Wierwille came from an era of male chauvinism and a background that kept women "in their place"
The two or three "men" that I personally knew, that vic directly trained in early corps, more than reflected this.
They really thought that a "loose" woman (not morals, but in thought and deed) was practically an invitation to possession, to be ruled over with a rod of iron. I saw a group of women punished in public because one or two offered REASONABLE, CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.
Talk about free will, consent and participation all you want..
these women did not sign on for that kind of abuse. It wasn't part of the "agreement".
Mostly, the "agreements" with anybody in der vey, that I knew of, were that all agreements were off.
Subject to the wind as it blows, or to whatever the particular color of "truth" was in stock that particular month.
Still, in Genesis 3:16, God said to the woman "he shall have rule over thee".
TWI was being biblical in teaching that the husband is to rule (with love) over the wife.
Like it or not, that's what it was , a biblical ministry.
If you stayed around for years, you consented to it. Your participation acknowledged your own belief in it.
Okay Genesis 3:16--Let's see what am I missing here???? I know! CONTEXT!!!
I don't mean the context of the surrounding verses but the context of Adam and Eve's lives at that point in time.
Before this they had lived in a garden that provided everything they need to survive and be happy. They could come and go as they pleased safe from all harm , disease and other calamity. There was no need for one of them to be a leader and one to be a follower since God was the leader and they both were His followers. In fact Genesis is very clear about what position Eve occupied she was Adams "helpmeet", not his servant, not his follower, his equal companion.
But now in Genesis 3:16 everything has changed. Gone is the garden, gone is the safety, God no longer will speak to them directly because they have become sinful and must be cutoff from His presence. They must go into a now hostile world full of dangers and trials with the possibility of death ever before them. In this situation the former policy of each "doing their own thing" is not only not feasible but could be downright deadly. So God in an act of compassion, gives them the charge "He [Adam] shall rule over thee [Eve]". He makes the physically stronger of the two {Adam} the one who leads--a practical way of working now that they are on their own. Adam will be able to better fend off wild animals, carry heavy burdens of food and materials etc and so protect his physically weaker wife and their future children. In short, God has given them a blueprint to aid them in succeeding in their new life.
Goc NEVER declares that Eve is anything else than Adam's "Helpmeet". He never changes her status as Adam's equal partner in God's gerand scheme of things all God does is outline the division of labor.
God also never declares that Eve is inferior or of less status when it comes to praying and sacrificing to God. CUSTOMS of MEN over the centuries made the man the "Spritual head of the house", caused women to go to their husbands for guidance. God never once declared Eve to have lesser rights and responsibilities when it came to the relationship between them.
How does "submitting to your own husband" (who loves you like Christ loves the church)
equal
Degrading women
?
Degradation has no place in a godly marriage, or in any godly relationship between people. I don't think the whole "degradation" bit was part of the marriage vow. I didn't vow to my husband that I would take abuse or be treated as less than a woman of God when I married him. He didn't vow to put me down and treat me like a lower form of life.
I think the whole "submission" to the husband as the head thing is a little from degrading women... but that's only my opinion.
Well said as a man who never was required to submit to the humiliation and abuse that was required of a woman who desired to stand aproved before God in twi.
Scriptures were used to ensnare and enslave. These pervs found the perfect way to commit their atrocities with impunity. While one would normally stand up in outrage when mistreated, if one feared that they would lack meekness or be considered posessed if they spoke up or raised an objection, an otherwise sound of mind adult would meekly accept the cruel treatment without protest.
The two or three "men" that I personally knew, that vic directly trained in early corps, more than reflected this.
They really thought that a "loose" woman (not morals, but in thought and deed) was practically an invitation to possession, to be ruled over with a rod of iron. I saw a group of women punished in public because one or two offered REASONABLE, CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.
Talk about free will, consent and participation all you want..
these women did not sign on for that kind of abuse. It wasn't part of the "agreement".
Mostly, the "agreements" with anybody in der vey, that I knew of, were that all agreements were off.
Subject to the wind as it blows, or to whatever the particular color of "truth" was in stock that particular month.
Spending a few years in an American Cult might possibly be the sign of a “well rounded” education? But spending...too much time in a cult has to be considered an ill spent youth!
Eph 5:22 ¶ Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 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.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
Oldies you are a smart man, and I know that you have a big heart. So given those two things I am certain that you are not suggesting that these verses, regardless of how interpreted were rightfully used to justify the abuses that some wives endured at the hands of their husbands while in TWI. Are you?
Subject to the wind as it blows, or to whatever the particular color of "truth" was in stock that particular month.
I love this line Mr. Ham. It is sooo "true"! :huh: :P
Eph 5:23 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.
Oldies, you may be talking to Mo, but how would I explain it.. hmm.
