Rif Raf

what prompted that?

I have a love hate relationship with my Reformed roots. I think about it alot. Semper Reformada (sp?) my own heart & thinking I guess.

Josiah, I think you'll find that or similiar attitudes in other denominations, too. I know I encountered that in the Baptist church at times. Don't get so worked up about it! There are always going to be people who interpret scripture in ways that make us crazy.

Ya, but folks with these views inhabit churches we know, and they can cause alot of hurt and schism to folks we love. That's why it bothers me so much.

Ah, but you forgot a very important one.

If you are, in fact, a single female no longer living at home under the supreme authority of your father (who has already gone astray spiritually by
letting you leave his house to begin with-see points 2 & 5), under no circumstances are you actually capable of making intelligent decisions by yourself. Having strong opinions on any Biblical issue is a sin. Thinking for yourself--yeah, that's a sin too.

Yo, if this is Josiah Quintis Roe from Carbondale, PA along along time ago, write me back, this is budda from the good old Cannan Christian Academy!

Ha! Three guesses as to what someone has been reading lately. I had similar violent reactions. Chris and I got a lot entertainment value outta those book(s).

who knew budda did email?? Is he the only deity thats using technology? :)

Actually, I haven't been reading anything lately by Dougie Doug if that's what you're thinking. There's a whole crew of folks even more to the...ah...uh extreme of Wilson.

Their views, while I disagree, aren't what bothers me so much. It's how black and white they view their views. No sense of perspective, no self-doubt about their views. Figures they'd have clarkian influences.

Ah, the name of Clark recurs - second time this week. I feel you on the love-hate attitude toward the Reformed faith.

Josiah, please contact with me names of these people. As I need to pay them a visit with my good friend Mr. Louisville Slugger... about time I use my Presbyterian Mafia on their hineys. The Don Holton has been silent too long, I can no longer allow such injustice to permeate the walls of Applachia... if Applachia has walls. I'll make them an offer they can't refuse... cause if they do CRACK BOOM BAM, Louisville will speak.

I'd like to add:

7) Theology is solely the domain of men. This is why the word "he" appears in "theology." The role of women in any church event where theology is the focus should be restricted to preparing meals (and snacks for the breaks). This also extends to theological discussions that may occur in the home, although the women may be permitted to sit silently at the feet of the men. They are not permitted to raise questions or objections, but they may nod their heads as if they understand.

Men, under no circumstances, are to prepare food or snacks if there are readily available women about.

lets see if I can feel the love as I get out from under this rock in the backwood mountains of atlanta...

i suppose i'm interested to get the 'rest of the story'...a short rant of ladies' abilities and aptitudes? Subsequently, their priviledges and of course some necessary rights inferred?

trying to feel enlightened on how things ought to be, rather than how they are in the backwoods.........................and yes, while i'm firing away, how about a show of hands for those actually holding an arrow or 5 in their quiver................................

So, a womans rights & priviledges are derived from their abilities & aplitudes? Are you sure you want to hold to that position?

And, I'd like to think that you don't have to be a male, with kids, and property, and a citizen, and whatever to speak on the rights of women.

to belittle is to be little

quite simply, no, you don't have to have kids, citizen of the USA, with property to voice your thoughts...defensive sarcasm is always humorous though. you certainly don't need kids to talk about how to raise or direct them, or citizenship in the US to discuss its policies, or property to talk about p.taxes, or a dog to talk about pet dander. but sure as hell gives you more credibility.

regardless, did i create my position or did you just do it? it seems some illogical leaping took place rather quickly, but hey give you the benefit of the doubt and somehow believe you actually came to that conclusion logically (though how remains a mystery). to answer your question quickly. no, i don't hold to the corner you are trying to push me into. i'm just trying to understand the resentment / lousiville sluggardness underlying your own comments....if you don't want to give them, don't. i'm not in the business of pulling teeth...just typically interested in knowing a solution to a situation not a re-iteration of the problems.

You're pretty clever. How's that working out for you?

pretty well, thanks.

sarcasm doing you right lately?

and the dance continues...

no more dancing....

The following beliefs are not held by many, possibly none at all, but for the sake of those few isolated reformed individuals they’ve been posted in correlation with the comedy of ‘rif raf’ . Enjoy your new community education:

1. the fall shows that women are not prone to deception. thats right, contrary to popular reformed dogma, the fall actually shows that no one is prone to deception. Not Adam or Eve. Not Samuel, Jacob, or David. Nor Dehlila, Jezebel, or Rebekah. Yes, there is NO empirical evidence showing any danger from deception pre or post fall. As such, don’t worry about leaving your daughter with the mechanic, or fixing your car by way of a salesman. Since no one is prone to be deceived, there is no danger of deception.

2. Women should always be outside of the home either serving as deaconesses, corporate cultured, or keeping civil peace…it doesn’t matter as long as they are out. Since a woman (old or young) is under no authority within the home or outside it, she needs to ensure she maintains a status otherwise limited to chauvinistic males. If, god forbid, pregnancy interferes b/c the pill didn’t work, 6 weeks maximum can be taken to stay in house on medical leave and nourish the child with formula. After that, get back at it and climb that social ladder.

3. Business savvy, post-salvation sisters with any cost-basis talents need not converse with their husbands concerning their affairs. Because righteous living is juxtapositioned between working outside the home and gathering a higher education, rarely if ever do business or money decisions need outside input…maybe only if time permits before picking up the kids from daycare or sending the husband to do it, 30 seconds can be devoted to directing that authoritative jerk.

4. Wives are heads of the house. Sending kids out of the home, preferably to government schools at the earliest of ages helps them to gather a more enlightened education. If home school is ever mentioned by husband or family, it should be treated as if it were an unclean topic, a slavery of womanhood, nothing more or less. Remember who is the head.

5. After putting all women, daughters or wives, through school (preferably to PH.D programs) and to positions as doctors / lawyers / politicians etc, one can rightly assume that: a. their liberation is complete b. they are raging feminists c. their husbands are stay at home dads d. they don’t do any dishes or laundry e. they are divorced

6. Reformed wackos, authoritative fathers, heterosexual people, are hiding in the bushes waiting to brainwash your kids. Keep alert.

Again, watch out. Rumor has it there is a remnant of people like this who tend to inhabit major metropolitan areas. If you happen upon a few, say you’d love to hear them or help them, as lipservice, then leave quickly. Anyone who shows love beyond lipservice is often lost.

I can't understand what exactly you're trying to say havapint. What exactly is your argument, minus the sarcasm?

ah. that is the beauty of it scott. there is no argument just sarcasm. does that bother you?

or do you really want to know?

what i might like is to jump into a pre-constructed box created by someone else and then shaken vigorously about with words. wow, does the sarcasm oozing from this board actually affect all who visit, even myself? is sarcasm your refuge scott?

i for one hope it isn't...and smiling, waiting patiently for the answers to my questions before the tables are turned. the odd thing is i can't get any straight talk, just social ranting behind sarcasm....which leads me to believe that this is all about nothing. sadly, i am too old school to appreciate that...somewhere along the way i started believing there were reasons behind beliefs, not semantic games.

but back to your question...i feel a bit of hypocracy here. is it not a bit hypocritical to judge the 'backwoods' christian, while playing lipservice to loving them? i tend to think so-even more since no justification is forthcoming for 'rif-raf' -rather sarcastic drudgery. lets see if anyone else is brave enough to say as much...i hope you are scott, but must wait and see.

Your name is really Turd?

oh yes, I see i've been assigned a new handle by my gracious host, and the gang bang mentality of this board comes out again...thanks scott for your creative jesting, it adds a classy touch of levity.

if everyone can keep up the close-minded hypocracy so ferverently ridiculed, and continue living a contradiction of sorts, maybe, just maybe, the ignorant will listen, the poor in spirit will be rich, and you can MLM your own self through the multiple minions.

ONE last call to the carpet, does anyone, yes anyone, want to actually stand up for being called--or remain in your safe haven of witty refuge....come on, from what I read, the criticism and hatred run pretty deep here, yet where is the spine?

No Scott, 'Turd Ferguson' is a moniker created, brillantly I must confess, in a skit for SNL, Celebrity Jeopardy.
And it is a funny name...but it is also a way to stand on your soapbox and shout out your opinion but to still cling to that lovely thing we call anonymity, or should I say cowardice.
I'm sorry I suffer from a life-long illness called sarcasm-itis, I can't shake it no matter how many prescriptions I get.

