The Peter, Titus 2, and marriage connection

Since this was being discussed in Dalrock’s comments.

Peter says he won’t deny Jesus, but Jesus prophesies that he will:

John 13:36 Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord, where are You going?” Jesus answered, “Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you will follow later.” 37 Peter *said to Him, “Lord, why can I not follow You right now? I will lay down my life for You.” 38 Jesus *answered, “Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times.

Peter denies Jesus 3 times:

John 18:25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” He denied it, and said, “I am not.” 26 One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, *said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” 27 Peter then denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed.

Post-resurrection Jesus gives the opportunity for Peter to redeem himself from the denials:

John 21:15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you [f]love (agapao) Me more than these?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I [g]love (phileo) You.” He *said to him, “Tend My lambs.”

16 He *said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you [h]love (agapao) Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I [i]love (phileo) You.” He *said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.”

17 He *said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you [j]love (phileo) Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you [k]love (phileo) Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I [l]love (phileo) You.” Jesus *said to him, “Tend My sheep.

If you’re familiar with the Greek in the passage, you’ll note that Jesus asks Peter if he loves (agapao) him twice, but Peter can only muster up a phileo or brotherly love/affection response. Jesus, probably with compassion for Peter, finally asks him if he loves (phileo) him.

Although the Scriptures say Peter was grieved because Jesus asked him a third time, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Peter was also grieved because Jesus didn’t expect him to aspire to the higher standard, only knowing what he could do in the moment. Peter wasn’t ready to to have the faith to be crucified for Jesus, even after he saw that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Next, we find out that Jesus loves the Church as husbands should love their wives. Thus, Christ:Church::husbands:wives.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love (agapao) your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church [q]in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love (agapao) their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body.

Finally, we come to Titus 2 which commands wives to love their husbands.

Titus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may [b]encourage the young women to love (phileo) their husbands, to love (phileo) their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

However, why aren’t women called to agape love their husbands in marriage while their husbands are to their wives? Why are they only told to have affectionate love, to respect, and to submit?

We’ve gone over the discussion before about if women have the capacity to agape love. In the context of general Christians I think yes. In marriage? Questionable. Although wives say they love their husbands, it’s not the same love as a husband gives a wife.

We can see this as the Scriptures giving some grace to wives, just like Jesus did to Peter in the moment. Holding them to the highest standard, when knowing the nature of women may be too great a burden.

There may also be something special about the headship-submission relationship that requires love to go top-down instead of bottom-up. Obedience, respect, and affection are all attitudes and actions that build off of each other to keep a self reinforcing positive cycle.

In general, I am of the opinion that the “agapao love” that wives show their husbands is respect, submission, and affection. How agapao love looks is different per different relationships. In the marriage relationship, it is the roles and responsibilities that the Scriptures state.

Of course, I could be missing something. Maybe my readers may have some other speculations as to why this is the case.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to The Peter, Titus 2, and marriage connection

  1. donalgraeme says:

    I know that at least one of the early Church Fathers wrote on how submission and fear/reverence would lead to love from a wife. Will try to find that.

    On a side note, what a difference there is between the pre- and post- Pentecost Peter. The Holy Spirit truly matters!

  2. On the difference with a hierarchical relationship, the difference becomes the one that is to follow has to subsume their own desires to follow. But for the leader, you’re both assigning tasks and taking on the result of those assigned tasks. The leader is taking on responsibilities for those underneath them in the structure. Not all, but some part.

    A Leader that constantly sells-out their subordinates will have none very quickly. You can’t trust them and no one wants to take any risks for them. If you don’t support your subordinates, they’ll have no faith or loyalty to you as a matter of function, as you’ve made that costly or abusive to show any.

    It helps to have run larger projects over the years, but real leadership costs you. That’s why the good ones normally have energy coming out of their ears, as they need that natural ability to absorb the cost to themselves.

    Management, even good management, doesn’t require that much real skill. Decent people ability and setting + enforcing deadlines. That’s 85% of the battle. However, most people can’t handle the hours and the cost to yourself. If you want the 6 to 7 figure salaries, at least in most fields (if you don’t have really strong connections), you’re looking at 80 hour weeks. When the buck stops with you, you have a lot of hours to put in.

