lower classes and slaves couldn’t afford. Paul saying that all women should be veiled in church was for the purpose of eliminating class distinction.

Paul talking here of a man not being independent of a woman or a woman independent of a man is really radical, because in those times there was no equality between the sexes. The veil is a “symbol of authority on her head”. Equality in a public place, never before even contemplated. Paul wants this egalitarianism in marriage too, going back to Genesis that married couples become one flesh. Some have even suggested that having sex makes the couple one flesh; which is why ‘friend with benefits’ can’t work.

Paul also creates another radical idea; about divorce. The word at the time meant “to throw out”. It was a one way ticket; the man could just toss his wife out on the street with no means of support and have no rights to any of his property; there was no concept of shared property.  Paul says even this, divorce, should be made equal; again a radical idea since there was no such thing in the relationships between men and women, even in marriage. Paul said divorce can be not only equally applied, but can be based on spirituality:
“Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” Corinthians 7:10-16
Paul in his letters, advocated more equality between men and women, both in public and in marriage, not less. In polytheistic pagan times women were for sex and breeding, to be tossed out, discarded, at the whim of the man.

Before people like York and others venture into the realm of using religion, and especially Christianity, to insult and demean, perhaps they should know a little bit about what they’re talking about.  

Leslie Bennetts, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair magazine and author of the book The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?
"A woman who pursues an entire career she hates the idea of, just because her husband told her to, is not a woman who should be occupying the Oval Office--or anything remotely near it."
"Given the insistence of Christian theology on male supremacy, female candidates who put that religion front and center in their campaigns should be required to explain what that means in terms of how they would govern, if elected."

Bennetts obviously knows nothing of Christian Theology or History. If she did, she wouldn’t make such an ignorant statement. Anti Christian bigotry is to be expected of people like York and Bennetts, though I’m always amazed at the misogyny of Leftist women.  

When Sarah Palin said she read C S Lewis, that he was one of her favorite writers, some commentators went off on how she read children’s books, implying that was the limit of her intellectual growth. York, Chris Wallace, and others that say the submission question was valid, wallow in similar ignorance.  

No comments: