A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies by Jane Carole Anderson

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron) "All genders are equal, as are races and cultures and classes. In this regard, there is neither male nor female, greek nor Jew, slave nor free. Christ has subsumed all."

Aron, that is true only "In" Christ.

Apart from Christ all those divisions are present and active as is evident in the world in which we live.

Drake

"Those things are like this among the gentiles, but it should not be that way with you." ~Matthew 20:25

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

"Those things are like this among the gentiles, but it should not be that way with you." ~Matthew 20:25

Yes, of course.

Yet, Paul did not seek to abolish to human institution of slavery.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, of course.

Yet, Paul did not seek to abolish to human institution of slavery.

Drake

Neither did the church, subsequent to Paul. Nor vis-a-vis woman's suffrage, for that matter. Society moves, then the church adapts, fitfully. Change comes from the market and the political realm, and from culture. Not from religion.

Again, as I said, behaviours are different. Drunkenness, theft and fornication are behavioural choices, with real consequences. Don't conflate the issues.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Neither did the church, subsequent to Paul. Nor vis-a-vis woman's suffrage, for that matter. Society moves, then the church adapts, fitfully. Change comes from the market and the political realm, and from culture. Not from religion.

Again, as I said, behaviours are different. Drunkenness, theft and fornication are behavioural choices, with real consequences. Don't conflate the issues.

You seemed to suggest that there is no male female slave or free since Christ dealt with it. I am saying that only in Christ do we experience the effectiveness of His death. Society, culture, human institutions such as slavery or democracy for that matter are outside of Christ.

Don't confuse the two.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

You seemed to suggest that there is no male female slave or free since Christ dealt with it. I am saying that only in Christ do we experience the effectiveness of His death. Society, culture, human institutions such as slavery or democracy for that matter are outside of Christ.

Don't confuse the two.

And I would say to you that you should not misconstrue what aron is saying.

It is true that the real experience of no male or female, slave or free, is in Christ. But what does that mean to you? Are you in Christ? Then there is no male or female. No slave nor free.

Obviously this means that our interaction is without reference to the realities of our physical and legal status in the human world. Not that we cease to be any of these things. Clearly only the women bear children — whether or not they are in Christ. And depending on the times and laws of the times, slaves are still slaves.

But though human culture is "outside of Christ," if we are alive, we are part of human culture. And how we live and behave among the Christian community should affect the broader human culture around us.

But sometimes we come to the point where we realize that those who are on the inside are not truly living in the "no male or female" or "submit to one another" way. And every time that these kinds of things are identified, the first thing that happens is that the majority close ranks and defend the status quo. It doesn't necessarily relate to whether they benefit from the status quo, though it often does.

Awareness (I think) has pointed out elsewhere that the Southern Baptists at least somewhat began as a stand of solidarity against the move to prohibit slavery in the American South. While I would not be surprised to find bigoted people and positions with that group today (and in most groups for tat matter) I would not find a single person of significance that would support slavery in any form.

But in between there was a lot of reading of the same old verses in the same old way with the goal of keeping things the same. But over time the error in understanding was made manifest. At first they continued to kick and scream. People who would never join the Klan still liked their politics. But that has heavily changed. (Not that the Klan is now gone, but is losing its influence.)

The same may be true here. You like a particular verse. Or a particular position that is based on a general understanding of verses. And you cannot see beyond the knee-jerk reaction that there is no reason to even think about the possibility that the other side might be right on this. Just close ranks and fight. Spew the rhetoric without engaging you brain for more than seeing what you have been told is there to see. Not a chance that you might discover it really doesn't say what you think.

One takes courage to actually think for yourself after reading for yourself. The other takes nothing but turning on the tape machine. Don't confuse playing tapes for thinking.

[Drake]

OBW ,

Fewer lectures and more subject matter please. Thanks.

I do not believe that it is the church's mission to change society. Rather to hasten the One who will establish the kingdom that will reign in righteousness and endure forever. I do not see any substantial evidence in the Bible either. That is not say that we don't participate or engage in worthy goals to change things. Paul did not seek to eliminate slavery yet in Christ Philemon was a brother as was his slave and the human relationship between them was not transferable yet Paul respected it but still tried to arbitrate in the confines of that norm in that day.

There are many injustices in the world and I have and am involved in rectifying those I can influence. Yet, that is not the mission of the church.

Aron's points on behavior are compelling.

Hope that is clearer.

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW ,

Fewer lectures and more subject matter please. Thanks.

Thanks
Drake

Drake scolding another poster for "lecturing."