    It’s been a few years, but I’ve made this point over at Dalrock’s place before. Almost no one teaches the Bible from the perspective of actual leadership. Running a Church, also, isn’t really leadership. (You’re just the face; God is in charge.) You need experience dealing with the real costs, devoid of the Spirit doing the core work, to understand what a project can take from you.

    Which points back to a headship role requires “agape” to work properly. It always costs you more than the person under you, even if just the stress alone.

  3. Ame says:

    There may also be something special about the headship-submission relationship that requires love to go top-down instead of bottom-up.

    hadn’t thought of it that way before.

    Which points back to a headship role requires “agape” to work properly. It always costs you more than the person under you, even if just the stress alone.

    applies … or should apply … to parenting, too.

  4. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    The church is instructed to agapao love Christ. Note Jn 14:15 as an example. It is also an example of how wives are to love, by keeping commands. Lk 6:32 shows the reciprocal nature of love as (agapao) insufficient, but that the christian even loves their enemies v35. It is inconceivable that one is to agape the brethren, their neighbor and even their enemy, yet there is one person they need not agapao and that is their husband. I’m not buying that. A wife is to love her husband as the Church is to love Christ, in submission, passionately, wholeheartedly without reservation.

  5. @ Jonadab

    The church is instructed to agapao love Christ. Note Jn 14:15 as an example. It is also an example of how wives are to love, by keeping commands.

    That makes the most sense to me. Love by keeping commands.

  6. @Jonadab & DS:

    It’s a bit of both. Titus 2 is more about direct, practical application, while we also have general Commands that sit over us. One could start breaking down differential aspects of the words for pages, but my read would be that Titus 2 is about the practical aspects. Jn 14:15 and the rest act as the generalized ones that will have differential expression depending on where the Lord places you in life.

    One could also get lost in the weeds with Christ:Church relationship compared to Church:Christians.

    But, as a generalized point, “agape” is going to imply a certain level of cost that’s not necessarily present in “phileo”. John 15:13 would tend to reinforce this view. “Greater love ( agapēn ) has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” (ESV) The greatest extent of love in “agape” form is paying the greatest price.

    I might also interject the argument that a lot of the practical advice in the New Testament is built around preventing stupid counter-arguments. It takes a Modern to attempt to wrangle the straight-forward into something completely different.

  7. bdash 77 says:

    I do not think most christian women really love their husbands
    I keep seeing and reading about how domestic modern christian men are
    etc
    to me that just screams lazy unloving wife….

  8. earlthomas786 says:

    I do not think most christian women really love their husbands

    At this point I’d take a respectful and submissive wife. Her loving me is just icing on the cake.

  9. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @Earl
    Would Christ accept a church that did not love Him? Let’s not validate a lessor sin in order to condemn the greater sin.

  10. Robyn says:

    Could it be that God doesn’t command us be the things that we already are, but rather the difficult things – the areas we must grow in and be trained in?

    True females, true *believing* women, which is who the Bible is written to – Believers, in the context of marriage, don’t need to be instructed to agape. Of course, it can be hindered, but at conception, I believe, when God determines the gender to be XX or XY, it goes with that chromosome choice.

    Women don’t naturally want to yield/obey, our double X gets in the way … it hinders us –>makes us weaker –> easier prey. We need the help/guidance and protection of a husband to gauge how we help. Eve wanted to help, help, help … she had TOO much phileo (*intentionally created that way by God*) and ended up thwarting Adam’s authority. Adam didn’t love Eve by, ‘removing this spot or stain’ (eph 5:25-27) of rebellion towards both him and God. Agape love encompasses discipline and correction; but it must be done through the substance of relationship, which comes first: If the Lord loves you He disciplines you.

    A wife is not given the responsibility to agape; correct, discipline or train, her husband. Her responsibility is to learn how to properly philandros: love her husband – through submission and respect. It’s not that a wife cannot attain (“muster up”) agape; it’s that in the context of marriage – perhaps, she might never have been designed for that responsibility. I believe that’s the responsibility that Jesus was trying to give Peter; the whole shah-bang of the authority and responsibility that goes with agape … but Peter wasn’t grabbing it. (at least not yet) I think, his real boldness in authority and leadership (the agape that Jesus was talking about) was one of those things that he came to understand, after the resurrection (?)

  11. earlthomas786 says:

    Would Christ accept a church that did not love Him?

    Ask a husband how loving his wife is to him when she is not being subject to him.

  12. Robyn says:

    @ earlthomas786

    I’m not sure we’ll know the answer to that because the fact is that Christ did come to earth before the church was even conceived — because He’s the head … the leader. So technically, yes He started His mission for His church before she loved Him, because He created her. The statement that Christ sanctifies her: cleansing by the washing with the Word, so that she’ll be presented without spot, wrinkle … faults, carries the implication that she has spots, wrinkles and faults in the first place.

    “Ask a husband how loving his wife is to him when she is not being subject to him.”

    I would guess that the level of difficulty is equal (but different) to the level of difficulty it is for a wife to submit or revere a husband when he’s not loving her. Obviously, I’m not a husband, but I know as a wife, God will never accept the excuse, “my husband didn’t love me well (like Jesus loved the church), so I couldn’t be the best wife I could be.”

  13. honordads says:

    ‘Did God really say….?’
    Wives are still falling for that lie.

  14. Robyn says:

    Yes, and sadly Husbands are still doing what Adam did; standing by and letting it happen.

  15. SirHamster says:

    Would Christ accept a church that did not love Him? Let’s not validate a lessor sin in order to condemn the greater sin.

    To answer the rhetorical question … No.

    “Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.” (Rev 2:4)

    Note that a submissive and respectful church would obey Christ’s command here, and end up being a loving church. Otherwise, it becomes an un-submissive and un-respectful church.

    Selectivity is not an option for these traits. Pursuing one trait will develop the others. Rejecting one trait will reject them all.

  16. earlthomas786 says:

    Hence why submission from wives is stressed more than love. One leads to the other.

  17. bdash 77 says:

    I do not think most christians believe these things
    this is the minority
    highly unlikely this is biblical, just fringe.
    most believe in equality, men need to be guilty for not being feminist enough
    like this
    http://www.boundless.org/blog/equality-and-action-figures/

    submission is mutual

  18. @bdash 77

    No, it isn’t, and you’re thus a heretic.

  19. bdash 77 says:

    what is the definition of heretic?
    you are aware that you would be claiming that the vast majority of Christians are not believers?
    how can you be confident in that?

  20. Robyn says:

    @ bdash 77

    “you are aware that you would be claiming that the vast majority of Christians are not believers?”

    Yes.

    Many “vast majority” of christians called, few (true believers) chosen.

    Many “vast majority” of christians on the wide road … few (true believers) on the narrow road, pushing through the narrow gate.

    Also, Scripture clearly points to a differentiation of true believers and christians (earthly christians disguised as true believers):

    But he said, No, lest in gathering the wild wheat (weeds resembling wheat), you root up the [true] wheat along with it.
    -wheat and wild wheat – true believers and earthly christians … both are *wheat*

    To live lives worthy of God, Who calls you into His own kingdom and the glorious blessedness [into which true believers will enter after Christ’s return].
    -true believers have an eternal destiny – earthly christians have a good religion.

    All others who came [as such] before Me are thieves and robbers, but the [true] sheep did not listen to and obey them.
    -the statement true sheep (believers) presupposes there are fake sheep … earthly christians.

    When you bear (produce) much fruit, My Father is honored and glorified, and you show and prove yourselves to be true followers of Mine.
    -true believers produce fruit in their actions; earthly christians do not produce fruit – just the talk of the fruit.

    It was to demonstrate and prove at the present time (in the now season) that He Himself is righteous and that He justifies and accepts as righteous him who has [true] faith in Jesus.
    -believers have true faith, the substance of experience; earthly christians have religion … the *form* of true faith … no substance.

    However, it is not as though God’s Word had failed [coming to nothing]. For it is not everybody who is a descendant of Jacob (Israel) who belongs to [the true] Israel.
    -everyone who calls themself a christian and follows a sect of the christian religion here on earth (baptist, anglican, pentecostal etc) doesn’t belong as a true believer.

    That is to say, it is not the children of the body [of Abraham] who are made God’s children, but it is the offspring to whom the promise applies that shall be counted [as Abraham’s true] descendants.
    -true descendants (true believers) not all of the christian church on earth.

    But we commend ourselves in every way as [true] servants of God: through great endurance, in tribulation and suffering, in hardships and privations, in sore straits and calamities,
    -true believers have experiences to back up their theology and talk; earthly christians have more talk less experience (if any)

    Know and understand that it is [really] the people [who live] by faith who are [the true] sons of Abraham.
    -again, the reality of a true believer is in their actions not in earthly christian theology.

    But [as for] you, teach what is fitting and becoming to sound (wholesome) doctrine [the character and right living that identify true Christians].
    -it’s in the living (actions) that define true believers; talk merely defines the religious belief system of earthly christians, not the ability to follow it.

    Now if you are exempt from correction and left without discipline in which all [of God’s children] share, then you are illegitimate offspring and not true sons [at all].
    -illegitimate offspring … earthly christians, not true believers. they ‘sound’ the same … but it’s in the living of life (experiences) that we see who’s illegitimate.

    It was thus that Sarah obeyed Abraham [following his guidance and acknowledging his headship over her by] calling him lord (master, leader, authority). And you are now her true daughters if you do right and let nothing terrify you [not giving way to hysterical fears or letting anxieties unnerve you].
    -there are daughters (earthly christians) and true daughters (believers)
    ***

    And to your first:

    “I do not think most christians believe these things, this is the minority, highly unlikely this is biblical, just fringe. …”

    Yes, most earthly christians DO not believe truth. It IS the minority! thanks for noticing. they said this about Jesus as well.

    “submission is mutual”

    Yes, for earthly christians it is. earthly christians are OVERTLY concerned (just like ‘the world’ is) with the here and now of equality, … all things about earthly living … the present. But not for true believers; they care about eternity and very little about perceived equality here on earth and know that God is in control. They know they are merely sojourners here … and here is temporal.

    You cannot be a feminist (*mutual submission*) and a true believer – they are diametrically opposed to each other. Christians follow the way of the world; whatever is current in “the world” or the current “era;” and the church has been intoxicated with it. True believers follow God and look less and less like the world or the earthly church. Research into the history of the feminist movement shows that the real target is (and always has been) God, the church.

  21. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘submission is mutual’

    You’re forgetting someone in that statement. What you have said isn’t complete.

  22. earlthomas786 says:

    I don’t accept the secular notion of equality…because it just isn’t true. I accept the biblical hierarchy of things because that’s how God set it up.

    This is it.

  23. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Submission is mural? Does Christ submit yo the Church?

  24. bdash 77 says:

    wait what?
    where does it say in the bible that salvation depends on gender roles?
    most people , even those who believe only men should be pastors believe in equality
    http://www.boundless.org/blog/equality-and-action-figures/
    men should feel guilty for things not being 50/50 and women should be able to do anything- all these people are not believers?
    why do they go to church and preach the gospel/go to missions etc?!!

    “Boundless” has so many interesting articles, showing how men who vacuumed and cleaned and cooked were demonstrating a servant heart.
    Most christians believe this now, they do not expect women to run the home but men.
    Men are taught to feel guilty if their wife cooks for them AND washed the dishes or looks after the baby.
    these people lead churches, teach bible studies etc
    they are not christian?

  25. earl says:

    They are egalitarians. They know nothing about how the Christ and the church is the model for marriage.

