Keeping the little lady in line

"Are the ancient biblical instructions for marriage that call for a wife to submit to her husband still valid? How can a wife willingly submit to a less-than-perfect husband?"

Yes, oh most definitely they are, at least according to the November/December issue of the Good News magazine.  No matter that we're all supposedly living in the twenty-first century, not the first.

I give the GN some credit in that the author of the article (A Woman's Key to a Happy Marriage: Trusting God in Submission) is actually a woman.  In the antecedent church body years, even decades, could go by without a woman's by-line appearing in official publications.  But I digress.

Linda LaBissoniere creates a fictive woman, 'Marissa', to illustrate her case (which I assume was fully vetted by her lord and husband before arriving on Scott Ashley's desk).  Poor dear confused Marissa had read Ephesians 5:22-24, and had a problem with it.

"Marissa felt that God surely would not consider this passage valid today. After all, Paul lived in a male-dominated culture, where women were often dependent on their fathers or husbands for survival. Today, women are able to support themselves and in most cases are as educated or even more educated than their husbands."

No, no, Marissa!

Naturally it's a bloke's T-shirt

"Perhaps you too have questioned whether biblical instructions regarding marriage are still valid today. Specifically, are the words of the apostle Paul out of date, or can they be used as a foundation for Christian marriages?"

Darn right about that!

"We must first understand that the biblical view of marital roles derives not from ancient patriarchal culture but from the order established by God at the creation of man and woman (Genesis 2:21-24



). When couples submit to God's pattern for marriage, the result is peace and happiness.  Sadly, our Western society teaches women to reject the biblical view of the husband's headship and the wife's submission. Ignoring this role distinction within marriages is a major cause of many breakups today."

Next Linda backtracks to paper over the awfulness of it all.  Submission isn't all that bad:  "in our society "submission" sounds like a flawed relationship of inferiors to superiors."  Just "sounds like"?

"...  there are various times when a husband should wisely defer to the wishes of his wife (compare the principle of all Christians submitting to one another in Ephesians 5:21
). This would especially be true in areas where the wife is more knowledgeable. Both partners should always discuss major decisions and goals. However, if their opinions vary, God has instructed that the husband should make the final decision, and all family members should honor and respect that (Colossians 3:18
)."

 Next there's the gratuitous use of a spot of Hebrew to bolster a weak-kneed argument - specifically ezer (rhymes with geezer?) - before Linda gets back into stride.

"Scripture is clear that wives are to be submissive to their husbands and obey them unless obedience involves breaking God's laws and biblical principles."

So if the old geezer wants to stop 'Marissa' tithing, or wants her to stand lookout while he rams the Ford pickup into the local ATM, then she might discover a little spine, but otherwise...

"The key to understanding submission is to realize that ultimately a wife is serving God, not man... every wife should strive to submit to her husband's leadership with the same attitude that Christ displayed toward His Father. Even though she is equal to her husband in the eyes of God, she should not question his God-ordained right to lead, just as Jesus who shared divinity with God the Father did not question His authority"

Obeying hubby = obeying God.  How very convenient.

"By following her husband's lead, a wife is trusting in God's protection and deliverance. This parallels Christ's submission to God, even to His death (Luke 22:42
). If her husband truly wrongs her by his decisions, he will be judged by God. However, she will be blessed in the long run if she trusts God and follows the biblical admonition to submit to her husband."

Finally it's time to catch up with our no-longer conflicted exemplar, Marissa.  Marissa has seen the light and knuckled down, submitting to husband Tony in the approved manner.  No surprise to learn that it's all coming up roses.

"Marissa and Tony were overwhelmed at the blessings that came from following God's marital instructions. Marissa found the love and security she so deeply desired, and Tony finally felt the fulfillment of his longing to have a supportive companion to help and strengthen him. They also experienced much joy knowing that their marriage more closely reflected the relationship between Christ and the Church."

There is so much wrong with this article that it's difficult to know where to begin.  If I had to make one response it'd relate to Mrs. LaBissoniere's statement that "the biblical view of marital roles derives not from ancient patriarchal culture but from the order established by God at the creation of man and woman..."

Wrong.

The Bible was written in the very real world that predated modern times.  That's why the command was issued not to covet "your neighbour's wife" only, but other choice items of property: neither his "ox, nor his ass". Yep, in those far off days women were regarded as property.  Biblical marriage also included polygamous arrangements and, if you were a male and had the wherewithal, concubines.

Where do we get this idea that the 1950s nuclear family is the ideal that has existed since creation?  Marriage has obviously changed.  It continues to change, and for the large part it's been change for the better.

But what about those New Testament texts?  Same general point.  Roman society, despite what Linda may have read in old church literature, was extremely pro-patriarchal in the traditional "husband wears the toga" sense.  Likewise the New Testament fails to confront the institution of slavery, shamefully telling those unfortunate souls who were slaves to... you guessed it... submit!

The fruit from this kind of article is unlikely to be improved marriage relationships.

To the contrary. 

Updating the KJV - MEV as Windows 8

In 1611 the King James Version was launched upon the English-speaking world, and quickly became the default translation for the vast majority of Christians. It was a dominance that arguably lasted until the 1960s when the Revised Standard Version finally gained traction after a shaky launch in 1952.

And since then it's been open slather. The good, the bad and the downright appalling.

The KJV's near universal acceptance until the middle of last century meant not only a shared text, regardless of your denominational affiliation, but encouraged memorisation of verses (everyone knew the KJV rendering of John 3:16) and the dubious discipline of proof-texting. Those sects which most effectively exploited proof-texts had a powerful tool on their side.