If this is the justification for abuse, I would rather throw it away. People are more important than words on a page, especially if we do not understand them correctly, or if they simply don't reflect reality.
"see? It's da WORD of GAWD, in black and white.."
I've seen people counselled to stay in abusive marriages based upon this black and white definition of marriage.
if these really are Paul's words, they don't ring true, at least to me.
I think it is far too much power for an individual, to exercise over another.
If a person lets go of the concept that it is a perfect word, accurate from Genesis to Revelation.. the problem seems to solve itself..
on the other hand, what about the historical context? The husband WAS the head of the wife in that culture. He OWNED her..
Perhaps it is a little bit of sarcasm. "yeah, you're head, like Christ is head".. Luke 10:44- "he who is chiefest among you, let him be servant of ALL".
He didn't exactly boss his way, or pull the strings of his position to become savior.
maybe they couldn't change culture. but they could love as the head..
I'm not sure which, or either I believe at this point.
If the true interpretation justifies "putting the little woman in her place" by bullying, endlessly quoting and harping on, even with scripture, regarding her as more spiritually suceptible to devils merely because she is female, I would throw it away.
Somebody would have to convince me on a practical level otherwise.
Oldies you are a smart man, and I know that you have a big heart. So given those two things I am certain that you are not suggesting that these verses, regardless of how interpreted were rightfully used to justify the abuses that some wives endured at the hands of their husbands while in TWI. Are you?
Of course not.
I do however believe that it's very possible that many of the legitimate abuses endured by wives didn't come from any teachings or motivations from twi or its leaders. But no matter, the purveyors of victim entitlement want to continue to blame twi and its male leaders for every cruel and evil act of a husband against a wife, while in twi.
But I think each situation must be examined separately to determine whether twi is really at fault.
As it happens, experiences in my own family were exactly the opposite of what some present here. My mother was physically abused by my father, years before twi. But while in twi, none of this ever happened. Far from it ... my mother got our entire family very involved in twi in the early 1970's.
Is it just me or has the Way kept the degrating of women prevalent? I've never attended the Way but have been ridiculed by ex-Way members that I'm supporting women's rights.
Getting back to this original question and statement is telling. Look at what Hooner did, she blamed twi because some ex way members ridiculed her for supporting women's rights. ex way members's statements have nothing to do with twi but twi gets the blame anyway.
ex way members's statements have nothing to do with twi
I dunno. I would say that it depends on the particular statements.
If I said "little green men live inside of the moon" you could be pretty safe saying that this statement had nothing to do with der vey, barring the effect it may or may not have had on me.
But if a significant number of followers assert that the U.S. is being taken over in 1976, that the trininty is wrong, that followers are supposed to implicitly obey their leadership, that wives are to be in subjection, that abortion is notsa bad..
you might REASONABLY make an inference that these statements have something to do with der vey..
Eph 5:22 ¶ Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 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.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
In order for a wife to submit to her husband "as to the Lord" she would have to know what was required and be actively practicing submission to the Lord on HER OWN behalf.
This exhorts her to listen to her husbands counsel with the same degree of attentiveness and respect that she would listen to the Lord's counsel. NOWHERE does it decree that she must no longer go to the Lord on her own behalf and instead depend on her husband to do it for her. Nowhere does it demand that she follow her husbands decisions if they are not in keeping with the will of the Lord just because he says too.
I challenge anyone to find ANY passage in the Bible that tells a married woman that she is not to go to the Lord in Prayer and supplication on her own behalf at her own behest.
The husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church. One of the cornerstones of want God and his Son Jesus Christ preach to man is FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Freedom to believe or not believe, freedom to follow or not follow, freedom to obey or not obey. Therefore if the husband is truly following this passage he cannot DEMAND that his wife follow any of his dictates for to do so would violate her freedom of choice and it would be an exercise in "unrighteous dominion".
So the wife is to be subject to her husband as the church is subject to Christ, following his lead when prayer and supplication have revealed his way is in keeping with the will of Heavenly Father all the while NEVER surrendering her right of freedom of choice. Following her husband because she has no choice but to do so, is not a Christian principle in fact the exact opposite, It was Satan who wanted all mankind FORCED to obey Heavenly Father.
TWI, read these passages and interpretated them to support their preconceived ideas that women were lying, spritual inferiors who had to be "dealt with" and "kept in line".
One thing the "women must submit to their husbands first time every time no questions asked" folks seem to forget is Eph 5:20-21:
"Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; (21) submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God"
So all are to submit one to another? That might (gasp) mean that at times a male believer might have to submit to a female believer! Oh, the horror! Somebody get Oldies some smelling salts!
How does "submitting to your own husband" (who loves you like Christ loves the church)
equal
Degrading women
?