  26. bdash 77 says:

    but still christian -so the will enter heaven!
    aka one can be a christian and feminist

  27. Elspeth says:

    bdash77 is absolutely correct. One can have all kinds of political affiliations and leanings with which conservatives/traditionalists don’t agree and still be a sincere, heaven bound Christian,

    Christianity is not defined by the political. It is not defined by one’s stance on sex roles. It is defined by being poor in spirit, recognizing our sinful state, repenting, turning to God with the understanding that only the substitutionary atonement of Christ can satisfy the penalty for that sin, accepting it, and going forward in the newness of life with the intent to sin no more. But knowing if we do, we have an advocate with the Father who is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

    You can be a feminist (and as wrong as two left shoes!) yet still satisfy all of the above Biblical requirements of being a Christian. Scripture says we mark one another by our fruits, not our ideological affiliation.

    All of us are sincerely wrong about some things, which is why it’s good that God is our ultimate judge rather than men, We all have our pet hobby horses on which we would hang fellow believers if it were up to us.

    That said, bdash77, Scripture is blatantly clear on proper order in marriage:

    Christ —–>husband—–>wife——->children

  28. Robyn says:

    @ Elspeth,

    “bdash77 is absolutely correct. One can have all kinds of political affiliations and leanings with which conservatives/traditionalists…”

    I think I see the problem; we interpret feminism differently.

    I don’t interpret feminism as a political affiliation. When I was a feminist, it defined who I was and was the lens through which *every* decision was filtered through – that’s a belief system. A belief system is a religion. It was Jesus that freed me from it.

    You are correct Elspeth when you say:

    “Christ —–>husband—–>wife——->children” the husband is the authority of the wife, no?

    However, this is incorrect placement of power, authority and roles, if you are a feminist you believe in the cancelling out of power (equality) there’s no top authority. There is only “mutual submission” –> 50/50 split.

  29. Elspeth says:

    I don’t interpret feminism as a political affiliation. When I was a feminist, it defined who I was and was the lens through which *every* decision was filtered through – that’s a belief system. A belief system is a religion. It was Jesus that freed me from it.

    I see what you are saying, Robyn, and it highlights the importance of words and defining terms. Having never identified as a feminist or any other “-ist” for more than the time it took me to realize I wasn’t really one, after all, it is entirely possible that I am misunderstanding the meanings here.

    My entire life I can never mark a season where I didn’t identify as a Christian. In retrospect, I think of all kinds of adjectives to put in front of it, a few not very good (carnal, lukewarm, etc), but always Christian. Perhaps that is the breakdown here. That, and I really do know people with whom I have all kinds of ideological divides yet I know they strive to walk honorably, righteously, and as circumspectly as possible as ambassadors for Christ.

    My question to you is this one: Is it your assertion that a person who doesn’t understand or fully accept the correct placement of authority in marriage cannot be a sincere and devout follower of Christ?

  30. Elspeth says:

    Another thought:

    I am not referring here to people who clearly do not view Christianity as necessary for anything other than a good moral touchstone or as utilitarian for civilization. There are a lot of such people in the pews of many churches today, which may be another communication barrier here.

  31. Robyn says:

    @ Elspeth,
    “My question to you is this one: Is it your assertion that a person who doesn’t understand or fully accept the correct placement of authority in marriage cannot be a sincere and devout follower of Christ?”

    No and yes. No – because it’s not about knowledge (understanding). Yes – when you begin to understand the truth (which God is showing you) and choose to continue living as if in ignorance; unwilling to repent.

    With me, I was raised in the feminist world. Became saved and was shown that I was for God with my head, but my heart was really still just, “looking out for me.”

    If I died in that time, would I have gone to heaven? IDK. And don’t care to hypothesize. However, in order to be fully on for God and have true sanctification and maturity happening, my heart needed to catch up with my head: I needed to repent of the vision that I had instilled in me from childhood *because* I was female, that the world revolved around “ME.”

    If you repent and seek to follow God’s set-up for marriage:

    Christ —–>husband—–>wife——->children

    If you are a feminist you seek to follow the world’s set-up for marriage:

    Christ
    husband=wife=children

    So, a marriage shaped by the world cannot accurately represent Christ and His Church.

