|
Post by legolas9 on Dec 28, 2019 12:36:29 GMT -5
However, we Evangelicals don't have to embrace the doctrine that hurts 50% of the population--doctrine that argues for women to be subservient to men--and the doctrine that McGuyre sounded when he suggested that Stafford "serve her husband." And, he did mean it in the old Evangelical sense. It's 2020, and we can rethink our beliefs, much like other faiths reconsidered their LGBTQ opinions. then he should never hope that a woman's life goal is to "serve her husband" (at least he said "serve Jesus" first). He's the Coach of the Year for a women's sport. Please McGuyre--send a different message. Maybe this forum wasn't the place to discuss McGuyre's words, but you don't have to participate in the discussion if you don't like it. Just don't click on the thread. It's that easy. And, I'm not a troll. Again, he did mean it in the old evangelical sense. How do you know this? Do you personally know him? Did he tell you this? Has he expressed this elsewhere. Stop making up stuff to support some issue you have with this coach. you changed what he said now, did he say serve your husband or her life goal should be to serve her husband. Those are vastly different and irresponsible to assume. dont Click on the thread? Okay I am going to start taking people out of context and make wild claims about what they say and expect no one to question or call it out. If you are going to post what you did be ready to be challenged especially when it comes down to trying to hurt someone’s name.
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Dec 28, 2019 12:50:42 GMT -5
However, we Evangelicals don't have to embrace the doctrine that hurts 50% of the population--doctrine that argues for women to be subservient to men--and the doctrine that McGuyre sounded when he suggested that Stafford "serve her husband." And, he did mean it in the old Evangelical sense. It's 2020, and we can rethink our beliefs, much like other faiths reconsidered their LGBTQ opinions. then he should never hope that a woman's life goal is to "serve her husband" (at least he said "serve Jesus" first). He's the Coach of the Year for a women's sport. Please McGuyre--send a different message. Maybe this forum wasn't the place to discuss McGuyre's words, but you don't have to participate in the discussion if you don't like it. Just don't click on the thread. It's that easy. And, I'm not a troll. Again, he did mean it in the old evangelical sense. How do you know this? Do you personally know him? Did he tell you this? Has he expressed this elsewhere. Stop making up stuff to support some issue you have with this coach. you changed what he said now, did he say serve your husband or her life goal should be to serve her husband. Those are vastly different and irresponsible to assume. dont Click on the thread? Okay I am going to start taking people out of context and make wild claims about what they say and expect no one to question or call it out. If you are going to post what you did be ready to be challenged especially when it comes down to trying to hurt someone’s name. First, I agree with you that this is probably not a good thread for VT. I think it's 90% a food fight with maybe 10% discussion of important issues.
Second, did you miss this post?
I don't know Ryan personally so I'm not going to say but I have known many Baptists (including quite a few from the BGCT) and they view Ephesians 5:22-33 seriously and literally. He knew that was his audience and that's the context in which those words would be understood.
|
|
|
Post by letsbeclear on Dec 28, 2019 13:06:48 GMT -5
If he really cares about women's autonomy and agency, then he should never hope that a woman's life goal is to "serve her husband" See, now you’re exaggerating even more. You’re now claiming that he said that a “woman’s life goal” (and you made it singular, implying that there is no other goal) is to serve her husband? Is that what he said? Because in the original post, it seemed like he just used the phrase ‘serve your husband’ just like you can ‘serve the poor’ or ‘serve the Lord’. If he said “your single goal in life should be to serve your husband”, I’d be with you. I find it extremely unlikely that’s what he said. And it’s really confusing that a Baylor alum could misconstrue the word ‘serve’ as badly as you have. Dec 28, 2019 11:36:29 GMT -6 legolas9 said: you changed what he said now, did he say serve your husband or her life goal should be to serve her husband. Those are vastly different and irresponsible to assume. Sorry, I didn't know how to include two posters' quotes, but I think both n00b and legolas9 aren't being fair when they say henryjames is changing what he had originally claimed. His initial post did have this in it: "What doesn't make sense is that he also said out loud in front of a crowd of young impressionable female fans--many volleyball players-- that Stafford should 'SERVE HER HUSBAND.' "McGuyre believes that Stafford should live her life to 'serve her husband.'" When I first read it, I thought the "live her life to...," while not in quotes, did seem to be an interpretation of the words henryjames did put in quotes. But I don't think it's true that he's now exaggerating beyond what he put in his original post.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Dec 28, 2019 17:38:33 GMT -5
When the woman who eventually became my wife and I were dating back in the late 1980s, I told her that the only thing I wanted from my future wife was a good scalp massage on a weekly basis, perhaps on demand. She laughed. Then we got married. To this day, she has never given me a scalp massage. I feel like I’ve been duped somehow.
