And whatever it was, how well does it transfer to online communication?
And whatever it was, how well does it transfer to online communication?
Yes. And learning to let something go online is remarkably hard for both sexes, and requires particular humility in the situations under discussion for women. But it isn’t only about recognizing there are times to be silent (and public vs private playing a role in that). There is also a way to discourse that demonstrates feminine deference, as Heather points out above.
I hesitate to try to expound on it in particularities, but here is one fraught example. Use questions. Ask them in good faith, even if you know the answer and consequences. Ask without being passive-aggressive. Ask without being manipulative. Never forget that even questions can become inappropriate and silence becomes the appropriate course of action.
But should our questions not be addressed to our husbands? Hah! Asking this of Pastor Bayly, am I in error? Oh, we have so much to learn!
A blog or social media exchange is not a church service. I don’t think the directive for women to be silent can be stretched that far.
True, but the principle remains.
The quality of a quiet and gentle spirit is never strained.
I changed the topic title again since nobody’s talking about the original topic.
I read this last night in Chris Wiley’s book, Man of the House. Seems like this may be a factor in the distinction above. Obviously it’s not always wrong for a woman to correct a man when he’s in error, even online. But I’m sure we’ve all known women who are all-too-eager to do so, even ones who are generally not feminist.
The sidebar title reminds me of a tale: About 15 years ago, Doug and Nancy did a weekend conference at a church in NC. When I inquired of MP3 Audio’s Gregg Strawbridge re the title of one of Doug’s talks, he said that it was “Quit Ye Like Men.” I replied, “But I don’t want to quit liking men!”
My submission to my husband’s leadership and shepherding doesn’t end when church is over. I believe I have the freedom to engage in conversations regarding matters of theology with others, however, I must remain under his authority and with him, under the authority of the elders of our local church. We are still fleshing out what this looks like, where lines are drawn, etc.
When I think about my own temptation to fight for my own equality and dignity among those in higher stature, I’m reminded of this:
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Yet men and women, who have not existed in the form of God, grasp for equality with those whom the Lord has placed over us. The Lord has placed father’s and mothers over us, church elders, magistrates, and yes husbands over wives.
It’s not that we don’t have any ability to speak with those over us, but that we do so with honor and respect. Somewhere along the line, we have forgotten what it means to honor our father and mother, our magistrates, and wives their husbands; the feeling of indignity caused by the law of submission.
But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind…
Ah, but the immediate response is that in this case, the man is not “over” the woman in any formal way or even in an informal way. None of those offices exist.
In the end all that remains is male/female, old/young, and maybe some other natural distinction that I’m not remembering. The point I was trying to make when I took us off topic in my first post was that these natural categories do exist and have implications still, and that those who want to deny any implication are actually fighting against Gods natural order.
Liberal egalitarians today are actually getting at the truth somewhat when they point out that we don’t live in a meritocracy as much as we (Americans at least) think. Often it’s simply an accident of birth that determines much of your life. Other “accidents” along the way in life also have huge impacts.
The Christian agrees and says that these accidents aren’t accidental but God’s sovereign plan. He raises up kings, etc.
Egalitarians then insist that because everybody is a “human being” that there be absolutely no difference in how anybody is treated. You even see it in places where it should be obvious that it won’t work, such as people raising children and talking to them and treating them as if they are their peers. It never works. The world comes unglued if nobody has priority anywhere based on anything.
To treat somebody differently based on their accidental comparative positional relationship to yourself is fundamental to having order in society.
Hmmm…while I certainly agree with this in principle, the implied application—that random internet guy is “over” me—is not something I can agree with. Women in general are not called to submit to men in general, but in specific relationships.
You’re right that it’s not “every woman submitting to every man,” and yet there’s a proper feminine deference to men that is good and right.
Here’s a post from Baylyblog that speaks of that deference.
It’s not simple to pin down, because it’s not so much a list of rules as an attitude and a spirit. For me it might be something similar to how I speak of another man’s boss. He’s not my boss, he’s not directly over me, I don’t have to submit to him! Yet he is a man in authority, and as all authority comes from God my speech regarding him should reflect that.
Want to agree with you, but as it stands the statement is misleading since the order of man and woman is foundational to all creation and declared by God thusly: the man is the glory of God and the woman the glory of man. This truth applies to every man and woman regardless of other stations in life such as boss/employee, teacher/student/, king/subject, husband/wife/, parent/child. Every man and every woman should seek to demonstrate their first/second order of creation in all of life, and that includes social media and dinner table conversations. My mother would disagree with men at the table,and do so firmly, but always with feminine deference that was observable. It’s a difficult thing to say today, but Christians have always understood it. Love,
I just finished reading No Sense of Place, and I’ll spare you the need to read it. Here’s his thesis statement:
I argue that the number of distinct group identities, stages of socialization, and levels of authority in a society is linked to the number of distinct public spheres, the sharpness of the division between backstage and onstage settings, and the strength of the relationship between physical location and social experience…
I argue that because electronic media merge formerly distinct public spheres, blur the dividing line between private and public behaviors, and sever the traditional link between physical space and social “place,” we have witnessed a resulting diffusion of group identities, a merging of different stages of socialization, and a flattening of hierarchies.
I think this discussion is precisely what that book is all about. However, in a typical academic way, he doesn’t prescribe behavior, he just tries to describe it.