Nest question -- head of household

[happyhomemaker25]

I cannot help but see that as a child/parent relationship unless you have the weight when deciding where he gets to go. I truly can understand if finances are strained, then no one is taking a trip anywhere. But, if this is not the reason, I could not be happy in a marriage where my husband was able to choose to go placed while I had to get permission.

 

You can see it how you want. He listened to me and all I had to say. He had his reasons for not going. It's not a parent/child relationship, but I do view him as the head of our home so when he makes a decision I am supposed to respect that decision. It works for us and is what we believe the Bible says about marriage. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

Why do we frame it as God's way to stay with someone, who from your description, is emotionally abusive, regardless of their sex. That may be a choice someone makes at a time but I cannot see any good spiritual adviser directing someone to do so. I think it sets up a very, very dangerous paradigm to frame that as the spiritually superior choice. You can love someone without allowing them to treat you in a way that is disrespectful to your inherent worth and person-hood given from God. I think we need to give as much value to ourselves as God does. We can be called to suffer but it shouldn't be the defacto assumption that it is the best choice but something that is chosen after much prayer, knowing full well that it takes special grace from God and living in such a way can spiritually destroy a spouse and their children. It would need to be constantly re-evaluated as to whether it was leading someone to and their family to become closer to God, as quite often it does the opposite.

:iagree:

 

John 13:34

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

 

Romans 13:8

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

[Soror]

I cannot help but see that as a child/parent relationship unless you have the weight when deciding where he gets to go. I truly can understand if finances are strained, then no one is taking a trip anywhere. But, if this is not the reason, I could not be happy in a marriage where my husband was able to choose to go placed while I had to get permission.

 

Now, there have been times I considered going to the convention, but once I tallied the hotel and such, I decided I would just order a few sessions on CD and put the money toward stuff. So, I don't just do everything I have a whim to do -- I weight the cost vs. benefits.

 

But, if we had the money, I would never dream of telling my husband not to go on a motorcycle trip, or to visit his sister, or to go whitewater rafting.

:iagree: If either spouse really wanted something there should be some really darn good reason for the other to put their foot down, but that to me isn't valuing a person or a worth. I'd absolutely be repentant for bad behavior though, that is entirely separate issue.

[Nestof3]

You can see it how you want. He listened to me and all I had to say. He had his reasons for not going. It's not a parent/child relationship, but I do view him as the head of our home so when he makes a decision I am supposed to respect that decision. It works for us and is what we believe the Bible says about marriage. :)

 

I'm sorry; I could have phrased that more delicately. I mean, only you knows your marriage. I was speaking of how I would feel.

Edited July 10, 2012 by nestof3

[Lovedtodeath]

I'd absolutely be repentant for bad behavior though, that is entirely separate issue.

:iagree:It has nothing to do with headship. I have had to repent in laments and tears over bad behavior toward my kids.

[EJCMom]

We tried that in the beginning because we both sincerely believed that was how it was "supposed" to be. However, that structure really did our marriage no favors, even though we were both very committed to it.

 

Our marriage is more of an equal partnership now, and we make decisions together. We so rarely disagree that there hasn't really been a need for a final decision maker.

[I.Dup.]

I'm sorry; I could have phrased that more delicately. I mean, only you knows your marriage. I was speaking of how I would feel.

 

I would feel the same, and do, when dh goes against something I would like to do. I seem to have given him the idea that he is the head of the home, whether I want it that way or not anymore, and he often says no to most things I would like to do. He also will change his mind later sometimes, but his first reaction is "NO."

 

I do not like feeling that I am in a parent/child relationship. It is causing marital problems.

[8circles]

Did you read Jen's Gems? That's exactly what that woman did. And all of them turned against her.

 

I'm not saying that is the case with every chruch that abides by the patriarchy interpretation, but that is where it can lead if unblanced. And most pastors out there are the end all be all of their congregation.

 

How would you even know this? I'm sure it is true in many cases & may always be true in churches that follow the headship model but how on earth would you know about most pastors? Most denominations that I'm familiar with - & it's quite a few - this wouldn't be the case.

[AdventureMoms]

I'm talking about after we have talked about it and he still did not agree that it was the best thing for us. Specifically, just a few months ago. I wanted to go to the state homeschool convention. He said we would talk about it. Well we did, but he decided that we would not go. He did say we could go to the local one. I'd never been to the state one and really wanted to go. I argued with him, gave him the silent treatment, was pretty much a jerk. Later, when I actually sat down to read through my Bible and pray I was very burdened over my attitude. It was childish. I asked God for forgiveness and then later asked DH for forgiveness. I treated him badly because I did not agree with his decision. Our relationship was restored to a peaceful love relationship with no hard feelings on either side.

 

OK, I'm not sure what to do with this example. If I had wanted to go to a convention, but DW had good reasons why I shouldn't go, we would have discussed them and decided together whether her reasons trumped my desire to go. If it were a money issue, for example, we would have discussed ways to make it cheaper, ways to get money from other budget categories, etc. If we still couldn't afford to go, we might talk about saving up for a future year's conference. If none of that worked, I'd be disappointed because I didn't get what I wanted, but I can't imagine throwing a tantrum over it, because we would have decided that together.

 

I don't need to "act out" when I don't get my way, because when I don't get my way, it's because I have decided (together with DW) that it was not the right thing for the family.

[Lovedtodeath]

OK, I'm not sure what to do with this example. If I had wanted to go to a convention, but DW had good reasons why I shouldn't go, we would have discussed them and decided together whether her reasons trumped my desire to go. If it were a money issue, for example, we would have discussed ways to make it cheaper, ways to get money from other budget categories, etc. If we still couldn't afford to go, we might talk about saving up for a future year's conference. If none of that worked, I'd be disappointed because I didn't get what I wanted, but I can't imagine throwing a tantrum over it, because we would have decided that together.

 

I don't need to "act out" when I don't get my way, because when I don't get my way, it's because I have decided (together with DW) that it was not the right thing for the family.

yep

[happyhomemaker25]

I'm sorry; I could have phrased that more delicately. I mean, only you knows your marriage. I was speaking of how I would feel.

 

NO you phrased it fine. I totally understand where you are coming from. I knew mine sounded kind of put off so I used a smiley. LOL

[Lady Florida.]

OK, I'm not sure what to do with this example. If I had wanted to go to a convention, but DW had good reasons why I shouldn't go, we would have discussed them and decided together whether her reasons trumped my desire to go. If it were a money issue, for example, we would have discussed ways to make it cheaper, ways to get money from other budget categories, etc. If we still couldn't afford to go, we might talk about saving up for a future year's conference. If none of that worked, I'd be disappointed because I didn't get what I wanted, but I can't imagine throwing a tantrum over it, because we would have decided that together.

 

I don't need to "act out" when I don't get my way, because when I don't get my way, it's because I have decided (together with DW) that it was not the right thing for the family.

 

:iagree: Giving one partner the final say on things fosters more of a parent-child relationship than an adult one. Dh is not my father, and I'm not his mother. We're partners.

[marbel]

I don't need to "act out" when I don't get my way, because when I don't get my way, it's because I have decided (together with DW) that it was not the right thing for the family.

 

And that's how it's supposed to work, even with husband/one person as head.

 

My husband would never forbid me to go anywhere. (Well, OK, maybe not anywhere. ;)) But I could see saying "hey, I'd like to go to this homeschool convention" and him saying "oh, sorry, that won't work out" for whatever reason. Financial, work/childcare conflict, whatever. Maybe he remembers last time I went to a conference and spent huge $$ on curriculum I didn't ever use. (That never actually happened. I've never even been to a conference. But I can imagine...)

 

Like you, I would be disappointed but oh well.

 

However. If I typically threw tantrums when I didn't get my way - ie. acted like a child - I guess my husband would be justified in acting like a parent and just saying no. Hard to say, because I just can't imagine it happening! ETA: Maybe I should have said "husband might feel justified..." because a minute after posting I realized that it would never be justified.

 

But that would be the unhealthy relationship I've mentioned. If that is typical in a particular marriage, then I would suggest that outside help might be warranted. Not so the wife can learn to obey, but to learn to discuss and come to agreement. (For all I know, the husband is an autocratic jerk who just likes to say no.) In any case, it's not healthy or right.

Edited July 10, 2012 by marbel

[happyhomemaker25]

And that's how it's supposed to work, even with husband/one person as head.

 

My husband would never forbid me to go anywhere. (Well, OK, maybe not anywhere. ;)) But I could see saying "hey, I'd like to go to this homeschool convention" and him saying "oh, sorry, that won't work out" for whatever reason. Financial, work/childcare conflict, whatever. Maybe he remembers last time I went to a conference and spent huge $$ on curriculum I didn't ever use. (That never actually happened. I've never even been to a conference. But I can imagine...)

 

Like you, I would be disappointed but oh well.

 

However. If I typically threw tantrums when I didn't get my way - ie. acted like a child - I guess my husband would be justified in acting like a parent and just saying no. Hard to say, because I just can't imagine it happening!

 

But that would be the unhealthy relationship I've mentioned. If that is typical in a particular marriage, then I would suggest that outside help might be warranted. Not so the wife can learn to obey, but to learn to discuss and come to agreement. (For all I know, the husband is an autocratic jerk who just likes to say no.) In any case, it's not healthy or right.

 

I tried to describe what I meant by acting out. Not speaking to him, being obviously angry. He never chastises me, he just leaves me alone knowing that I am an adult and that God will eventually convict me. I don't throw myself on the floor or scream and cry. Well, I might cry sometimes. LOL I guess he does not forbid me, but he does say, "I don't think it's a good idea." In my way of thinking that's a no. Sometimes he's said, "We won't be able to do that right now." It's not often, but I am pointing out that I am responsible for my actions - not his. When I act like a brat I have to repent. If he makes the wrong choice it's not on me. If I make the wrong choice it is on me. It's not a parent/child relationship. He does have the authority in our home, biblical and given by God. I do have a voice and he does listen. More times than not he is fine with whatever idea I cook up. When he's not, he's not a jerk about it. He does not tell me what to do. He does not chastise me when I do something wrong. He might gently point out that something I am doing is not Christ honoring. I do the same for him. He prays for me and with me. He leads our family and guides us to stronger relationships with God. He makes tough decisions. He is the priest, provider, and protector of our home in so many ways! I wish you could meet him in real life. I don't think I'm describing him or our relationship as well as I wish I could! :001_smile:

[Lovedtodeath]

I think that we all misunderstand eachother or don't communicate enough sometimes. My husband will often not explain himself and then I will act out in my own way, even if that means silently seething. It is a common relationship dynamic. Dr. Phil talks about it in Relationship Rescue.

 

We have improved in that area by just realizing that we need to wait patiently, assuming the best of the other person and know we love eachother no matter what until things can be resolved better.

 

No one is perfect.

[Ellesmere]

How would you even know this? I'm sure it is true in many cases & may always be true in churches that follow the headship model but how on earth would you know about most pastors? Most denominations that I'm familiar with - & it's quite a few - this wouldn't be the case.

 

I agree with your last sentence except I see exactly why someone would say "most pastors" if they knew quite a variety of churches amongst several different circles. And that would be quite outside what I think yours is, if I'm remembering correctly -- I think we both have known quite a few denominations. But to some people I know (and I don't know if this is the case above), "most pastors" they have known would lead to that unbalanced interpretation. So I would guess someone meant "most pastors" in that narrow definition, not most across the many denominations. Does that make sense?

[marbel]

I tried to describe what I meant by acting out.

My response was really meant to be general - not directed specifically at you/your family but more at the type of situation you described. I wasn't suggesting that your specific husband is an autocratic jerk. ;) I do know men like that do exist. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I would never make such an assumption about a specific person here.

[justamouse]

How would you even know this? I'm sure it is true in many cases & may always be true in churches that follow the headship model but how on earth would you know about most pastors? Most denominations that I'm familiar with - & it's quite a few - this wouldn't be the case.

 

 

How many pastors join up with larger denominations that they have to directly answer to? Let's take a conservative amount of 33thousand denominations in the US at this time (actualy amts are closer to 40 by some counts, now). How many of them have a hierarchy that they are accountable to?

[Aelwydd]

 

I don't need to "act out" when I don't get my way, because when I don't get my way, it's because I have decided (together with DW) that it was not the right thing for the family.

 

I love this post. :001_smile:

[Aelwydd]

:iagree: Giving one partner the final say on things fosters more of a parent-child relationship than an adult one. Dh is not my father, and I'm not his mother. We're partners.

[emphasis mine]

 

 

Yes. This, exactly.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

How many pastors join up with larger denominations that they have to directly answer to? Let's take a conservative amount of 33thousand denominations in the US at this time (actualy amts are closer to 40 by some counts, now). How many of them have a hierarchy that they are accountable to?

hmmm... Well, at the independent church that I attend the pastor is accountable to the congregation. They can and have stopped contributing or joined other churches.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I don't need to "act out" when I don't get my way, because when I don't get my way, it's because I have decided (together with DW) that it was not the right thing for the family.

Here is an example in our family... I decided to take DD to the natural doctor. DH agreed thinking we would get some type of medicine for her. Natural doctor prescribed a therapy that did not work. DH decided that I had not communicated with him enough and spent quite some time after that muttering under his breath about quacks and a waste of his money.

[justamouse]

Catholic as well here and most would say our church is very leadership orientated. But I don't see a Pope or priest operating in the manner presented as headship.

 

Exactly, which was why I was having a hard time with the difference. I mean, we have a magesterium, but you can always walk away, with or withour your husband and permission. Even through RCIA (membership classes) we were *constantly* told, if you don't feel this is the right path for you, please, it's ok to leave, you have to obey the Holy Spirit in your life. It was extremely freeing.

 

So though heirarchal, it's not dominating, and all predecated on the respect of you as a person and your own conscience.

[justamouse]

hmmm... Well, at the independent church that I attend the pastor is accountable to the congregation. They can and have stopped contributing or joined other churches.

 

Exactly. That's like being accountable to shifting sand. What if you get a cluster of men who are yes men to everything the pastor says? Where does a wronged member go for recourse?

[Nestof3]

Here is an example in our family... I decided to take DD to the natural doctor. DH agreed thinking we would get some type of medicine for her. Natural doctor prescribed a therapy that did not work. DH decided that I had not communicated with him enough and spent quite some time after that muttering under his breath about quacks and a waste of his money.

 

Am I clear that because it didn't work, he thinks you didn't communicate with him enough about it? Did you withhold some information that would have made him form a different opinion from the start? Did he study about the condition on his own?

[Marylou]

How would you even know this? I'm sure it is true in many cases & may always be true in churches that follow the headship model but how on earth would you know about most pastors? Most denominations that I'm familiar with - & it's quite a few - this wouldn't be the case.

 

unnecessary

[Aelwydd]

Do you think having the man as head makes the marriage better? (I know what the Bible says; I am asking about personal experience)

 

Do you think it makes the family better to have one head, which is the man?

 

I have heard, "If you don't have a head, who makes the final decision?" How would you answer this?

 

1. That depends. Is his wife mentally incompetent, or otherwise incapable of making adult decisions? If not, then no; I don't think a marriage is made stronger by having one person having "boss rights" over the other, no matter how much it's dressed up, or euphemistically extolled.

 

2. See answer #1. (No.)

 

3. Ask yourself, what are some of the biggest decisions a couple will ever make. Buying a house? Moving?

 

How about having a child?

 

That last one is a doozy, and potentially one of the biggest choices a couple makes, in terms of yes/no, when/how many, etc.

 

Now, I will apply the above line of questioning to this test: "Oh, no, my husband and I are egalitarians, and our marriage has no "head": who gets to decide if we should have a baby?"

 

If someone even hints that I should be willing to give over my decision-making power to him, when I'm the one who gets to deal with 9 months of misery, plus 12+ hours of labor and childbirth, 2 months of sore nipples, stress and damage to my career--

 

--I will tell that person, in no uncertain terms, which lake to jump into, and how far.

 

(And FTR, my dh would feel the same, since he gets to be financially responsible for the child as well, for 18+ years, plus all the other time/physical investment it costs him as well.)

 

 

That entire line of questioning is based on a false premise--that someone must be in charge, because it is inevitable that when a couple comes to major disagreement, a decision must be made by someone in order to move the couple forward.

 

I disagree.

 

I think that any time one person supercedes the other like that, there is damage done to the relationship. I also believe that the dichotomy of a two-person relationship is well-designed precisely because of the "check-and-balance" built into it by equal partnership. When that balance is missing or crippled, it leaves the marriage open to unbalanced decisions and choices.

 

So, if a husband has divine "ultimate decision making" power, that means that his wife's ability to check him when he is making a potentially bad choice is limited to his willingness to hear her.

 

I would argue that it's often when we are least inclined to listen to our spouses that is usually most crucial that we do. But when emotions and fixation on a goal are entered into the equation, all the talk about "loving as Christ does the church" and so forth falls flat on its face; because the husband has been divinely granted "spiritual headship," and so his authority is ultimately unimpeachable, even when he's wrong.

 

Furthermore, I believe it is disingenuous to argue that such headship is only valid when he's making the right choices, out of love, for his wife. St. Paul, himself, stated that once a gift is bestowed, it cannot be revoked. And the Old Testament gives multiple examples of how even evil leaders, such as Saul, were still regarded as to be authoritative, because his position of power was God-ordained.

 

Given the above, I don't believe it is consistent to argue that a husband's authority suddenly is nullified by poor decisions, or even abuse--if one is taking the Bible as authority.

 

My husband and I respect each other as equally adult, equally competent, equally able to function as an individual. We have found that there are areas where our abilities and gifts both overlap and diverge. We celebrate our differences, and integrate them in our marriage, but we do not base our marriage on any one single ability or inability. We are a team, we are a unit. We work together, play together, raise our son together, learn together, debate together.

 

 

It requires far more energy, creativity, flexibility, and empathy to work through an impasse together to mutual accord, than it does to simply call in one's cards and force the other to cede. I dare say if it had been the job of either one of us to simply submit to the other when reaching a point of disagreement, we'd both be the poorer--intellectually, emotionally, spiritually--for it now.

[Lovedtodeath]

Exactly. That's like being accountable to shifting sand. What if you get a cluster of men who are yes men to everything the pastor says? Where does a wronged member go for recourse?

I usually worship and fellowship outside of church. I don't think I understand this hypothetical scenario. Why would someone attend a church where being "wronged" is a possibility? If the pastor at the church I attend were to try to council me I may completely ignore him if I have such an inclination.

 

Pastor's wife explained it this way: "Some churches try to change their members from the outside in. We understand that change comes from the inside, from the Holy Spirit."

[justamouse]

I usually worship and fellowship outside of church. I don't think I understand this hypothetical scenario. Why would someone attend a church where being "wronged" is a possibility? If the pastor at the church I attend were to try to council me I may completely ignore him if I have such an inclination.

 

Pastor's wife explained it this way: "Some churches try to change their members from the outside in. We understand that change comes from the inside, from the Holy Spirit."

 

So, how is that not making God into your own image? (which is why it falls apart with a marriage like that, too, because we were made equals) You have the Holy Spirit and yes, he can lead you into all truth, but people also think he less them into marching against gays at military funerals, and drinking kool aide and burning themselves up in a compound and then there's the smaller, emotionally abusive stuff.

 

When your only checkpoint is a circle of people who have no authority and are under no authority, you are making God in your own image because you are saying He's no smarter than yourselves.

 

To give you an example, I went to a non denominational church for many years that was new to the area. They were a 'missionary' church, and we were there as the first members, to the point where they needed a multimillion dollar new building. The Pastor gathered a few 'mature' men around him to act as counsel. As one or two disagreed with him, they left the church. And not large disagreements, but whether he knew it or not, he manipulated his position to have nothing but 'yes' men around him. Eventually all of them men who had differing opinions left. Mostly to other states. The 'head' pastor who was a mentor to our pastor? Even more of a control freak.

 

So, Pastor gets this idea, it's from the Holy Spirit and he's now got nothing but yes men around him.

Edited July 10, 2012 by justamouse

[Lovedtodeath]

I just happen to know a church in which the scenario I explained worked. They lost half of their congregation and came out humbled and loving. I don't doubt your scenario either.

 

As to the rest... I am not sure if you are accusing me of something, but well, we will go round and round on that and I just think we would be talking past each other. I love and respect you sister.

[justamouse]

I just happen to know a church in which the scenario I explained worked. They lost half of their congregation and came out humbled and loving.

 

As to the rest... we will go round and round on that.

 

So are splits good? Are they being One, as they are supposed to?

[Lovedtodeath]

 

So are splits good? Are they being One, as they are supposed to?

It sounds like you are saying that I should have stayed where I was... because unity is more important. That's what they tell everybody. (btw, I edited my post)

[8circles]

I agree with your last sentence except I see exactly why someone would say "most pastors" if they knew quite a variety of churches amongst several different circles. And that would be quite outside what I think yours is, if I'm remembering correctly -- I think we both have known quite a few denominations. But to some people I know (and I don't know if this is the case above), "most pastors" they have known would lead to that unbalanced interpretation. So I would guess someone meant "most pastors" in that narrow definition, not most across the many denominations. Does that make sense?

 

Then "most pastors that I've had experience with" or something along those lines would be more accurate. As it was written it was quite an allegation.

[8circles]

unnecessary

 

I see I worded that poorly..I apologize. I'd just discovered that my 4 yo may have cpox for the 2nd time and was a bit distracted. I meant it as trying to guess what she might have been trying to say & putting it in more exact terms.

[Marylou]

I see I worded that poorly..I apologize. I'd just discovered that my 4 yo may have cpox for the 2nd time and was a bit distracted. I meant it as trying to guess what she might have been trying to say & putting it in more exact terms.

 

No problem.

[Blueridge]

The Bible says that husbands are to "love their wives as Christ loved the church" and love their wives "as their own bodies" (Ephesians 5:25,28). Further on in this same passage the Apostle Paul says "each one of you must love his wife as he loves himself" (vs. 33). The fact is that the husband is required to love his wife as Christ loves the Church. In failing to do so, he would be lying about Christ's love for the church, and conceivably he would be held accountable for any resulting damage to her spiritual health. Speaking from my own experiences in several types of Baptist churches, my understanding is that if someone (I will speak of a husband here) fails to exhibit any of the fruits of the spirit in his life, it is at least within the realm of possibility that the man may never have completely given his heart to Jesus, and as such remains in 'unsaved condition'. Under that circumstance, the wife is bound with an unbeliever. 2 Cor. 6:14 says, "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" In this case, I am personally not sure what 'duty' the wife would have of following her husband in biblical submission. In the examples the OP has given, there seems to be evidence of mental and emotional abuse. I would never suggest that anyone under these difficult conditions consider divorce, because the scriptures also speak of unbelievers being won over to Christ through the loving kindness and devotion of their wives, but I would also hope that the wife would seek wise counsel from a trusted and trained professional.

[justamouse]

It sounds like you are saying that I should have stayed where I was... because unity is more important. That's what they tell everybody. (btw, I edited my post)

 

No, not at all, but that splits all over are common. And why?

[redsquirrel]

Do you think having the man as head makes the marriage better? (I know what the Bible says; I am asking about personal experience) I wouldn't know. My marriage is a partnership of two equal adults.

 

Do you think it makes the family better to have one head, which is the man? No. What would gender and/or basic plumbing have to do with that?

 

I have heard, "If you don't have a head, who makes the final decision?" How would you answer this? Never been an issue. We have not ever had a real disagreement about anything in 15 plus years. If we were at an impasse we would prob go with whoever had the biggest stake in the outcome

 

answers in green.

[Lovedtodeath]

I really don't want to be the last post here and sometimes I post things just because they come to mind, not because I feel like they are proving anything.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[Aelwydd]

When your only checkpoint is a circle of people who have no authority and are under no authority, you are making God in your own image because you are saying He's no smarter than yourselves.

 

 

justamouse, there are a lot of areas I agree with you, but this one I cannot.

 

Your Catholic Church has acknowledged no one can know the true state of faith in another's soul, and is why the RCC doesn't make official statements, for example, such as "Adolf Hitler is in hell."

 

How then, can you make such sweeping statements about the personal understanding another has regarding his/her perception of God's image?

 

I can make sweeping statements, too. The Catholic Church originally broke with the other four Ecumenical Patriarchs, because her Pope apparently believed his authority to be separate and extant, above even that of the council of equals, which had theretofore always been the rule of the Church leadership.

 

Peter may have had the keys, but it wasn't Peter who issued the last, and final, judgment in the First Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15. It was James, and the Bishop of Jerusalem, who had the distinction of issuing the Apostolic Decree, despite Peter's presence at the same meeting.