Now that's funny!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW ,

Fewer lectures and more subject matter please. Thanks.

Drake

Drake,

To what "subject matter" are you referring? The subject matter of this topic is a book: A Woman of Chayil. Like Ohio, I think it's hilarious that you would call out anyone for subject matter infraction when you are a primary subject matter offender. I see no indication that you have made a single "on topic" post on this thread. In fact, I seem to be the only member who is "on topic."

Please limit your comments to the book, A Woman of Chayil. You and your buddy.

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

I do not believe that it is the church's mission to change society. Rather to hasten the One who will establish the kingdom that will reign in righteousness and endure forever.

Just as your sect's view is that it is not the church's mission to do any kind of benevolence to those who are not part of your sect.

But if you note, my concern was not what was wrong with society, but what was wrong with the people of God whether or not that does or does not mirror society. The fight of the 1800s was to maintain slavery as an acceptable practice for Christians. It was also the fight of society at large.

In this case, we are not concerned whether the role and view of women is mirrored in society. In Western society the role and view of women is better than it is within the church (at least certain parts of the church — including the parts that many of us, including those in the LRC, are attached to). And that is despite the continued existence of some level of "glass ceiling" facing many women. And in other parts of the world, the role and view of women is still worse than it was in Jewish society at the time of Christ. Quite a disparity of views/roles. But for us, the first issue should be to carefully study how it should be within the church. Not study the answers that are predicated on the previous generation's answers, which are predicated upon the previous generation's answers (and on and on) back to the time of the writing of the NT. That is how the SBC went about defending slavery in the 1800s. And others used the Bible to segregate (and subjugate without actual slavery) in more recent years.

There is a hierarchy to the Bible, even within the NT. The Jews referred to what we call the OT as the law and prophets, and the commentary. While it is all inspired by God and profitable for teaching, the commentary arises in response to the specifics of the time and situation. Same can be said for the NT. There are the gospels. Then there is the commentary. The commentary is scripture, but it is designed to comment into the specific, not provide the base framework in which everything works. The framework is in the words and deeds of Jesus. When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman, he granted her a status higher than a devout Jew would to a proper Jewish woman. Just one example.

What your "church's mission" statement fails to recognize is that the Kingdom is here right now. But as long as we fail to live that kingdom in every aspect of our lives, it is not ready to burst forth in full. And living that kingdom is not about better lexicons, high meetings, better teachings, etc. It is about all aspects of the right-living of its participants. And having the attitude that my sick wife just needs to call on the Lord and continue doing the dishes while I go to my study and do (whatever) is NOT part of right-living.

And having the notion that we should subjugate our wives is NOT part of right-living. I'm not talking about some general understanding of position before God (God over man over woman) but the attitude of what that means to us.

Besides, the Bible didn't tell me that the woman is supposed to submit (no matter what that is to mean) but it tells her to submit. God tells her to submit, not me (or you).

And we think that God is going to hasten his kingdom for people who are getting this so entirely wrong (assuming it is wrong). I know the mantra that the law is abolished. But if you look closely, that is a misunderstanding of what is abolished. The law was not written on our hearts so that we could be free to ignore it. Rather that we would be quick to obey.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

I do not believe that it is the church's mission to change society. Rather to hasten the One who will establish the kingdom that will reign in righteousness and endure forever.

The problem with that position is that it is difficult to conceive the latter taking place without the former occurring to some degree. How can a significant segment of society (the Church) be living in such a way as to cause the Lord of All to return to earth and yet their living still have no affect on the world around them?

We are the salt of the earth, our Lord told us. That clearly states we are to have some affect on the world. I believe most of that affect is the indirect result of our right living. But who can say for sure what level of "direct" attempt to change things is inappropriate, so long as it is in the Spirit? We cannot judge for others. So if you would rather read HWMRs and meet only with those you are comfortable with, fine. Just don't look down on others who feel to reach out more.

I don't think it's so simple as to say that the Church is not supposed to change the world. Jesus changed history. The church has too. One example is the missionaries who risked their lives to reach out to the murderous Huaorani tribe of Central America. Dramatized in the movie "The End of the Spear", this was the tribe in which something like 40% of the people were, over time, murdered by the others. They simply thought the way to solve conflicts was to kill each other. Totally demonic. Now, through the faith and sacrifice of missionaries, they are a peaceful Christ-centered society. So not only were some people changed, a whole society was changed. You can't change people without changing society to some extent.

I'm sorry, but sometimes this "our call is not to change society" talk sounds like an excuse for being impotent.