Hah. I thought it must be a joke, but I wasn't sure.

I wasn't trying to make fun of you Havapint. I just could've sword that originaly, your name didn't include Turd in it and it threw me off guard.

I don't have any dog in this fight. I just couldn't figure out what exactly your argument was, because it was interspersed with so much lyricism and grandstanding.

well cheers andy & scott. nicely done.

scott did you look those words up before applying them? outstanding...grandstanding lyricism: beautiful.

andy, thanks for the ahhh, explanation...on to the wonderful state of being anonymous, does it take away from the discussion of grandstanding at hand? and should it be equivocated with cowardice? "lack of courage or resolution?" hmmm. i think not--

scott has no dog to fight in this show. do you andy?

and yes, you may call me crosby--as the inspector gadget has so quickly deduced.

seriously now, i suppose i'm feeling a bit burdened...yes, I shared an education at CC, and loved the experience. i just can't understand the two-sided character I see here. you may laugh and say, "its only a joke" but clearly there is more....and it makes for good discussion if it ever gets to that?!? i'm still waiting for some legit info...right now its a grey cloud that no one wants to touch...i'm as interested as you in knowing why?

I've been following this conversation since it started, and more than ever I have no idea what it is about. Crosby, are you angered by Josiah's opinions on women? Or are you offended by an attitude of hatred for fellow Christians, thinly veiled by a sardonic humor? Are either of these the "grey cloud" you keep referring to? Or is there another issue you're bringing up that I'm missing?

I don't think anyone in this forum is unwilling to hack at issues with seriousness and grace, if we just understand what the concerns are. But every time someone asks you, you get all testy.

mr. mesh.

Its really pretty simple, though i had to re-read most of this to see where the testy-ness actually comes in...what a mess it is..

rif-raf and first few posts are pretty ludicrous. look at the intro.
__(note: I disagree with every freaking single one of these assertions, I want to be clear on that)__

now we move on to the body, lets take # 4 for kicks:

4. Husbands are the heads of their house.

Apply the "note" to # 4 and you have some scriptural problems...do i need to elaborate? or am i misquoting? or is this just the type of game being played to humor the people and i missed the following sarcasm?

Well looking further to that question, lets see what kind of picture is drawn of each side in the game:

In other news, the following beliefs are what you get when your education isn't a community experience and you have nothing better to do than theologically masturbate. It also helps if you're kinda sorta geographically isolated.

There are people out there who hold to these positions unironically, without perspective and/or self-awareness. You may not know any now, but they're tucked away in Presbyterian churches up in the hills. They may move to your town and visit your church for a period of time. They usually don't stay long, as they're more interested in people hopping on their ideological bandwagon then living as the Body of Christ. Which is a shame because they can be some of the most giving and sacrificial people, right up until they try to split the church.

You're probably safe from them if you live in Metropolitan areas or are a member of a church of a hundred people or more (Christ Church in Moscow, ID and a few others excepted, although at Christ Church can't really be blamed for all those folks showing up, mostly). They tend to frequent areas with mountains, like the northwest and Appalachia.

Quite a diatribe. And the kicker is "Be warned, and be ready to love." So even though you guys suck and badly, we're ready to love you (sound hypocritical?). is that a direct kick to the face when no love is meant to be found?

But now that the air is cleared, i'd like to know who has a daughter or wife in here and is actually living the reality of the roles of women and men in life & marriage? If no one is I would suggest some more patience in your ranting against the oppressed woman.

for any others, feed me some knowledge on what my role really is and what my wife's role really is (possibly scripture included), not some trash about how I'm in the backwoods of Idaho and you somehow love me as a good reformed christian ought, minus my silly core ideas.

that is what I'm looking for. An adequate explanation of a woman's role in marriage and life. specifically, parental control of children, daily work and women.

so, yes i'm a bit fired up about the juvenille attitude of disrepect combined with the facade of christian love.

Well Crosby, I will try to deal with the issue of husbands and wives and not children because I think that pertains more to those in the discussion that the issues involving children (even though I have a daughter). I think that I have something to share on this issue, not just because I have a wife but mostly because I am part of the body of Christ. Ultimately is this not what marriage is, the body of Christ? Is this not why Paul likens the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and the church? I think this is the core issue at hand. Husbands must treat their wives as Christ treats the church. If I delve into this relationship, how do I "see" Christ treat his bride. Does He want to hide her away from all of the possible pitfalls of life? Does He want to oppress her? I don't see it this way. The example given for husbands is that of grace and respect and not as an authoritarian, although this is maybe a part of it.