|
|
|
Post by letsbeclear on Dec 28, 2019 18:33:03 GMT -5
When the woman who eventually became my wife and I were dating back in the late 1980s, I told her that the only thing I wanted from my future wife was a good scalp massage on a weekly basis, perhaps on demand. She laughed. Then we got married. To this day, she has never given me a scalp massage. I feel like I’ve been duped somehow. I'm very, very new to this forum, so could someone please tell me if "scalp massage" is code language for s&m?
|
|
|
Post by donut on Dec 28, 2019 20:01:24 GMT -5
Anyone who thinks that he would also tell a group of men to "serve his wife" needs to do more research on the Southern Baptist faith. He would probably tell them to "protect and provide for his wife" or even just "love his wife." From the Southern Baptist Convention website: The analogy the SBC provides does not insinuate equality (it compares the man to Christ and the woman to the Church... and the Church is supposed to submit to the servitude of Christ). Whether or not this is appropriate is a separate matter, but let's not pretend he meant anything different from the above.
|
|
|
Post by leftcoaster71 on Dec 28, 2019 20:49:47 GMT -5
It's a cookbook!
|
|
|
Post by baytree on Dec 28, 2019 20:52:22 GMT -5
^^^^ The text in Ephesians (about serving your husband and husbands needing to cleanse their wives) is very tied into the cover-up of sexual abuse, including abuse of children (by churches). Eve was the first to sin. She led Adam to sin. Women are deemed impure, in need of male guidance and purification. Women (including very young girls) are little temptresses and will be blamed, at least in part, for any abuse (esp sexual but also physical or emotional). Women are there to help men and, since reporting abuse ruins "a good man", it's frowned on and strongly discouraged. (Which speaks volumes about what is deemed "good" and how important women or kids are compared to men.)
The quoted words can sound innocuous but, if you know the full quote and how it's interpreted by many, it's anything but. If you're going to talk about the quote you need to understand this.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 28, 2019 20:58:04 GMT -5
I choose to believe if the audience was comprised of men. one of which was getting married, that he would have given the same advice, "serve your wife." Well, I suppose you can believe anything you like, if it makes you feel better. In my experience, however, Evangelical culture definitely does not include the concept of symmetry between husband and wife. It's more of a "separate but equal" kind of thing in US mainstream Evangelicalism, with different but supposedly equal roles for men and women. When you get farther out of the mainstream US culture, they stop even pretending that the roles are equal.