 

If one is to going to appeal to very roots of the Church, one must consider all of the evidence, not just that which favors or buttresses personal loyalties or beliefs.

 

 

The See of Peter has always had issues around authority, primarily around why its sole Patriarch should be regarded as endowed with greater authority than the rest of the Sees put together. "First among equals," does not mean greater, or more authoritative, and it never did until the Great Schism around 1000 A.D. To me, it's no mystery why the Reformation happened; it was the "sin" of Rome visited upon her own head. A taste of her own medicine, so to speak.

 

That is why whenever I encounter RCC theologians condescending toward Protestants regarding the authority issue, I always hear the following refrain in my head, set to the Lone Ranger theme music:

And the Son, and the Son, and the Son, Son, Son!

And the Son, and the Son, and the Son, Son, Son!

And the Son, and the Son, and the Son, Son, Son!

Soooon, and the Son, Son, Son!!!

 

Put simply, all branches of the Church, have had their schisms and divisions (yes, you too, Orthodox. The Coptics, the Armenians, the Oriental Orthodox are among many other splinter groups).

 

I was raised in a Protestant evangelical group, and spent years investigating Reformed Theology. My dissatisfaction with the one-dimensional nature of its approach to all things spiritual (hyper rationalization of Scripture, to the nth degree), I moved on to traditional Anglicanism, where I studied and researched the Early Church, the Apostolic Fathers, the saints and the doctors of the RCC and several theological works of the Orthodox Church.

 

I did this to get to the bottom of the matter: the original Church, and her beliefs, so that I could have the assurance that what I was hearing and practicing was in line with the the "fullness of the faith" as once delivered to the apostles. I was looking for an authoritative, definitive theology and a sound Church.

 

What I found was an amorphous, highly differentiated, infantile church, that always, always, always had disputes about authority, and none of the groups involved were without fault when it came to who gave them their power to teach, and how they taught and practices. I laugh at the "unimpeachable" Apostolic line of the RCC. It is riddled with questionable orders and even includes one Pope Joan, who most assuredly did exist, despite attempts to wipe her memory from history. The Orthodox have their own issues, especially after Constantinople became the epicenter of Christianity.

 

(Shall I digress about how Constantine coerced bishops through intimidation and favors to come to a "universal" agreement at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD? Oh, yes, the Holy Spirit most definitely at work through the established authority of her Bishops.)

 

Shall I talk about how the cross was never used as a symbol of Christianity and the Church until Constantine, and his armies, made it synonymous with the sword as well?

 

I am tired of this endless argument about authority. Neither the RCC, nor the Orthodox, nor the Protestants emulate the Trinity--the Holy Members of Whom are proclaimed Co-Equal by both Western and Eastern doctrine.

 

I have come to a completely different conclusion--that actually, as the Trinity has always been about love and unity, issues of authority never existed until Lucifer raised them. We never saw Adam issue orders to Eve, or seek to subvert her to a lessor position. That perfect alignment was disrupted by humanity's attempt to attain a higher position, as coerced by Lucifer. And it was left to God to explain how this disunity between God and Man, would also now lead to disunity within mankind--thus, the strife for power between the sexes.

 

So, when I hear Churches or groups start proclaiming their authority, that actually serves as a red flag to me, because claims of power are always associated with anti-Christ. Jesus showed himself to be the complete antipode of Lucifer, when he consistently sought to debase himself, refuse to take power, or to attempt to bend others to His will by making claims to his position as Son of God.

 

Therefore, in my opinion, the more hung up a church or group is on its authority, the more it seeks to bend others to its will on the basis of its authority, the more anti-Christ it is.

 

As a side note, I think this is why God was so dismayed in the Old Testament when the Israelites insisted on a king; they wanted a visible, bodily testament of their divine favor and power among the nations. They wanted a king, because of how powerful it would make them look to others.

 

God warned them what a king would do. He would tax them, send their sons to war, and take their daughters for marriage. He would lay a heavy burden on them. This is what having a leader means. This is what having a position of authority means.

 

Israel could have had a king to lord over her, or a Divine Lover to join with and become one with her. They chose a king, and they got Saul.

 

And in my dh's and my marriage, we look at it the same way. We share responsibility for our choices, but true authority alone resides with God. Neither one of us is eager to make claim to that, because frankly, we seek to model our marriage after the Trinity-- not a damaged and damaging paradigm that has disrupted human relations since the Fall itself.

[8circles]

Rebekah, I have no words.

:iagree:

justamouse, there are a lot of areas I agree with you, but this one I cannot.

 

Your Catholic Church has acknowledged no one can know the true state of faith in another's soul, and is why the RCC doesn't make official statements, for example, such as "Adolf Hitler is in hell."

 

How then, can you make such sweeping statements about the personal understanding another has regarding his/her perception of God's image?

 

I can make sweeping statements, too. The Catholic Church originally broke with the other four Ecumenical Patriarchs, because her Pope apparently believed his authority to be separate and extant, above even that of the council of equals, which had theretofore always been the rule of the Church leadership.

 

Peter may have had the keys, but it wasn't Peter who issued the last, and final, judgment in the First Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15. It was James, and the Bishop of Jerusalem, who had the distinction of issuing the Apostolic Decree, despite Peter's presence at the same meeting.

 

If one is to going to appeal to very roots of the Church, one must consider all of the evidence, not just that which favors or buttresses personal loyalties or beliefs.

 

 

The See of Peter has always had issues around authority, primarily around why its sole Patriarch should be regarded as endowed with greater authority than the rest of the Sees put together. "First among equals," does not mean greater, or more authoritative, and it never did until the Great Schism around 1000 A.D. To me, it's no mystery why the Reformation happened; it was the "sin" of Rome visited upon her own head. A taste of her own medicine, so to speak.

 

That is why whenever I encounter RCC theologians condescending toward Protestants regarding the authority issue, I always hear the following refrain in my head, set to the Lone Ranger theme music:

 

And the Son, and the Son, and the Son, Son, Son!

 

And the Son, and the Son, and the Son, Son, Son!

 

And the Son, and the Son, and the Son, Son, Son!

 

Soooon, and the Son, Son, Son!!!

 

 

Put simply, all branches of the Church, have had their schisms and divisions (yes, you too, Orthodox. The Coptics, the Armenians, the Oriental Orthodox are among many other splinter groups).

 

I was raised in a Protestant evangelical group, and spent years investigating Reformed Theology. My dissatisfaction with the one-dimensional nature of its approach to all things spiritual (hyper rationalization of Scripture, to the nth degree), I moved on to traditional Anglicanism, where I studied and researched the Early Church, the Apostolic Fathers, the saints and the doctors of the RCC and several theological works of the Orthodox Church.

 

I did this to get to the bottom of the matter: the original Church, and her beliefs, so that I could have the assurance that what I was hearing and practicing was in line with the the "fullness of the faith" as once delivered to the apostles. I was looking for an authoritative, definitive theology and a sound Church.

 

What I found was an amorphous, highly differentiated, infantile church, that always, always, always had disputes about authority, and none of the groups involved were without fault when it came to who gave them their power to teach, and how they taught and practices. I laugh at the "unimpeachable" Apostolic line of the RCC. It is riddled with questionable orders and even includes one Pope Joan, who most assuredly did exist, despite attempts to wipe her memory from history. The Orthodox have their own issues, especially after Constantinople became the epicenter of Christianity.

 

(Shall I digress about how Constantine coerced bishops through intimidation and favors to come to a "universal" agreement at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD? Oh, yes, the Holy Spirit most definitely at work through the established authority of her Bishops.)

 

Shall I talk about how the cross was never used as a symbol of Christianity and the Church until Constantine, and his armies, made it synonymous with the sword as well?

 

I am tired of this endless argument about authority. Neither the RCC, nor the Orthodox, nor the Protestants emulate the Trinity--the Holy Members of Whom are proclaimed Co-Equal by both Western and Eastern doctrine.

 

I have come to a completely different conclusion--that actually, as the Trinity has always been about love and unity, issues of authority never existed until Lucifer raised them. We never saw Adam issue orders to Eve, or seek to subvert her to a lessor position. That perfect alignment was disrupted by humanity's attempt to attain a higher position, as coerced by Lucifer. And it was left to God to explain how this disunity between God and Man, would also now lead to disunity within mankind--thus, the strife for power between the sexes.

 

So, when I hear Churches or groups start proclaiming their authority, that actually serves as a red flag to me, because claims of power are always associated with anti-Christ. Jesus showed himself to be the complete antipode of Lucifer, when he consistently sought to debase himself, refuse to take power, or to attempt to bend others to His will by making claims to his position as Son of God.

 

Therefore, in my opinion, the more hung up a church or group is on its authority, the more it seeks to bend others to its will on the basis of its authority, the more anti-Christ it is.

 

As a side note, I think this is why God was so dismayed in the Old Testament when the Israelites insisted on a king; they wanted a visible, bodily testament of their divine favor and power among the nations. They wanted a king, because of how powerful it would make them look to others.

 

God warned them what a king would do. He would tax them, send their sons to war, and take their daughters for marriage. He would lay a heavy burden on them. This is what having a leader means. This is what having a position of authority means.

 

Israel could have had a king to lord over her, or a Divine Lover to join with and become one with her. They chose a king, and they got Saul.

 

And in my dh's and my marriage, we look at it the same way. We share responsibility for our choices, but true authority alone resides with God. Neither one of us is eager to make claim to that, because frankly, we seek to model our marriage after the Trinity-- not a damaged and damaging paradigm that has disrupted human relations since the Fall itself.

[TranquilMind]

marbel: If a new car is needed, the husband rightly suggests that a small SUV is the best choice for their family, but the wife insists on a sporty two-seater and nothing else, and will not relent, he would be right to go and buy the small SUV. (I've never seen this, or anything like it, happen in any healthy marriage, though I've seen similar in unhealthy marriages where there were power struggles. In a healthy marriage it would never go that far.)

 

 

Is anyone that dumb to insist on a two seater when she has a family? I don't think so.

 

 

Honestly, though I am a capable person who supported myself for years before marrying late in life, I like knowing that if my husband and I cannot come to agreement on something, I can say "you decide" and know he will decide what's best for us.

 

I can do that too, but then he will as often defer the decision to me. It just depends upon who is more knowledgeable about that particular thing and/or who has the strongest opinion.

 

 

I don't worry that I am inferior or that he is above me in a hierarchy. I don't think about it much except when someone else asks a question like this, and I always wonder why it's so hard for people to understand. <shrug> Oh well, I guess. ;) BTW he is as likely to say "you decide" to me when it's an area where I have more expertise or a bigger stake in the outcome.

 

 

Yeah, this.

[Nestof3]

Wow! I am speechless. This is good.

 

:tongue_smilie:

justamouse, there are a lot of areas I agree with you, but this one I cannot.

 

Your Catholic Church has acknowledged no one can know the true state of faith in another's soul, and is why the RCC doesn't make official statements, for example, such as "Adolf Hitler is in hell."

 

How then, can you make such sweeping statements about the personal understanding another has regarding his/her perception of God's image?

 

I can make sweeping statements, too. The Catholic Church originally broke with the other four Ecumenical Patriarchs, because her Pope apparently believed his authority to be separate and extant, above even that of the council of equals, which had theretofore always been the rule of the Church leadership.

 

Peter may have had the keys, but it wasn't Peter who issued the last, and final, judgment in the First Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15. It was James, and the Bishop of Jerusalem, who had the distinction of issuing the Apostolic Decree, despite Peter's presence at the same meeting.

 

If one is to going to appeal to very roots of the Church, one must consider all of the evidence, not just that which favors or buttresses personal loyalties or beliefs.

 

 

The See of Peter has always had issues around authority, primarily around why its sole Patriarch should be regarded as endowed with greater authority than the rest of the Sees put together. "First among equals," does not mean greater, or more authoritative, and it never did until the Great Schism around 1000 A.D. To me, it's no mystery why the Reformation happened; it was the "sin" of Rome visited upon her own head. A taste of her own medicine, so to speak.

 

That is why whenever I encounter RCC theologians condescending toward Protestants regarding the authority issue, I always hear the following refrain in my head, set to the Lone Ranger theme music:

And the Son, and the Son, and the Son, Son, Son!

And the Son, and the Son, and the Son, Son, Son!

And the Son, and the Son, and the Son, Son, Son!

Soooon, and the Son, Son, Son!!!