If this is how Christ treats the church, and just for clarity this includes women, should we not also as husbands treat our wives with respect. I don't deny that this respect can come in many different ways. I must infer though that I should be able to see my wife as someone who can and should and dare I say must have her own views on living the Christian life. She is not to be treated as a puppet, spouting my views on every issue. Is this how I am supposed to view my role as a Christian, as a puppet on a string that blindly follows. I believe this is far from the reality of life. If this is what God intended than there would be no sin, of course, there would be no love either. God loves us so much that he gave us free will, so that we could love him of our own volition. In this same way, not that I see myself as the deity over my wife, but for the Christian woman, I want her to have her own love for Christ, not because that is what I want or our friends want or anyone elses wants. This is the problem I see with the "backwoods of Idaho" position is. In my humble contention, the "backwoods of Idaho" (I thought it was Appalachia) relies heavily on what I see as the oppression of women, even if it tries to fall under the facade of protectionism.

Crosby, I have tried to espouse my views to that of Paul's teaching in Ephesians. Whether or not I have: a. succeeded in doing so or b. communicated it well is yet to be determined. I do have to agree with Josiah however that we must be careful or "be warned" against people holding to the elegant "backwoods of Idaho" paradigm, as I see it as a fallacy, but that we also have been called to love one another even if, god forbid their ideas are different.

I don't see the contradiction between warning other Christians that certain Christian teaching and certain Christian ideology is poisonous, and maintaining that we should love such people. Love the sinner, hate the sin kind of stuff it seems to me.

Maybe there is no theology of woman's life and children and all that that you're looking for, Crosby. I for one have some reservations that such a theology can be deduced from Scripture - at least on the level of minutae and program that the people Josiah is (I think) referring to tend to do. We have seen female labor force participation increase in high rates over the latter part of the 20th century. The reason doesn't seem to have a lot to do with cultural change in our attitudes towards women working, nor even with the changes did not coincide with anti-discrimination legislation nor even with the women's rights movement. It seems to have a lot to do with the fact that the United States has a lot of industries that value skill, education and intellect over physical brawn, and therefore, female productivity moves closer to male productivity.

For me, those kinds of empirical phenomenon cause me to wonder whether it is necessarily the case that "a woman's place is in the home" wasn't mainly just the result of natural division of labor from previous generations. Work was more physically taxing, and therefore men had the advantage. Women specialized in domsestic work, etc. But does that mean that they should always?

thanks andy. Well put.

i agree with you in the general sense and i hope others do as well, christ should be emulated by both men and women at all times in all things. marriage, work, life, etc. Both are created in God's image, both have the same way to salvation, in essence both are spiritually equal. It is clear how Christ loved the church and how he also loved women during his life on earth (given the opposition it really is pretty awesome). Again, the lesson can be applied to each husband that he needs to respect, love, nurture and care for his wife as Christ did the church.

Yet, it should not be denied that there are purposes or roles within which both live. My role is to love my wife/family and provide for them spiritually and economically (or i am worse than an infidel). My wife's role is to help support me in order to achieve that goal. Do you agree these roles exist? If not, please explain (you seem to give it a quick pass with “The example given for husbands is that of grace and respect and not as an authoritarian, although this is maybe a part of it”)

I understand your statement that there is a free will associated with spirituality & life, wherein you want to ensure your wife makes decisions based on her own free will. Certainly that is true, but it doesn't counter the fact that you have a great responsibility to nurture and direct her free will toward righteousness (much like a pastor within a congregation). Even further it would seem that familial agreement needs to be your concern. There should be a united front within the household and a responsibility of the man to ensure it remains as such. Practically speaking this is worked out in the OPC’s nomination of deacons & elders. Does a husband cast his vote, while his wife casts another? Are there multiple votes per couple? Why not?…do you think there should be, should we attack the OPC church as a gregarious monster of male domination…isn’t voting as much a right of women as men?