|
|
|
Post by notwvb on Dec 28, 2019 21:19:43 GMT -5
Anyone who thinks that he would also tell a group of men to "serve his wife" needs to do more research on the Southern Baptist faith. He would probably tell them to "protect and provide for his wife" or even just "love his wife." From the Southern Baptist Convention website: The analogy the SBC provides does not insinuate equality (it compares the man to Christ and the woman to the Church... and the Church is supposed to submit to the servitude of Christ). Whether or not this is appropriate is a separate matter, but let's not pretend he meant anything different from the above. I know little about the SBC other than what you've shared above, but I can read and comprehend the quote. Also know little about McGuyre but posts like the above are giving him an undeserved bad rap. I'm sure he *would* also tell husbands to serve their own wife. Why wouldn't he. It says husbands are to be *servant* leaders. This is in addition to the small matter of a husband laying his life down for his wife, if required. And there is no insinuation of equality. Rather, it expressly and explicitly states twice that wives and husbands are equal. In the analogy, the Church (bride) is to submit (not be subservient) to the loving and sacrificial leadership/headship/authority (not servitude, huh?) of Christ. You've done the research to post the site. Doesn't seem there is an understanding of what it says. (I'd trash the SBC work and go straight to the authoritative source.) Bet the SA's at Baylor do though and can appreciate the sweet ramifications of choosing a husband (if inclined to marry) who'd put her first in all things. Why is this a bad thing for SAs at Baylor? Most don't mind - more good players are on the way to Baylor.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Dec 28, 2019 21:33:31 GMT -5
Anyone who thinks that he would also tell a group of men to "serve his wife" needs to do more research on the Southern Baptist faith. He would probably tell them to "protect and provide for his wife" or even just "love his wife." From the Southern Baptist Convention website: The analogy the SBC provides does not insinuate equality (it compares the man to Christ and the woman to the Church... and the Church is supposed to submit to the servitude of Christ). Whether or not this is appropriate is a separate matter, but let's not pretend he meant anything different from the above. I know little about the SBC other than what you've shared above, but I can read and comprehend the quote. Also know little about McGuyre but posts like the above are giving him an undeserved bad rap. I'm sure he *would* also tell husbands to serve their own wife. Why wouldn't he. It says husbands are to be *servant* leaders. This is in addition to the small matter of a husband laying his life down for his wife, if required. And there is no insinuation of equality. Rather, it expressly and explicitly states twice that wives and husbands are equal. In the analogy, the Church (bride) is to submit (not be subservient) to the loving and sacrificial leadership/headship/authority (not servitude, huh?) of Christ. You've done the research to post the site. Doesn't seem there is an understanding of what it says. (I'd trash the SBC work and go straight to the authoritative source.) Bet the SA's at Baylor do though and can appreciate the sweet ramifications of choosing a husband (if inclined to marry) who'd put her first in all things. Why is this a bad thing for SAs at Baylor? Most don't mind - more good players are on the way to Baylor. I was raised Southern Baptist in Texas about two hours from Waco. I didn't need research to tell me any of this, although for someone who admittedly doesn't know anything about the SBC, you sure are "sure" of many things regarding their teachings and ideology. I'm not sure where the "equal" parts came from, but my hunch is it's probably a response to extreme negative criticism the SBC has gotten about this very subject. I know many many many Baptist women in the state of Texas who think that feminism is a threat to their "view" on marriage, because they (I'm not making this up) don't view themselves as equal to men, and believe it is their God-given purpose to be a servant to men. There are entire sermons on this in Baptist churches, going all the way back to the creation of Adam and Eve, and how Eve was created from Adam for the purpose of serving him. This is where "serve his husband" comes from. Whether or not McGuyre has a "modern" view on this phrase is certainly up for debate, but the prevailing notion in Baptist churches is still "husband protects, wife serves." Go to a Baptist sermon on marriage in rural Texas, and then come back to this thread. It's not a "bad rap." It's just facts on Baptist teachings. (BTW, the "servant leadership" is not the servant leadership of the husband to the wife. It's stating that the wife should subject herself, as a servant, to the servant leadership of the husband to the lord - i.e. the husband is a servant to Christ, the wife a servant to the husband. And it doesn't matter that they state they are "equal" twice, when the rest of the text completely contradicts that. Don't come @ me about comprehension.)