    Ultimately, I think your question has to do with wolves within the body. So ultimately my answer is yes, if you identify as a “feminist” christian you’re not a devout follower.

  32. earlthomas786 says:

    aka one can be a christian and feminist

    You can’t serve two masters.

    I’ve talked with Catholics and feminists before…eventually they’ll talk about smashing the patriarchy regardless of what Scripture says. If that’s the case who is the ultimate patriarchy…it’s God the Father.

  33. earlthomas786 says:

    Feminism is a ruse much like Satan tempting Eve into making her think she’s a god rather than sticking with the truth and understanding there is but one God.

  34. MG says:

    The questions posed in the comments above really challenge the mettle of our faith. Personally, I believe it is overly presumptive, and perhaps somewhat pharisaical, to claim that Christians who are also feminists are not saved. Instead, I take the view that it is a difference of maturity in the faith. Christians who still follow the ways of this world are “babies” in the Kingdom of God. Whereas those believers who can embrace God’s truth and emulate Christ to a greater extent, and thereby hold greater responsibility and authority, will have a greater inheritance in the age to come. On the other hand, I am quite certain that there are a large number of Feminist pseudo-Christians who are destined to damnation. But we cannot discern the difference at this time, nor is it our place to do so.

  35. @ MG

    Instead, I take the view that it is a difference of maturity in the faith. Christians who still follow the ways of this world are “babies” in the Kingdom of God. Whereas those believers who can embrace God’s truth and emulate Christ to a greater extent, and thereby hold greater responsibility and authority, will have a greater inheritance in the age to come. On the other hand, I am quite certain that there are a large number of Feminist pseudo-Christians who are destined to damnation.

    True.

    But we cannot discern the difference at this time, nor is it our place to do so.

    Disagreed here. To paraphrase Jesus: “By their fruits you shall know them”

    You can tell who is who by those that grow in the Spirit and shed the ways of the world and those that don’t through their works. Christians also have the responsibility to other Christians to chastise them if they’re on the incorrect path.

    In general, I don’t think claiming to know someone else’s heart is a good thing because only they know that between them and God, but if someone does appear to be going off track it is our job to lovingly help them get on the right one.

  36. @ Elspeth

    Is it your assertion that a person who doesn’t understand or fully accept the correct placement of authority in marriage cannot be a sincere and devout follower of Christ?

    Yes, no, and maybe.

    1. Looking at a “point” in time is shortsighted as humans. Only God can make that type of determination because only He can see the heart.

    2. Again, to paraphrase Jesus: “by your fruits you shall know them.” Those “feminist” Christians that continue to bear bad fruit and encourage wifely rebellion… I’d be scared for their souls.

    3. If one is simply immature in the faith and/or ignorant, there is at least an excuse. If one knows the Truth, yet still denies what God has ordained,… again, I’d be scared for their souls.

    It would be hard to know this for sure except in-person and significantly involved with their discipleship journey. Some random person on the internet claiming ‘egalitarianism’ who knows.

    4. Yet, we all still have ‘blindspots’ per se, and God’s timing is not ours so it may still be one of the last bastions of rebellion that God needs to work through in their lives. They may be a ‘true believer’ yet God is still working through them on that part.

  37. modgrit says:

    @ Deep Strength,
    I appreciate your comments, and I think I can agree with them. The “bearing fruit” aspect is something I should give more consideration to in my dealings with others, and tighten my own ship in doing so. But since I know very few people who bear any fruit, this is a rather discouraging prospect. I think I was giving myself hope by granting others (either nameless or known) the benefit of the doubt in terms of their salvation. Thanks for the red pill…

  38. elspeth says:

    @ DS:

    My categorization of “feminist” was pretty much any belief in the notion of egalitarianism and freedom for women as an ideal. I think I was thinking of something different than the majority here.

    You’re right about fruit because I have known women who believed in enough tents of feminist ideology that most here would call them “pro-life feminists” but women who demonstrated a clear submission to, respect for, and overt deference to their husbands and a respect for church hierarchy. And they lived good Christian lives.

    Most here would say those women are feminists, but I would argue that their fruit speaks for itself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s