Outside the church lets look at reality and the expectations therein. Does your wife expect you to go to work Andy? Does she expect you to minister to her through the reading of scripture and prayer? I'd argue that she should if she does not. In a similar vein, do you expect your wife to help raise your children or do anything outside of holding a job, philosophising with friends, getting an education, and providing for your family, or otherwise excercising her free will? If so, what are those expectations and why do you have them? If there are no voiced expectations, then how does she help you? more pointedly, should she accept the idea that she is to help you as you accept the fact that you should work for her? if so, then there are some expectations involved....

Nonetheless, i think the crux of the discussion seems to be not necessarily what we are seeking to do, but in how we do it. Getting on to the 'how' is where it gets tricky and the modern militia is often dispatched (as in this blog). It seems simple to follow the track record of Christ in either role, but in our society there is an assault specifically on the value of a woman within the home (nearly every media outlet or metropolitan area is stoking this fire) which is making it more difficult for her. Yet the question for women remains how are they to submit to their husbands righteously as much as how are their husbands to treat them throughout? Lets take an extreme example and interject it here: a woman is married to a man who is an egotistical authoritative non-believer, lets say a 'God-hater.' What ought she to do with the obvious emotional strain, abusive language, and general disconnectedness in her marriage? Leave him, disrespect him, practice free-will? Society says yes, you say no (at least I hope so--see I corinthians if not). Where then would this woman's joy in life be found? It is unfair, it is sickening, it is a shame that the situation is like this we may think, but is it really for us to question God’s sovereignty and dare say it is wrong? No, contrarily, what a way for her to witness, what a place for her to love and seek to help her husband, EVEN within his ludicrous authoritative requests. She has been placed on the mission field within her own home.

Ok, that was extreme, what we are dealing with in this discussion are authoritative CHRISTIAN men who should know better, right? Yes and no. I would hope these men actually love their wives, rather than the sin of the previous unbelieving God hater. (again wives are God's gift to man). For this matter it may be best to ask some of their wives how oppressed they feel...hmmm. a good study to see if the hatred spewed against their ideologies is as strong as the hatred / isolationism / protectionism those same men must be spewing against their wives or daughters, ie, does this hatred match up with reality of pain women are in or is the worldview attack with little practical examples outside of your own eyeglass? Possibly a little of both. Where does this leave us in discussion of it. Well I can say it shouldn’t lead to the hypocracy evident here. This is not a rip-roaring good time to let loose on a few fundamentalists for kicks and giggles, especially before being experientially involved. As I’ve been calling out before, the delinquency is absurd. Absurdity being half the point is rather easily understood, minus the references to stupid, illiterate people (practicing fallacies while condemning them is stupid hypocracy).

Either way, I’ll ask you first where you think the fundies are off. Lets get some nitty gritty details. I’ve placed one (OPC voting) that based on the discussion should be up for attack. Can you give more ways you see this oppression or fallacy in life?

scott-

what is a fallacy ad hominem? is there one here? i tend to think so.

good question on the work positions. are you saying, because we live in the 20th century, our abundance of new jobs (ie, mentally challenging instead of physically demanding) has created a shift in the roles of christian women?

I don't think so. i'd argue the basic roles should remain unaffected by the outside cause...let us say, a man doesn't want his wife to work in one of these new jobs. what is the underlying role of the woman? disobey the man because this "new" outlet is present?

just my quick thoughts.

Crosby - I think you're confusing things. The ad hominem fallacy is one in which specific arguments are dismissed in hand using attacks against the person. "He's wrong because he's a child abuser." He can be right and still be a child abuser, and your dismissal on those grounds is fallacious.

Does this then mean that it is always, everywhere, wrong to make categorical judgments about an ideology or a movement mentality that the person believes is damaging when believed or propogated? I think it's a fair allowance to make to someone that if they have had extensive exposure to someone or some group, and from that interaction draws general, intuitive "bad vibes" from the people - either becuase the person sees the fruits that follow from the ideology and/or the community in which that ideology germinates - then it's legitimate to warn people about it.

Jesus did not always get into line by line refuatations with his critics. Sometimes he simply said to them that they were blind, that they had demons, that they were screwed up and needed help, etc.