But alas (or hallelujah! depending on your perspective) the KJV is now a largely spent force and now each of us tends to read and quote whatever version most takes our fancy. How frustrating; no wonder many biblicist sects are in decline.

There have been a few efforts to resuscitate the KJV by lightly modernising the text, most notably the awful New King James Version. This is now the official translation of groups like the Living Church of God.

Now there's a new entry, the Modern English Version of 2014. This is a non-denominational translation with heavily conservative underpinnings. Originally a project for military chaplains in the US and UK (the copyright belongs to something called the Military Bible Association), in its development process it has morphed into something more ambitious.

And get a load of the dedication:

To Her Majesty Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her Other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. The translators of the Bible wish grace, mercy, and peace through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Well, that's special. What, one wonders, does the lady herself think of that? And did they clear it with Buckingham Palace first?

But back to basics: "The Modern English Version is a translation of the Textus Receptus and the Jacob ben Hayyim edition of the Masoretic Text, using the King James Version as the base manuscript." Not surprisingly it bills itself as a literal, "formal correspondence translation."[1]

The question is, is it any good? The MEV is promoted as an "update" of the KJV for the twenty-first century. There are a lot of claims in the PR that it preserves the cadence and beauty of the KJV.  That is to some extent a subjective judgement. The first "hot point" I wanted to check out was what the MEV did with Romans 3:22. Here the original KJV [2] translates pistis christou as "faith of Christ" rather than "faith in Christ" (which is the option taken my most translations for - could it be? - doctrinal reasons).

Perhaps unsurprisingly the MEV has chosen the path of least resistance and gone with the "in" option (as did the NKJV before it.) Douglas Campbell will not be amused.[3]

If you're looking for a translation with a 'familiar' feel, and grew up in the KJV generation, then the MEB might be a solid option, and is almost certainly preferable to the earlier NKJV. I haven't had the chance to 'test drive' the MEB with such proof-texting abominations as a certain Bible Correspondence Course some readers will remember, but suspect it'd hold up well there. But if you're looking for real credibility and scholarship, you're probably going to have to look elsewhere.

As for being an update, it might be helpful to think of the MEV as Windows 8 for the KJV... or even Windows Vista.



[1] Preface to the Reader

[2] The Common English Bible (CEB) of 2011 adopts the same usage as the KJV. So do some of the newer online translations such as the ISV and Net Bible. It might seem a nitpicking debate, but the implications are far reaching.

[3] Campbell (Duke University) is one of the main protagonists in the pistis christou debate, and author of the very dense The Deliverance of God.

30 minutes with Doug & the Weasel

Dear lord, Mike Feazell has conned Douglas Campbell into an interview for Grace Communion International (formerly the Worldwide Church of God.) Jason Goroncy - who seems relentlessly impressed by the ongoing Feazell Follies - draws attention to the video on his blog.

What can you say about Campbell? Well, he has a fantastic accent... He writes big, dense books... and even Mike seems a bit out of his depth (and frankly bored) this time. If you're not into this kind of thing you'll probably not want to invest thirty non-refundable minutes of your life this way.

Campbell sounds at times like a fundamentalist: "this person God," "demonic forces." Clearly he's not, the man is merely Reformed. The most exciting moment in the half hour for me was when Campbell actually lifted up and drank from the "You're Included" coffee mug. Hey, I thought it was just a prop!

Earlier I did a potted review of Campbell's doorstop The Deliverance of God.

Parasites of Ill Fortune

Petra: wanna house swap Christchurch for this?

Though Christchurch remains a shattered city months after the earthquakes, 'Cantabs' are a hardy breed, as witnessed by their continued prowess on the rugby field.  In trying circumstances most have elected to 'stay put' and are, as people do in situations like this, getting on with their lives.

My old bete noire Bob Thiel rattled his keyboard over Christchurch recently.  Bob, a California alternative health practitioner and self anointed apologist for Roderick Meredith's version of Armstrongism, is a prophecy buff.  In fact he's even self-published a book on "2012".

Here's what Bob has to say about Christchurch.

New Zealanders are still rattled by earthquakes... Well, Jesus, of course, warned about a time with such issues... The Bible repeatedly indicates that “natural disasters” are intended to get people (and nations) to repent... Yet, the idea of national repentance does not seem to have gotten much press coverage over there... There will be other problems in New Zealand and elsewhere. The beginning of sorrows is not yet over, and the time of Jacob’s trouble (Jeremiah 30:7), AKA the Great Tribulation, will follow it. Whether or not your nation repents, you can personally. There is a Place of Safety for the Philadelphians and it may Be Petra.

Yep, the solution to earthquakes, my fellow Kiwis, is 'national repentence', the Trib is barrelling down on us, but as national repentance is unlikely you, if you are a 'Philadelphian' (part of the 'Philadelphia era' of the church which Bob thinks is described in the seven letters section of Revelation), can be 'spared' by joining the Meredith sect.  Do that and you'll be flown away on the wings of an eagle (jet planes, not the Darby rapture) to a prophesied 'Place of Safety' while all your dear friends and family go to hell in a hand cart. Bob hints heavily that this hidey hole is Petra, the famous tourist destination in the Jordanian desert.

Well, well...

The ethics of this kind of fear-religion are subnormal.  Parasites prey on people's uncertainties and tragedy, throw around a few proof texts with no regard to their context, historical setting or genre, prescribe the appeasement  of a foul-tempered god of their own imagination, and then toss out moronic speculation (parading as 'bible truth') about just how the divine deliverance will be, um, delivered.

I guess even on his death bed, hopefully at a ripe old age, Bob will still be spouting this nonsense.  No worse than Hal Lindsey, Harold Camping or Tim LaHaye.  But certainly no better.

Prophecy buffs or prophecy buffoons?