ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Dogmatic contortions

Larry reveals the limits of dogma:

Wherever one person is said to be the “head” of another person (or persons),the person who is called the “head” is always the one in authority (such as the general of an army, the Roman emperor, Christ, the heads of the tribes of Israel, David as head of the nations, etc.) Specifically, we cannot find any text where person A is called the “head” of person or persons B, and is not in a position of authority over that person or persons. So we find no evidence for your claim that “head” can mean “source without authority.”"

Simply wrong, the NT states that "God is the head of Christ"...Unless you subscribe so subordinationalism, one of Arius' errors, this passage cannot be taken to mean that God is superior to Christ. It would make Christ a second class God.

Follow the line of thought here, which is inspired by the feminist desire to find Biblical support for an equalitarian doctrine of equal partnership in marriage.

1. Ignore the direct commands to obedience.
2. Interpret "head" to mean "source", then deny that "source" conveys any authority.
3. When it is shown that "source" does convey authority, argue against this based on an inference that there is no hierarchical authority within the three aspects of the Father, Son and Counselor despite the obvious authority inherent in the Father-Son relationship.

This isn't logical reasoning, this is stubborn and pernicious rationalization of the sort usually seen in Supreme Court justices prone to penumbra-spotting. And it is easily proven false by any number of Scriptural examples, here are four examples from the single chapter of John 15 alone which demonstrate the falsehood of Larry's dogmatic assertion that the Son is not subordinate to the Father.

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener."

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you."

"If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love."

"They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me."

It is clear, again, that one cannot reasonably argue that Jesus Christ is equal to God and not subordinate to Him without simultaneously arguing that any individual Christian is equal to Jesus Christ and not subordinate to him either. It is not terribly surprising that those who argue that there is no Biblical command for women to obey men within marriage soon find themselves in the position of denying their own duty to obey Jesus Christ or the Father.

And continuing to engage in ever more specious illogic, Larry finds himself forced to rely on an obviously false equation:

No, it is exactly the issue, it is impossible to be always subordinate in role without being subordinate in nature. What someone can do is a function of what they are. It's kind of sad that some would rather embrace Arianism rather than give up their supposed "headship" over women.

The naturally superior man is often subordinated in role to his inferior, indeed, this was the great complaint of Friedrich Nietzsche. Plato's Republic is the first of many efforts by the subordinately superior to build a case to provide them with a role concomitant with their inherent natural superiority. Larry's feminine, passive-aggressive conclusion, which he provides in lieu of directly answering the criticisms raised, provides a potential explanation for why the doctrine of equal partnership is so appealing to him, as it frees him from assuming the burden of responsibility that goes with authority.

It's princes who have all the fun, after all.

I am still waiting for an explanation of how ANY translation of kephale frees women from the command "to submit to your husbands in everything", or how a party subject to submission in everything is not under the authority of that to which it must submit. Furthermore, it is clear that submission is equivalent to obedience in this passage, as 1 Peter 3 makes clear:

For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

The fact that Christian women resist submission primarily due to fear of their husband's inadequate leadership should suffice to prove my case. No contortions, appeals to ancient authority or cultural relativism are necessary to it, only a belief that the Bible is indeed the Word of God.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts