Talk:Christian views on marriage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern / Anglicanism / Baptist / Latter Day Saints / Witnesses (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Baptist work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses.
 
WikiProject Family and relationships
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of family and relationships articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

Response on history[edit]

Prior to the Council of Trent in the 16th century, it was not uncommon to publicly celebrate marriages on church steps. Moreover, marriage was believed to be a sacrament even if celebrated privately, without any witnesses. (Just as baptism is a sacrament even when it is performed privately by one layman on another layman.) The Council of Trent, in order to emphasize the sacramental nature of marriage, required that a valid marriage should involve a cleric and two witnesses (except, I assume, in cases of necessity, like desert isles, and so on).

There was no opposition to marriage, since marriage was always seen as an image of the love between Christ and the Church, but celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God has always been touted as even better than marriage. -- Alexander Pruss

Intro and lead sentence has too much POV[edit]

I removed many of the more subjective sentences in the first couple of paragraphs because they do not have proper sources and are only true for some denominations of Christianity. This intro should be broad and true instead of narrow and false. Any changes made to the first section should be discussed here before they are executed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.136.45 (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Anabaptist and Friends (Quaker) marriage?[edit]

I am thinking off adding a short section on Anabaptist marriage views. While similar to Protestantism, the movement has historically taken a harder line on divorce. Also, marriage customs differ from in some respects (e.g., some sects have no wedding rings, etc.).

Also, I think there may be some value to adding a brief reference to Friends (Quaker) view on marriage considering their somewhat unique perspective on marriage.

Would these entries best fit under the Protestant section or elsewhere? Any other comments, ideas, suggestions? Thanks. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 00:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC) balls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.128.113 (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Consolidating articles?[edit]

At the present, in addition to this article, there is also Monogamy in Christianity and a Polygamy in Christianity. Any thoughts on merging some or all of these articles? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 23:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Surv1v4l1st, seems like a good idea provided that the main article is Christian views of marriage. Is that what you have in mind? ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I think that makes the most sense. There seems to be a lot of duplicated materials in the other articles that could use some trimming too. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 15:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Jewish views on marriage[edit]

I now realize why Afaprof changed what I thought was a correction to the page. Jewish views on marriage is the article that one gets to when clicking on Marriage in the Bible. However, I do not think that the above mentioned article is the main article for anything in this article. The vast majority of what it describes is based on Jewish traditions that are not themselves taken directly from the Hebrew bible. In other words 90% of the entry has nothing whatsoever to do with the biblical foundations of Christian views on marriage. If there were in fact a real entry about "Marriage in the bible", then that entry would be appropriate. I suggest we remove this link altogether or put it into "see also" or something of that sort.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree and have removed the "Main" tag. Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
But your same argument could apply to Jewish views on marriage. Very little of it directly relates to what is written in the Jewish Bible. In which case it seems extremely odd that someone clicking on Marriage in the Bible should be directed to that article. I think we should set up a disambiguation page that offers readers access to the Jewish Bible or the Christian Bible - otherwise it doesn't make sense. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

POV[edit]

I have been concerned for a long time that a lot of this article is being written from one person's particular point of view of marriage within Christianity and their interpretation of Biblical sources. We have to be really careful to keep it balanced and avoid POV - keeping it as factual as possible and linking it where we can to official denominational positions. Otherwise sections about the new testament around fornication and adultery look very shaky indeed. Not all Christians share all the views set out. That means we focus strongly on history, tradition and practice and less on theology (unless in a denominational context). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Contaldo. Since I am the most active editor of this article, I assume you are politely referring to me. You and I have seemed to be in more agreement on other articles, and it's really important to me to understand your concerns about this article.
My edits not being written from my particular point of view of marriage within Christianity, but my edits probably do reflect our deep concerns and broad perspectives from many years as marriage counselors, seminar leaders, and authors. As I'm sure you know, the Wiki article Marriage is totally secular (even liberal secular) which creates a greater need for this one to be from a Christian perspective. Listing the biblical sources of teachings on the subject is not POV, while interpreting them is POV. On the edits that I have done, I have tried to be punctilious with WP:RS citations. I've also tried to be evenhanded in presenting the two major views within Protestantism: Complementarian and Christian Egalitarian (as distinguished from philosophical egalitarianism). (There's a third view, Christian patriarchy, which has not been introduced.
There are quite a few articles on Wikipedia about roles of and restrictions on women in marriage and in ordained positions of ministry. Those roles and restrictions are well documented in the other articles, and I'd like to believe they are well documented in this article.
How can we write about Christian views of marriage and avoid the biblical concerns about sexual fidelity? I am unaware of any major Christian group that sanctions marriage infidelity (adultery and fornication). Certainly there are some that emphasize New Testament teachings in this area either more than or less than certain others. You did make a good catch about the need for a citation on the very first statement in the section on sexual behavior in marriage, and I have now provided it.
Please be assured that I want to address your concerns and continue a dialogue with you about them. Thanks for bringing them up. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Well let's start with something like "According to Genesis, marriage was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden." Is this genuinely the doctrinal position of the bulk of Christian churches? It may well be but I think we need to back up with some sources otherwise it could sound like someone's opinion. Many Christians don't even believe there was such a real place as Eden or indeed Adam and Eve so how can we be sure that what took place actually happened, and was a recognised "marriage"? You may well be right that this is the accepted case but I want to be sure. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The "Chattel" emphasis under the Old Testament sub-section is widely different than that in the article on Jewish_view_of_marriage. Somewhere, one side or the other, or in between, is probably a reasonably neutral point of view. The Jewish interpretation of the Scripture does not seem to meet the disrespect of women ascribed to it in our modern times, which leads me to suspect that the popular "women as chattel" claim is a something read into the Scripture with an agenda rather than reflective of the actual practices.
To put that another way, the section reads more like an indictment than it does a description, and that strongly suggest POV violation.--cregil (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It is sections such as "Family Headship' that give WP a reputation of liberal bias. First, the meaning of "head" is sufficiency obscured so as to cast doubt on it meaning an authoritative leadership position, which is done by teaching that the times (less than 20 out of 76) that the word for "head" is used outside the literal sense, then it is most frequently in the metaphorical sense of "source." But which is sophistry, as outside such metaphorical uses such as Christ being the foundational head stone of the building, whenever it is used in the context of position, as in "the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God, " (1Cor. 11:3) then it denotes far more than simply "source," despite the attempt to reduce it to that.

Then the historical grammatical method is invoked in negating any universality and transcendence for what the Bible says on this issue, which leads to over 500 words on the modern egalitarian position - most of which is a polemic for which one non-linked source is attributed - being given as the primary representative view of Christian teaching on headship. And in which it is asserted, "Christian egalitarianism has biblical support" (rather than "egalitarians see") based on a Pauline text calling for mutual submission, and the section culminates with another assertion, "A straightforward reading of Matthew 20:25–26a, Mark 10:42, and Luke 22:25 suggests that Jesus even forbids any hierarchy of relationships in Christian relationships."

However both assertions are absurd, unless one actually believes Biblical exegesis consists of interpreting texts in isolation from the totality of what the source taught on the subject, and that Paul was at odds with himself in clearly declaring the headship of the Father over the Son and the Son over the church, and the husband over the wife, and requiring submission to leadership, including his own as one that threatened the use his spiritual rod for discipline. (1Cor. 4:21) And that his Lord was also rejecting authoritative leadership in the church, government, and even to His own Father as occupying a higher position, rather than teaching on the servant type character leaders are to adopt, even though they are given authority.

After this, the reader is provided with a couple hundreds words on the complementarian position as if it were a secondary view, which historically nor presently it is not, including the statement that "some Complementarian authors caution that a wife's submission should never cause her to follow her husband into sin," as if this was an exceptional position rather than the opposite being the case, as submission to man is abundantly evidenced as always being conditional. Perhaps a few even preach that the man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it."(Eph. 5:25) And instead of polemical assertions such as "Christian egalitarianism has biblical support" and "A straightforward reading...", the only actual Biblical references in this section are prefaced with the caveat that support "is based on their interpretation of various scriptures."

Now i understand that truth is not the criteria for WP, but verification, and the overwhelming nature of higher education being what it is, it is easy to validate such absurd interpretations with modern revisionist "scholars" that unsurprisingly effectively negate the transcendence of any moral commands by their sophistry, but my point here is that while neither the overwhelming historical position, nor that of the largest Protestant denomination among multitude others, nor that of the Catholic church can be said to be egalitarian, yet this section is not only making the teaching on headship as one that is up for grabs, but ignoring history and the present predominate position, it clearly favors the modern egalitarian view, presenting a polemic for it and only providing a brief summary of the traditional position on headship. Of course, if i spent half as much time at least adding some balance to the section then it could be more substantial, and befitting its predominance, but i thought a protest over the slant was fitting before any changes were made. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources needed[edit]

I think the introduction to this article could use some sources to back up many of the claims that are made and to direct people to places for more information/greater understanding. The claims are all mostly good but there is no harm in expanding the bibliography for this article; more sources will facilitate learning for those who want to go beyond what is provided in the text. There is no reason why the introduction here could not be as adorned with references as other similar articles.Säadtrain (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I also think it is better to have a lede sentence without a direct quotation but with a citation/citations.Säadtrain (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC) http://4a4b.wikispaces.com/file/view/Religious_symbols.jpg/90527231/Religious_symbols.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.180.32.13 (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Page[edit]

Actually, the picture that located on the top of the page is named "Misalliance", so I think that it can't represent a typical Christian wedding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plankalkulist (talkcontribs) 13:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Material moved from Monogamy in Christianity[edit]

I have moved some material here from the article on Monogamy in Christianity for several reasons and I thought I would summarize my thinking.

  • The material addresses an essentially identical topic, and on that basis I could not discern a relevant reason for having the material in two places
  • This article is clearly more substantial and, quite importantly, is more actively edited and corrected. The page view numbers are considerably higher and the number of article watchers is more than double (69 versus "less than 30" for Monogamy in Christianity)
  • I have some concerns that elements of what is being moved over have an 1) uncited and 2) interpretive[improper synthesis?] aspect. I regret "cluttering" this article, but I judge that the material is much more likely to get proper scrutiny here. For a variety of reasons I chose not to address some of the issues I sense in the moved elements, nor is the subject matter something of personal pressing importance intellectually. If I were being incisive I would be apt to remove all the exegesis, and trim the quotes to the editorial style that the section here already has/had. I think the moved content would very much benefit from integration into Christian views on marriage, as well as stylistic reformatting to the style of that article, removal of interpretive components (unless they represent cited viewpoints), and redaction of primary source material. I hope you understand that the motivation is to get this material consolidated by an active editorial team. FeatherPluma (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about lead[edit]

I don't like this section in the lead: "The Bible holds that sex is reserved for marriage. It says that sex outside of marriage is the sin of adultery (for the married person) if either sexual participant is married to another person. Voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other is considered the sin of fornication." It doesn't. People have interpreted parts of the Bible to support that reading (and it may be that it is the mainstream view of christian churches). But nowhere does it explicitly say you must only have sex within marriage (and look at the old testament patriarchs for a start!) Nowhere does it talk about the sin of fornication. We need to nuance this sentence. Suggestions welcome. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You had your way after you wrote the above, till i corrected it, for the readers were given, "some Christian authorities and bodies believe" in the traditional view of marriage, as if this was not the overwhelming predominate position. As for your polemic, it sounds like you have been reading the likes of Walter Wink, who supports doing what the giving of the law was contrary to, that of every man simply doing "whatsoever is right in his own eyes." (Dt. 12:8) Which is what men like Wink do when they attempt Biblical exegesis.
This is not the place for debate, but your editing complaint is based upon the premise that "nowhere does it talk about the sin of fornication," yet which is absurd. Rather than voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other not being what Scripture condemns, instead that is one of the most predominate teachings in Scripture, being condemned from Genesis to Revelation. Shechem dealt with Dinah "as with an harlot" for laying with her, (Gn. 34) and under the law claiming to be a virgin when married was a capital offense, "because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house," while otherwise sex before marriage required the man to marry the women and never ever put her away. (Dt. 22:14,21,28,29) For virginity, not fornication was rewarded.
Even women taken in battle were to become wives. (Dt. 21:10-14) In addition, 23,000 Israelites were executed for fornication in Num. 21:1-5, and which Paul invokes in the NT in warning against fornication, (1Cor. 10:8) and clearly states, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:2) Thus fornication is sex outside marriage, the latter being the preventative solution. Before Paul the Lord Jesus condemned fornications (plural) (Mk. 7:21-23) and taught that marriage was male and female leaving parents (as protector and provider) to cleave in becoming one flesh. (Mt. 19:3-6)
In no place will you find fornication sanctioned, and while it is true that people have interpreted parts of the Bible to support anything, and in WP most any properly referenced statement is considered viable, only by supposing such things as that simply recording an activity means sanctioning it, or imagining concubines were not wives (they were), or by perversely abrogating moral laws can the modern day antinomians imagine they have an argument.Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Family headship[edit]

I had made an edit to expand discussion of family headship, as this is a vital issue. An editor reverted this suggestion because the subject was already covered. Not true. There is some discussion in subsections of Protestantism but the subject is really broader and covers all denominations. We need this covered much better than it is now. Rlsheehan (talk) 00:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted. I could agree on this having its own heading instead of being under protestant, but let's start by moving the content currently there to its own section and improving it. Some of what you wrote was inaccurate, particularly confusing Complementarianism and Patriarchy, so I thought it best to keep the current info for the time being. We can always look at the old revision and move the appropriate info into the article where it improves on what is already written on the subject. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I will take the rambling sections from the Protestant subsections, clean them up, add some new material, and put them in a new section on Family Headship. Complementarianism and Patriarchy are really the same in the home; the difference is at work, church, and society. Rlsheehan (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Complementarianism and Patriarchy are not the same. Most notable of the things I disagree with in your last edit was describing Patriarchy using a quote from the Complementarian CMBW. Also at issue was setting Patriarchy as the predominant of the two, while I see no evidence that is the case. For example, that Patriarchy is "held by some conservative denominations" when neither you nor the full Patriarchy article name any. The Complementarianism article names at least a dozen, at least 5 major denominations. IMO, it was similar to starting the section of gender equal views by saying 'Christian Feminism is common, and Egalitarianism is almost the same'. Not NPOV, and not due weight. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have tried to clarify the previously confusing and misplaced sections. Further constructive edits are welcome. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Much improved, I'll take a look and make some edits. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I've made some tweaks. I'd like for use to dig through the main articles and both merge out any unique info here and reduce the size of this section. We only need to give a general idea of the viewpoints, we can let the primary articles provide the details and justifications. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Can I ask why on earth headship has been moved up in the article so it nows sits at the start of the many body of the text? This is giving it far too much prominence. I'm not sure it's as important as all that. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Family headship was previously located in the Protestant section but it is really a much broader issue. Thus it was revised and placed near the begining. Other broad issues such as same sex marriage could also be placed near the top. Rlsheehan (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Apologies - I think I was a little brusque in my previous comment! I appreciate the work you've done in improving this section. My own view is that it might read slightly better though if the section on biblical foundations/ history ran first, then followed by headship, and then the specifics of denominations. Just might be a more logical structure. What do you think?
OK with me. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Same Sex[edit]

Given the inclusion of a same sex section isn't it appropriate to note that most denominations retain the position that homosexual relationships are non-scriptural? As it reads for now it sounds like most churches view such relationships neutrally, which is obviously not true. Simply a matter of adjusting the paragraph lead ins. Just throwing the idea out for consideration. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.4.1 (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that the inference is that most churches view same sex relationships in a neutral way. But in any case the article is about christian marriage and not christian views on homosexuality. I think the text we have is pretty unambiguous, "a small number of denominations conduct same-sex marriages". What more did you have in mind? I would like to avoid some sort of 'heavy-handed' drafting that belabours the point that the majority of christian demoninations view homosexuality as an abomination or something to that effect. I don't think that would benefit the article in any way. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the boundary blurs when you try to have Christian marriage and homosexuality. I was thinking a change such as [While most denominations consider homosexual relations non-scriptural] a small but growing number of denominations conduct weddings between same-sex couples where it is civilly legal. A few others perform ceremonies to bless same-sex unions without recognising them as marriage. ... Not perfect but the idea is to simply and succintly convey the gap. Not sure what you mean heavy handed but I think this simply and clearly delineates the gap.
On a slightly different topic, anyone have numbers on the denominations that do perform marriages etc? Just wondering how close this is sliding toward vagueness. 118.208.36.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the addition you've proposed as necessary - I think it just belabours the point that most christian churches don't like people that are gay. What does this achieve in terms of article quality? Are you concerned that someone might forget that if it's not in the lead? I don't think it's unreasonable to use a neutral statement to point out that you can be christian, gay and marry in a christian church. No more that that. The vagueness argument is also weak - most people in the world don't marry in christian marriage ceremonies at all. By extension of the argument this whole article should be removed because the subject issue borders on "vagueness". Spurious. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Interracial marriage.[edit]

I can't find anything in the article (or anywhere else on wikipedia) that addresses Christian views on interracial marriage. Could some people work on adding something? Most churches permit it now but 200 years ago, things were much different. We could focus on arguments for/against and how they changed over time--173.49.255.8 (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Nowhere in the New Testament is there a requirement for a wife to obey her husband," argument - not fact[edit]

As part of the continuing effort to present a lop sided article that favors the egalitarian view, a user named Afaprof01 insisted on including the statement that `"Nowhere in the [[New Testament is there a requirement for a wife to obey her husband," and then gives a one sides argument regarding this in the lead, which, besides the absurdity of "Nowhere..," it is presented as a acknowledged common fact, not as an argument from an egalitarian source.

I changed it to provide a balanced presentation, and moved it to where both sides are dealt with, with references, but which Afaprof01 could not tolerate and insists it is a fact.

While this is not the place to argue the issue itself, yet as Afaprof01 basis for his one sided assertion is that it is a fact, i provide the following which are invoked by the complementarian side, which at the least shows that "Nowhere in the [[New Testament is there a requirement for a wife to obey her husband," not a commonly accepted fact:

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. " (Ephesians 5:22-24) "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. " (Colossians 3:18) "To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. " (Titus 2:5) "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. " (1 Corinthians 11:3) "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. " (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. " (1 Timothy 2:11-12) Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

After i again corrected the lead assertion so that it would be understood as a polemic, Afaprof01 changed that slightly to a form that does served that purpose, thank you, though the egalitarian argument makes up the bulk of it. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I very much like your name handle, and your benediction of Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus. Thank you for your witness. Re: obey. There is a vast difference between "submit" and "obey." My statement re: "obey" is well-sourced. Have you checked out the source's validity? I assure you I'm not making it up. Dr. Frank Stagg was a renowned and conservative New Testament scholar. You may want to click on that link and read the article about his bio. You may also want to read New Testament Household Code to see what quite a few others think Paul and Peter were trying to accomplish in these controversial passages. I'm not asking that you agree with them; I'm just sharing some sources so you can be assured I didn't make it up.
Rhetorical questions: Do you routinely practice foot-washing of brothers? Jesus said to His disciples: “If I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash each other's feet”.[John 13:14] Max Lucado has a great sermon on that. It is a direct command from our Lord and Savior, yet how many of us take it seriously? Do you eat pork? Do you eat fish that have no scales (e.g., catfish)? The OT forbids both of those. The OT forbade eating meat sacrificed to idols, yet Paul gave his OK (unless it offended a fellow believer).
Think of the powerful ministry Priscilla and Aquila had with Paul. Yet, she and Aquila took aside the powerful preacher Apollos and "explained the Way of God to him more accurately".Acts 18:24-28 She was clearly an evangelist, and very likely an apostle! But today we won't let a woman preach or be a deacon in so many of our churches. We would rather be legalistic and deny a woman from preaching, even if it means thousands or millions die without Christ. How will we explain that in the Judgment?
Back to "submit" for a moment. In Eph. 5:21, before he gets into the "household", Paul commands, "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." Why does he start with that? What if the husband is a pagan and commands her to do unspeakable things? We have no "exception clause" to cover that if submit means obey. I believe Jesus died on the cross to give all of us freedom from the Law. I have no doubt that Paul and Peter believed that, too. I also believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit when they wrote what they wrote, so I can't conclude they were wrong. From all my readings about New Testament Household Code, I believe Paul and Peter were trying to protect the members of the fragile newly-formed Church from being an embarrassment (or worse) by going against Roman Law that gave husbands the power of life and death over their household members who must have been taking their newly-proclaimed freedom to "you can't tell ME what to do" extremes. (Minus 10, sentence waaaay too long!)
Scholars believe Galatians was written before Ephesians. I can only imagine what a 1st century wife or slave, who had been oppressed, suppressed, and mistreated might have done when they heard or read Galatians 3:28. I rather imagine that hupotasso ("submit") meant "Stop being so immature. I know you've been mistreated. But you need to support him in the awesome responsibility he has under oppressive Roman law. At least, get out the way and let him do his job. Or would you rather us, the 'called-out ones, get the reputation of being law-breakers who run amuck in the streets? You certainly won't be good witnesses if you do that!"
If women can't teach men, why do we let them teach our precious little children who are so impressionable that if "my teacher said...(whatever)", then they don't have the maturity filters to detect if it's wrong? If God calls a woman to teach or preach or be a deacon/elder but our church bylaws prohibit it, who is responsible for quenching the Spirit?
Please forgive the soapbox. I didn't intend to go on and on. It's long been a burden to me, and I have many years of shedding "blood, sweat, and tears" over all of this. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck and wake up with these convictions. I appreciate your patience in "listening." On my personal page is an e-mail link should you ever want to contact me that way. Blessings. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue was that you asserted, without any qualification or counter view, and in the lead section no less, that nowhere in the NT is there a requirement for a wife to obey her husband. And then, when i made the effort to clarify that it was an argument and in which the basic view of the opposing party was included, you simply undid it without making an effort to correct the onesided assertion. This not what WP is sppsd to example