Anyway, I think the point that Josiah was making is that a lot of these people, whoever they are, are peddling shit and Christians need to be careful lest they step in it. YOu want to debate him on the specifics, and that's fine. But it's not legitimate to issue those kinds of general warnings - especially if he states them having some intimate familiarity with the stuff. Speaking for myself, I think there's an appropriate place for Christians to help other Christians understand that within the draw of Reformed theology, there are various places and times in your life where you're going to be susceptible to things which will while seeming biblical and true have little to do with Christ and his Word.

good question on the work positions. are you saying, because we live in the 20th century, our abundance of new jobs (ie, mentally challenging instead of physically demanding) has created a shift in the roles of christian women?

It's created a shift in the demand for certain types of labor at which women, in this century and in this part of the world, actually have a competitive advantage. If not absolutely better than men at them, they are at the very least relatively better than women from previous generations at them because they play to qualities like "skill," "experience," and "education." It's in the area of human capital where returns are these days, and so this is one reason - possibly only one reason, but it is at least one and it's an important one - why you're seeing women working more outside the home and in the workplace.

I don't think so. i'd argue the basic roles should remain unaffected by the outside cause...let us say, a man doesn't want his wife to work in one of these new jobs. what is the underlying role of the woman? disobey the man because this "new" outlet is present?

Fine. You and your wife will come to that decision. And that's your prerogative. But I think it's highly coincidental that in those previous situations in history, it really was never even a possibility for women to work outside the home. In agrarian cultures, farming could really only be done by men, and women were confined to the home, not because of sexism, but because there were advantages to specialization. The raising of children, the educating of children - so many of these activities fell upon her. And she did them, for the most part, as well as all the other domestic responsibilities.

So how should I interpret rules that require women to stay in the home? How do I, for one, know that they are making trans-historical moral imperatives (or whatever you would want to call them) about women's absolute roles? If I hire certain people for one job, and certain people for another job, I might write up rules and regulations for each person's job saying when they should arrive to work, the type of clothes they should wear, and a myriad of other details. I do that because of unique market forces at that time. So rules and regulations, having been written in that context, might very well be simply rules designed for the context at hand.

I'm not saying necessarily that those rules were that way. But, I do think that it is highly suspicious since historically women were always at a disadvantage in the marketplace due to the nature of production historically. Now, various factors have led to women entering the market en masse, hiring contractors to handle domestic household duties such as nannies, maids, gardeners, etc. I cannot, with confidence, say that "a woman's place is in the home" is biblically mandated for these kinds of reasons. Even if biblical writers did indeed give regulations over household production and roles, I still don't know if that means those roles were immutable. It may just mean that, since this is the world we live in now, and this is the general naturally occuring composition of the household, here are the regulations and rules for our communities (ie, the Church).

For that reason, I find it very difficult to at all get into the Sproul Jr., Wilson, Jones crowd. They are lifting - it seems to me anyway - things like gender roles and household composition and household production (ie, homeschool) out of their historical context, and treating them as though they cannot change. Just the little bit I've studied of modern labor trends has me skeptical of this kind of abstract theologizing.

But should the woman disobey the husband's wishes? Well, if the husband is fundamentally wrong in insisting that it was immoral for her to work outside the home, then it definitely changes things. If you allow the possibility that it's not wrong for them to consider that option, then the choice becomes theirs - is it optimal from their perspective, given all their goals and the things they value, for that to happen? That's the right question, and one that is going to depend on many factors that no moralist can really know ahead of time.

Scott, I think I would argue that the specialization of "women's" roles and "men's" roles is less a product of the agrarian society and more a product of the increased industrialization and the move from the country to towns and cities in the Victorian era. In the parts of the country where labor was scarce (ie. the frontier), women tended to have a much more equal role in work--not necessarily working in the fields all the time, but certainly during planting and harvesting. I have a collection of essays by Laura Ingals Wilder, and one, from the early 1900s is about how women in cities were clamoring for equality but farm women have always had equality. The concept of rigid spheres for men and women seems to be a Victorian invention.

Josiah, if you think Presbyterians are bad, you ought to spend some time in Southern Baptist churches. I have a distinct memory of sitting in the 11th grade girls Sunday School class at a large SB church when two deacons (they have about the same role as elders in the presbyterian form of church govt) were filling in for the regular sunday school teacher, and the passage we had gotten to was the "woman was decieved but Adam sinned" one, at which point we were subjected to quite a long discussion about how gullible and easily decieved women were and why that was a reason for male headship, with all the other girls sitting there repeatedly agreeing and adding examples about how women are such bad and gullible leaders, with nary a mention of the "but Adam sinned" part of the verse. I sat there with my mouth shut, because who was I, a "gullible" 11th grade girl, to argue with not one but two deacons?