 

Put simply, all branches of the Church, have had their schisms and divisions (yes, you too, Orthodox. The Coptics, the Armenians, the Oriental Orthodox are among many other splinter groups).

 

I was raised in a Protestant evangelical group, and spent years investigating Reformed Theology. My dissatisfaction with the one-dimensional nature of its approach to all things spiritual (hyper rationalization of Scripture, to the nth degree), I moved on to traditional Anglicanism, where I studied and researched the Early Church, the Apostolic Fathers, the saints and the doctors of the RCC and several theological works of the Orthodox Church.

 

I did this to get to the bottom of the matter: the original Church, and her beliefs, so that I could have the assurance that what I was hearing and practicing was in line with the the "fullness of the faith" as once delivered to the apostles. I was looking for an authoritative, definitive theology and a sound Church.

 

What I found was an amorphous, highly differentiated, infantile church, that always, always, always had disputes about authority, and none of the groups involved were without fault when it came to who gave them their power to teach, and how they taught and practices. I laugh at the "unimpeachable" Apostolic line of the RCC. It is riddled with questionable orders and even includes one Pope Joan, who most assuredly did exist, despite attempts to wipe her memory from history. The Orthodox have their own issues, especially after Constantinople became the epicenter of Christianity.

 

(Shall I digress about how Constantine coerced bishops through intimidation and favors to come to a "universal" agreement at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD? Oh, yes, the Holy Spirit most definitely at work through the established authority of her Bishops.)

 

Shall I talk about how the cross was never used as a symbol of Christianity and the Church until Constantine, and his armies, made it synonymous with the sword as well?

 

I am tired of this endless argument about authority. Neither the RCC, nor the Orthodox, nor the Protestants emulate the Trinity--the Holy Members of Whom are proclaimed Co-Equal by both Western and Eastern doctrine.

 

I have come to a completely different conclusion--that actually, as the Trinity has always been about love and unity, issues of authority never existed until Lucifer raised them. We never saw Adam issue orders to Eve, or seek to subvert her to a lessor position. That perfect alignment was disrupted by humanity's attempt to attain a higher position, as coerced by Lucifer. And it was left to God to explain how this disunity between God and Man, would also now lead to disunity within mankind--thus, the strife for power between the sexes.

 

So, when I hear Churches or groups start proclaiming their authority, that actually serves as a red flag to me, because claims of power are always associated with anti-Christ. Jesus showed himself to be the complete antipode of Lucifer, when he consistently sought to debase himself, refuse to take power, or to attempt to bend others to His will by making claims to his position as Son of God.

 

Therefore, in my opinion, the more hung up a church or group is on its authority, the more it seeks to bend others to its will on the basis of its authority, the more anti-Christ it is.

 

As a side note, I think this is why God was so dismayed in the Old Testament when the Israelites insisted on a king; they wanted a visible, bodily testament of their divine favor and power among the nations. They wanted a king, because of how powerful it would make them look to others.

 

God warned them what a king would do. He would tax them, send their sons to war, and take their daughters for marriage. He would lay a heavy burden on them. This is what having a leader means. This is what having a position of authority means.

 

Israel could have had a king to lord over her, or a Divine Lover to join with and become one with her. They chose a king, and they got Saul.

 

And in my dh's and my marriage, we look at it the same way. We share responsibility for our choices, but true authority alone resides with God. Neither one of us is eager to make claim to that, because frankly, we seek to model our marriage after the Trinity-- not a damaged and damaging paradigm that has disrupted human relations since the Fall itself.

[TranquilMind]

Aelwydd:

 

Peter may have had the keys, but it wasn't Peter who issued the last, and final, judgment in the First Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15. It was James, and the Bishop of Jerusalem, who had the distinction of issuing the Apostolic Decree, despite Peter's presence at the same meeting.

 

If one is to going to appeal to very roots of the Church, one must consider all of the evidence, not just that which favors or buttresses personal loyalties or beliefs.

 

So very true.

 

What I found was an amorphous, highly differentiated, infantile church, that always, always, always had disputes about authority, and none of the groups involved were without fault when it came to who gave them their power to teach, and how they taught and practices.

 

This is true of all of the church here on earth, with rare pockets here and there throughout time who work the way He intended...for a time, until human avarice enters in.

 

I have come to a completely different conclusion--that actually, as the Trinity has always been about love and unity, issues of authority never existed until Lucifer raised them. We never saw Adam issue orders to Eve, or seek to subvert her to a lessor position. That perfect alignment was disrupted by humanity's attempt to attain a higher position, as coerced by Lucifer. And it was left to God to explain how this disunity between God and Man, would also now lead to disunity within mankind--thus, the strife for power between the sexes.

 

I think you are right.

 

So, when I hear Churches or groups start proclaiming their authority, that actually serves as a red flag to me, because claims of power are always associated with anti-Christ. Jesus showed himself to be the complete antipode of Lucifer, when he consistently sought to debase himself, refuse to take power, or to attempt to bend others to His will by making claims to his position as Son of God.

 

Therefore, in my opinion, the more hung up a church or group is on its authority, the more it seeks to bend others to its will on the basis of its authority, the more anti-Christ it is.

 

Gotta agree here too, totally. This is just not how the Holy Spirit works, and I've seen churches split over and over - and even shut their doors- due to those loudly proclaiming their authority over whomever else doesn't agree with them.

 

As a side note, I think this is why God was so dismayed in the Old Testament when the Israelites insisted on a king; they wanted a visible, bodily testament of their divine favor and power among the nations. They wanted a king, because of how powerful it would make them look to others.

 

God warned them what a king would do. He would tax them, send their sons to war, and take their daughters for marriage. He would lay a heavy burden on them. This is what having a leader means. This is what having a position of authority means.

 

Israel could have had a king to lord over her, or a Divine Lover to join with and become one with her. They chose a king, and they got Saul.

 

Yep.

 

And in my dh's and my marriage, we look at it the same way. We share responsibility for our choices, but true authority alone resides with God. Neither one of us is eager to make claim to that, because frankly, we seek to model our marriage after the Trinity-- not a damaged and damaging paradigm that has disrupted human relations since the Fall itself.

 

I think we see it this way in practice as well, though I never thought of it the way you have stated it here. Very interesting.

[I.Dup.]