And yes i am aware that the heavily relied upon Stagg is a baptist theologian, while some others disagree with him, but my POV comment was in regards to an assertion being made without qualifying that it was an argument, regardless of your insistence that it is a fact.

I can understand how it takes blood, sweat and tears to negate the plain teaching of male headship, and we are not supposed to turn this into a forum debate here, and your arguments are poor ones, but though little more should need to be said, i have responded to egalitarian contentions here andhere, and which are akin to those for homosexual relations also dealt with. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

However, I will briefly respond to your arguments here, which illustrate the two sides the article describes.

Regarding a supposed "vast difference between "submit" and "obey," that is absurd. The one who obeys is submitting, and the one who submits is obeying. Thus demons were subject the apostles in obeying them, (Lk. 10:17) believers are to be subject to rulers, (1Pt. 2:14) and Christ submitted to and thus obeyed the Father, and will be in subjection to Him forever, (1Cor. 15:27,28) and likewise the church is in subjection to Christ as its head, and Paul says likewise wives are to submit to their head. All are first called to submit to each other in general, having a servants heart, rather than seeking to dominate, but there is an order given in which there is leadership to which obedience is enjoimned.

Invoking slavery as an escape clause will not work, a whiles the commonality is that both were called to submission/obedience, yet its foundation is not based on Genesis and creation or the Fall, and thus is not based on gender or race, and freedom was possible, and they are encouraged to obtain freedom if lawfully able, (1Cor. 7:21) and which Paul obtained for Philemon. Egalatarians can only wish Paul likewise encouraged wives to escape being in subjection to their head.

Your assertion that we have no "exception clause" for submission that overules obedience to a husband commanding a women to do unspeakable things, is as untenable as saying women are not commanded to obey their husbands. You profess that you are not unlearned, yet it is quite manifest in Scripture than any obedience to man is conditional, and allows and even requires disobedience in instances when it requires acting contrary to God's word. And the earliest example of this was that of the midwives disobeying Pharaoh's order to commit infanticide. The church itself was born in dissent, and disobeyed the will of the rulers who forbade preaching the gospel, as must many believers today.

And yes, we are called to wash each other's feet, the question being whether this is a ritual ordinance, or meaning hospitality which may literally include it.

As for the shellfish argument, this ignores the covenantal distinctions, whereas male headship is affirmed under both covenants, based on creational distinctions which reflect the order within the Godhead. The attempt to argue that Paul and Peter were trying to protect the members of the fragile newly-formed Church from being an embarrassment, is itself an embarrassment, and would negate the basis given for it. The nature of such attempts end up disallowing any coherent moral code in Scripture.

As for equating women teaching little children with teaching men, children themselves are to be in subjection/obedience to parents, plural, and in some things women will instruct men, but the male is the head in both instances. And unlike children, husbands are not commanded to be in subjection to wives as their head, while yet being servants in leading. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinions in more detail. The best we can do is agree to disagree, and to be civil and good witnesses as to how to handle conflicting conclusions constructively and politely. The article covers both Christian Egalitarianism and Complementarianism. Both positions are to be fairly presented. I look forward to a grace and peace relationship with you as a fellow believer and editor. Afaprof01 (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Holy Matrimony links here, but is not discussed here[edit]

If Holy Matrimony links to this topic, it should at least be discussed. The difference between "holy matrimony" and simple "matrimony" is the obvious, the word "holy".

As anything that is dedicated to God and serve's God's purpose is made holy, so too does a priest bless and make holy marriages between men and woman. Unlike other unions, Christians believe only a man and woman's marriage can serve God's purposes, procreation.