Crosby, for instance: Paul makes some casual, off-hand recommendations about how slaves are to be treated, as well as how slaves are to behave in relation to their masters. Is he, though, stating that this type of relationship is at all ideal? Or is he recommending certain practices, given social and historical conditions?

In the same way, perhaps the delineation of gender roles into very narrow spheres, with each gender being assigned a specific set of duties is similar to this. Given the nature of society at the time - and I mean only the nature of production and the kinds of goods being traded in markets - women were ordinarily not well-suited to duties in the marketplace. They tended to, historically, specialize in household management and household production.

Kathryn, that is very interesting. Do you know the types of jobs that women in cities were seeking? The fact that they had such difficulty getting those jobs (which I'm assuming was the case, since an entire women's rights movement emerges as a response) might suggest that women's skills were still not as valued. But, are you saying that it was in this urban context that Victorians narrowly delineated the gender roles and responsibilties? Because, I can definitely see how in Wilder's world, women would've participated in farming. You see this extending even into the 20th century where farms run by families rely on joint participation by the husband, the wife, as well as the eight or nine kids they usually had.

(Which is partly why I think you saw such high birth rates in previous centuries, but see a dramatic drop off in the 20th century - children were partly valuable for economic reasons, because the responsibilities of running a farm were so laborious. I'm just speculating, but it would even seem that this might be why dowry's were so important in previous periods of history - families needed to be compensated for the loss they incurred when a daughter left the family.)

But are you saying that the Victorian era invents this idea of gender roles in response to urbanization? Can you tell me more about that?

ah scott & kathryn,

I had some words of response and just lost them all :) unfortunate for me..... I'll take a short reprieve to drink a few beers and ponder what could have been.

hopefully will get something substantial soon....

test

ok scott--

the ad hominem fallacy (abusive) is present. it is simply an attack on character rather than substance. I don't see any substantial evidence against assertions 1-6, just character bashing. (do we really need to play semantic games with Josiah's goal in the article?). It is clear that he disagrees with the assertions and attempts to belittle / refute them via character bashing. If you want, I can lay it out step-by-step, but just note that my conclusion is strengthened by the fact that I still have no other substantial evidence from Josiah, so I am forced to look at what has been said, which again is fallacious attacking of character. (sometimes you have to belly up and eat a serving of humble pie, i've done it many times. The taste can be tart, but its hard to get into the discussion further without that initial helping)...what did doug do? I have no idea maybe he slashed some tires or physically assault someone?, but do we treat likewise?

Anyhow, I think the rest of the discussion is simple (but correct me if I over simplify). Your questions revolve around the reality of our world and the current job market (which is filled with multi-purpose positions). Women are skilled, educated and able to excel in many different positions outside of the home much like men have done for centuries. This has caused a spike in women working outside the home. The “historical norm” (a rule that women work in the home) may not be valid given our current situation, if in fact it ever existed….

You then take this premise and question doug & cronies assertion that the “possible historical rule” should stand today…women need to stay at home. But you go further. And this is where I disagree. You suggest that because it is fundamentally wrong of the husband to force this concept on his wife, obedience to it may be optional. In your words:

“should the woman disobey her husband’s wishes?…Well, if the husband is fundamentally wrong in insisting that it was immoral for her to work outside the home, then it definitely changes things. If you allow the possibility that it's not wrong for them to consider that option, then the choice becomes theirs - is it optimal from their perspective, given all their goals and the things they value, for that to happen? That's the right question, and one that is going to depend on many factors that no moralist can really know ahead of time.”

I agree, you may have the right question, but I don’t think it “definitely changes things.” The roles are the same. Scripturally speaking, a woman is to submit to her husband, and unfortunately for us this means that no matter what injustice (minus grounds for divorce), we see from authoritative husbands, it is still the responsibility of the wife to submit and love her husband (see my extreme husband wife example and ideas). A wonderful example for men of this is Christ’s submission to the government in the ultimate injustice---his own death. Why didn’t Christ gather an army and oppose his death? He was RIGHT wasn’t he?