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Dec 28, 2019 21:50:06 GMT -5
I know little about the SBC other than what you've shared above, but I can read and comprehend the quote. Also know little about McGuyre but posts like the above are giving him an undeserved bad rap. I'm sure he *would* also tell husbands to serve their own wife. Why wouldn't he. It says husbands are to be *servant* leaders. This is in addition to the small matter of a husband laying his life down for his wife, if required. And there is no insinuation of equality. Rather, it expressly and explicitly states twice that wives and husbands are equal. In the analogy, the Church (bride) is to submit (not be subservient) to the loving and sacrificial leadership/headship/authority (not servitude, huh?) of Christ. You've done the research to post the site. Doesn't seem there is an understanding of what it says. (I'd trash the SBC work and go straight to the authoritative source.) Bet the SA's at Baylor do though and can appreciate the sweet ramifications of choosing a husband (if inclined to marry) who'd put her first in all things. Why is this a bad thing for SAs at Baylor? Most don't mind - more good players are on the way to Baylor. I was raised Southern Baptist in Texas about two hours from Waco. I didn't need research to tell me any of this, although for someone who admittedly doesn't know anything about the SBC, you sure are "sure" of many things regarding their teachings and ideology. I'm not sure where the "equal" parts came from, but my hunch is it's probably a response to extreme negative criticism the SBC has gotten about this very subject. I know many many many Baptist women in the state of Texas who think that feminism is a threat to their "view" on marriage, because they (I'm not making this up) don't view themselves as equal to men, and believe it is their God-given purpose to be a servant to men. There are entire sermons on this in Baptist churches, going all the way back to the creation of Adam and Eve, and how Eve was created from Adam for the purpose of serving him. This is where "serve his husband" comes from. Whether or not McGuyre has a "modern" view on this phrase is certainly up for debate, but the prevailing notion in Baptist churches is still "husband protects, wife serves." Go to a Baptist sermon on marriage in rural Texas, and then come back to this thread. It's not a "bad rap." It's just facts on Baptist teachings. (BTW, the "servant leadership" is not the servant leadership of the husband to the wife. It's stating that the wife should subject herself, as a servant, to the servant leadership of the husband to the lord - i.e. the husband is a servant to Christ, the wife a servant to the husband. And it doesn't matter that they state they are "equal" twice, when the rest of the text completely contradicts that. Don't come @ me about comprehension.) Why are you avoiding the elephant in the room, whether it is appropiate? Simple question, yes or no?
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Dec 28, 2019 22:09:21 GMT -5
I asked my wife to serve me, but she couldn't get the ball over the net, even underhand.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Dec 29, 2019 3:32:28 GMT -5
I was raised Southern Baptist in Texas about two hours from Waco. I didn't need research to tell me any of this, although for someone who admittedly doesn't know anything about the SBC, you sure are "sure" of many things regarding their teachings and ideology. I'm not sure where the "equal" parts came from, but my hunch is it's probably a response to extreme negative criticism the SBC has gotten about this very subject. I know many many many Baptist women in the state of Texas who think that feminism is a threat to their "view" on marriage, because they (I'm not making this up) don't view themselves as equal to men, and believe it is their God-given purpose to be a servant to men. There are entire sermons on this in Baptist churches, going all the way back to the creation of Adam and Eve, and how Eve was created from Adam for the purpose of serving him. This is where "serve his husband" comes from. Whether or not McGuyre has a "modern" view on this phrase is certainly up for debate, but the prevailing notion in Baptist churches is still "husband protects, wife serves." Go to a Baptist sermon on marriage in rural Texas, and then come back to this thread. It's not a "bad rap." It's just facts on Baptist teachings. (BTW, the "servant leadership" is not the servant leadership of the husband to the wife. It's stating that the wife should subject herself, as a servant, to the servant leadership of the husband to the lord - i.e. the husband is a servant to Christ, the wife a servant to the husband. And it doesn't matter that they state they are "equal" twice, when the rest of the text completely contradicts that. Don't come @ me about comprehension.) Why are you avoiding the elephant in the room, whether it is appropiate? Simple question, yes or no? That is for each person or each Christian to decide, not you
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Dec 29, 2019 9:08:53 GMT -5
Why are you avoiding the elephant in the room, whether it is appropiate? Simple question, yes or no? That is for each person or each Christian to decide, not you Where did I say I will decide for him? I simply want an answer.
|
|