Rebekah, I HAVE to ask...what do you believe to be the true Church? :bigear::bigear:

[Aelwydd]

Rebekah, I HAVE to ask...what do you believe to be the true Church? :bigear::bigear:

 

In a way, that question is predicated upon the ability to recognize the state of another's soul. The Church is presumably comprised of the redeemed, those who are saved by God's love for all eternity.

 

But, if you asked, I don't know that I could describe my own soul, much less figure out the state of someone else's. Sure, I can judge based on actions or present circumstances ("Oh, he's an alcoholic," "Man, she aborted her baby with no qualms!"), but I can't tell you what inner conversations they have had, or will have with God. I can't know the moment their soul departs this plane, and enters the next, so the destination is a mystery to me. And I don't know the conversations they will have with God beyond this life.

 

I can tell you that I believe God looks for reasons to save us, not to **** us. And that if a bus was bearing down on my child, I wouldn't wait for his permission to push him out of the way and save him.

 

If we, being evil, know how to give good gifts to our children, how much more so does our Heavenly Father know how to take care of us?

 

So, I can't explain to you what the shape of the Church looks like, except maybe the shape of...humanity, itself?

 

I have hope for the salvation of all souls.

[justamouse]

justamouse, there are a lot of areas I agree with you, but this one I cannot.

 

 

 

Well, my statement, when I made, it had nothing really to do with the RCC, I was talking about my own experiences from the churches I attended--which is why I gave the examples I did. From the numerous churches I went to that split. Until I got so sick of the sickness of it that I left church for 9 years and tried the homechurch route. I was talking about the people who lost their faith for good, who were so hurt that thier families broke apart for taking sides. The people who lost large amounts of money that they had given in good faith. The people I know who still can't manage to step foot in a church.

 

Lots of churches DO have authority. Not just the RCC. There are many that do, and they should. It is safer for congregants. If thier own pastor gets a little too off, they have someone to help reign him in.

 

The one pastor I'm remembering got the boot from 4 Square. It was a minor reprimand, though, because he just started another non-denom and lied to those people. Not small lies, either. Big lies, like who he was. He had a habit of reinventing himself as he pleased.

 

But thanks for the history lesson on the RCC. I have been listening to Peter Kreeft's What would Socrates Do, The History of Moral THought and Ethics and he goes into the aspect of making God into our own image deeply. You can pick it up pretty cheaply. You may want to listen to what he says about it, or I could lend it to you when I'm done. I'm not being sarcastic.

 

And, I don't agree with you at all, but that's besinde the point. The RCC being the AntiChrist is as old as Luther himself. I'm very sorry the church you loved joined the RCC, I can see it hurt you deeply.

 

And, of course Allison would agree. That's to be expected.

Edited July 12, 2012 by justamouse

[8circles]

And, of course Allison would agree. That's to be expected.

 

My agreement seems to have bothered you. I'm sorry, it wasn't intentional. I don't desire to argue with you.

[Aelwydd]

Well, my statement, when I made it had nothing really to do with the RCC, I was talking about my own experiences from the churches I attended--which is why I gave the examples I did. From the numerous churches I went to that split. Until I got so sick of the sickness of it that I left church for 9 years and tried the homechurch route. I was talking about the people who lost their faith for good, who were so hurt that thier families broke apart for taking sides. The people who lost large amounts of money that they had given in good faith. The people I know who still can't manage to step foot in a church.

 

But thanks for the history lesson on the RCC.

 

And, of course Allison would agree. That's to be expected.

 

justamouse, look, I'm not...condemning Catholic or Orthodox members for being so. What I am protesting is whenever issues are brought up about the basis of authority in Protestant churches, these issues are cited using same old arguments. These arguments do contain valid criticisms. But they ignore the very same faults within supposedly "authoritative" Churches from which these arguments were first derived, which is why I posted about the history of the Church.

 

When it comes to church authority, I guess I've co-opted the X-Files theme: Trust no one.

 

I get that house churches and independent churches are often set up around little dictators, as I call them. I agree that their claims to authority are spurious at best, and potentially quite harmful.

 

But being in a church with a hierarchy is really no assurance that authority won't be abused there either. That was the point of my challenge: if you are asking others why they put their faith in a particular church leadership model, I really want to know this: why do you put your faith in your church's leadership?

 

Or maybe you don't? I may have misjudged your position, in which case, I apologize.

[justamouse]

justamouse, look, I'm not...condemning Catholic or Orthodox members for being so. What I am protesting is whenever issues are brought up about the basis of authority in Protestant churches, these issues are cited using same old arguments. These arguments do contain valid criticisms. But they ignore the very same faults within supposedly "authoritative" Churches from which these arguments were first derived, which is why I posted about the history of the Church.

 

When it comes to church authority, I guess I've co-opted the X-Files theme: Trust no one.

 

I get that house churches and independent churches are often set up around little dictators, as I call them. I agree that their claims to authority are spurious at best, and potentially quite harmful.

 

But being in a church with a hierarchy is really no assurance that authority won't be abused there either. That was the point of my challenge: if you are asking others why they put their faith in a particular church leadership model, I really want to know this: why do you put your faith in your church's leadership?

 

Or maybe you don't? I may have misjudged your position, in which case, I apologize.

 

 

Of course people get abused in churches with a hirearchy. People get abused in many organizations with a hirearchy-even schools. But there's recourse.

 

Do I put my faith in the RCC leadership? Faith? Well, no, not really. Not in so much a cynical way, but in that it's not the men that is the leadership because they live and die, but it's the tenants and the Dogma that I put my faith in. The Tradition. It's not the orgnaization of the RCC, it's THE RCC, without the mitres. Do you know what I mean? Popes come and go, they die, as well with priests. But the ..ark of the RCC that keeps going without them, because of what it is, for 2000 years. The church is the people, those that also submit to the dogma and Tradition and all that and THAT's what I put my faith in. That the Holy Spirit won't leave it because it hasn't, no matter who has come and gone.

 

I can't think of a better word than ark-though I know that's loaded. Something large, all encompasing, and safe in the ancientness of Dogma. It can't be tossed around like a bouy in a storm.

 

And, I fully admit that my joining it may be (probably is) in reaction to my past church history. But I feel safe. It will be there, and the same, when I'm gone. My kids will be able to go to any of them in the whole world in 60 years and know that they are touching something trancendant.

Edited July 12, 2012 by justamouse