Nothing weak or subordinate about being maternal

    1: But you speak things which are fitting for sound doctrine 2: Men [who are] elders be sober grave temperate sound in faith in love in patience 3: Women [who are] elders likewise in deportment reverent not false accusers not given to much wine teachers of good things 4: To nurture [Tyndale] the young be sober affectionate [1]maternal 5: self-controlled pure [2]guards [of the] home good yielding [only] to their own men [3] that the word of God be not evil spoken of 
Titus 2:1-5

[1] There is nothing weak or subordinate about being maternal. The Holy Spirit (Greek Pneuma neuter / Hebrew Ruwach feminine) is maternal. We see that in Genesis 1:2 where Ruwach Elohiym broods and flutters over the face of the waters (like a mother hen or bird). Deborah, as supreme leader of the nation, was called a Mother in Israel.

[2] How is it that “guards of the home” gets translated into house-keepers or housewives? Only by misogyny in Bible translation and commentary. 

[3] In the social hierarchy of ancient times, the status of women was only just above that of slaves. The equal status of Christian women under Paul’s leadership was scandalous. The Greek word, hypotasso, mistranslated here [concerning wives] as “be obedient to,” is grammatically in the “middle voice” which softens it from a military term to a voluntary, Christlike, yielding, as in “preferring one another before ourselves.” We see a New Testament example of the word being used in just such a manner in 1 Peter 5:5 (KJV #ReceivedTextFriendofWomen).

The word hypotasso, most often translated as submit,be subject to, and be in subjection to, does not always mean to be arrayed “under.” So, the accepted definition is erroneous. If Paul intended hypotasso to mean “obey” or “be subject to” in this verse [and we maintain that he did not], it should be taken entirely within the cultural constructs of the time where just a few verses down, he also instructs slaves to be obedient to masters. 
   The entire civilized world, now rightly condemns the enslavement of human beings and recognizes it for the primitive sin that it is. So why is it that using religion to enslave women [female submission doctrine] continues to be accepted and touted as God’s *glorious design? 
   The fact that some women claim to cheerfully accept the yoke of gender-based bondage, does not change the nature of it. The fact that some women have “good masters” does not negate the fact that their autonomy as adults is abridged by complementarian doctrine.  
   Using religion to coerce women into subjection to men is a form of slavery. Calling the design “glorious” is pure propaganda. 

*Since the 2010 release of, Woman this is War! Gender, Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System,” where the “glorious design” motto of CBMW (and the rhetoric of ***prominent complementarians) was compared to that of the Civil War Confederacy,” in touting their “glorious” cause [of preserving a way of life built entirely on slavery], CBMW has since deleted from their website any mention of, **“Proclaiming God’s Glorious Design for Men and Women.” However, leading complementarians in concert with one another, continue use a slightly modified form of their former motto. They are now “Proclaiming God’s Good Design.”
 ** The former motto can be viewed via internet archive screen shots. By 2014, CBMW had completely scrubbed it from its website:

*** “Discipline doesn’t stifle; it gives power…Why shouldn’t it be so when we consider the glorious hierarchal order too?” (emphasis added) Elizabeth Elliott, Let Me be a Woman: Notes to My Daughter on the Meaning of Womanhood, Living Books, Wheaton, Ill, 1982

No comments:

Post a Comment