Are you still with me?...here is the summary of the situation as you say:

Even if biblical writers did indeed give regulations over household production and roles, I still don't know if that means those roles were immutable.

I think there are immutable roles. A. I need to provide for my family and love my wife. B. My wife needs to help me with love, and submit to my direction…beyond this, question away about the flexibility of the roles—ie, a woman is to stay at home, or work outside. Just be careful that in the end, the underlying biblical truths are not disregarded.

andy & kathryn,

quickly now--it is friday after all....

andy, i think our discussion got past the point of note i just posted to scott and onto the questions of how the roles should match up with reality, and what kind of things we face in reality that help us for our roles. i'm still curious on the one example I gave of the OPC voting and what you think on it...

Kathryn, thanks for you input. good notes on the shift in specializations. unfortunately right now, i can't write on your experiences with baptist etc.....but hey, that is probably better for all of us :)

have good weekends all. i'll be out and about with the family.

I think there are immutable roles. A. I need to provide for my family and love my wife. B. My wife needs to help me with love, and submit to my direction…beyond this, question away about the flexibility of the roles—ie, a woman is to stay at home, or work outside. Just be careful that in the end, the underlying biblical truths are not disregarded.

Of course, if you're limiting the gender roles to mainly love and support, and mutual submission, then yes, I think I would agree. If a husband and a wife together believe that it is unbiblical for her to work outside the home, to practice sex without contraception and thus maximize the arrows in their quiver, and to educate each of those children privately rather than contracting it out to someone else, then that is one thing. They have come together to agree in principle on what the Bible teaches.

But none of this discussion centered on that. We weren't arguing - at least I didn't think we were - about submission, love and respect. I took Josiah's point to be concerning actual regulations concerning gender roles - not "love" and "submission" more generally. Does the Bible indeed teach that women cannot work for wages? Does the Bible indeed teach that it is sinful to use the government's public schools to educate our covenant children? My impression of Doug and Doug is that they oftentimes go try to wring out very specific and exhaustive rules about household production and household composition - not simply the three things you noted.

Now, if I were watching a situation where a husband and a wife did not agree, in principle, as to whether it was sinful for the wife to work or not (assume the husband thought it was, and the wife didn't), I would need to have more information before I could decide what should be done. Real life applications of the "submission" idea is much more difficult. Sometimes a woman is to submit. But sometimes a wife is not to submit - for instance, when the husband is asking her to sin, or is hurting her (abuse).

As for the ad hominem fallacy, I still disagree with you. You may not have received the substantive justification for Josiah's desire to distance himself, and to see others distance themselves, from Moscow & Co., but I still don't agree with you that that necessarily means he is committing the ad hominem fallacy. I took his comment, and comments elsewhere he's made on this topic, to mean that: 1) these guys were poison, on ideological/sociological grounds; 2) and their views on women and gender roles are not biblical. You wanted more justification on that second point, which I thought I woudl throw my two cents in, and your responses don't really disprove my points. It sounds like you at least grant that there's some possibility that the "the wife's place is in the home" sentiment might not be wholly biblical. That goes a long way in getting to the heart of how Doug & Doug seem to me - they try to make the Bible be more dogmatic on social, family and political issues than it really is. I see a lot of those issues that they've spilt a lot of ink describing and defending (family and school for instance) as being ones in which the Bible is not as clear as they make it out to be.

But secondly, there is something else about Moscow & co. which goes beyond some academic debate about certain teachings. There is an underlying, hero-worship mentality that runs in those circles. And Doug and Doug seem to do nothing to discourage; in fact, they seem to almost write as though they are self-consciously trying to keep a growing movement together. I, for one, hate that crap. To identify them as "movement leaders" and to warn people that they're not worth your time is not ad hominem. Anymore than when a former Neo-Nazi goes around telling people that a specific person is a brainwashing asshole is ad hominem. Josiah correctly warns people about the excesses of Moscow. It bugs you because you apparently like these guys. Fine. But a lot of Christians are bugged by Moscow and their extremes, and it's not ad hominem to tell people that they're extremism. Sometimes, it's fine just to warn someone and leave it at that.

after all that has transpired and been written since i last commented about all this, i still find it hilarious that people who have not visited moscow, or met the men of whom they speak, comment so all-knowingly about it and the culture, having merely read some books. oh well.