Degradation has no place in a godly marriage, or in any godly relationship between people. I don't think the whole "degradation" bit was part of the marriage vow. I didn't vow to my husband that I would take abuse or be treated as less than a woman of God when I married him. He didn't vow to put me down and treat me like a lower form of life.
I think the whole "submission" to the husband as the head thing is a little from degrading women... but that's only my opinion.
A valid point. John uses his position as head of the house to act as a tiebreaker (when there is a situation and we are vehemently opposed to each other) not as a tyrant who treats me like a five year old child. 1 Peter 3:7 exhorts husbands to 'Dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.' I have heard teachings that 'giving honour to the wife, as unto the weaker vessel' means to treat her as a piece of fine china or rare crystal in value, not to denigrate her as a second-class citizen. The phrase 'heirs together' is the same word that is used of a believer's position as a 'joint heir' with Jesus Christ. Christ is the head of the body but believers enjoy all the same privileges as Jesus Christ and no where (as far as I know) does the Bible refer to believers as second-class citizens. Indeed, that verse seems to imply that if men degrade their wives, their access to God may be limited (prayers be hindered).
So the wife is to be subject to her husband as the church is subject to Christ, following his lead when prayer and supplication have revealed his way is in keeping with the will of Heavenly Father all the while NEVER surrendering her right of freedom of choice. Following her husband because she has no choice but to do so, is not a Christian principle in fact the exact opposite, It was Satan who wanted all mankind FORCED to obey Heavenly Father.
TWI, read these passages and interpretated them to support their preconceived ideas that women were lying, spritual inferiors who had to be "dealt with" and "kept in line".
Mo , I followed along and agree with everything you wrote, except the above.
The text in Ephesians reads that as the church is subject unto Christ, so the wive is to subject to her own husband in everything.
It doesn't say "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing, except when they choose not to."
...So all are to submit one to another? That might (gasp) mean that at times a male believer might have to submit to a female believer! Oh, the horror! Somebody get Oldies some smelling salts!
WG
I have done this ooodles of times and especially when having female coordinators !
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
16
40
32
Popular Days
Jul 5
32
Jul 11
29
Jul 9
26
Jul 6
25
Top Posters In This Topic
GrouchoMarxJr 13 posts
oldiesman 16 posts
Ham 40 posts
Jeaniam 32 posts
Popular Days
Jul 5 2007
32 posts
Jul 11 2007
29 posts
Jul 9 2007
26 posts
Jul 6 2007
25 posts
Ham
I've seen people narcotized by sufficient brow beating with a bible..
sadly, der vey is not unique in this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
The two or three "men" that I personally knew, that vic directly trained in early corps, more than reflected this.
They really thought that a "loose" woman (not morals, but in thought and deed) was practically an invitation to possession, to be ruled over with a rod of iron. I saw a group of women punished in public because one or two offered REASONABLE, CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.
Talk about free will, consent and participation all you want..
these women did not sign on for that kind of abuse. It wasn't part of the "agreement".
Mostly, the "agreements" with anybody in der vey, that I knew of, were that all agreements were off.
Subject to the wind as it blows, or to whatever the particular color of "truth" was in stock that particular month.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I saw them sit there and just take it.. merely because they had nowhere else to go.
it was one of those "surreal" moments in der vey.
One guy accused his wife of conversing with devils, simply because I asked HER to pray for me, and not HIM..
bastards just as soon would have given the wife a lobotomy if they could have..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Honest to God.. they may not force the women to wear berkas and veils, but these sonsabitches still regard them as chattel..
even justify it with the bible.
I wonder how more primitive we can be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Okay Genesis 3:16--Let's see what am I missing here???? I know! CONTEXT!!!
I don't mean the context of the surrounding verses but the context of Adam and Eve's lives at that point in time.
Before this they had lived in a garden that provided everything they need to survive and be happy. They could come and go as they pleased safe from all harm , disease and other calamity. There was no need for one of them to be a leader and one to be a follower since God was the leader and they both were His followers. In fact Genesis is very clear about what position Eve occupied she was Adams "helpmeet", not his servant, not his follower, his equal companion.
But now in Genesis 3:16 everything has changed. Gone is the garden, gone is the safety, God no longer will speak to them directly because they have become sinful and must be cutoff from His presence. They must go into a now hostile world full of dangers and trials with the possibility of death ever before them. In this situation the former policy of each "doing their own thing" is not only not feasible but could be downright deadly. So God in an act of compassion, gives them the charge "He [Adam] shall rule over thee [Eve]". He makes the physically stronger of the two {Adam} the one who leads--a practical way of working now that they are on their own. Adam will be able to better fend off wild animals, carry heavy burdens of food and materials etc and so protect his physically weaker wife and their future children. In short, God has given them a blueprint to aid them in succeeding in their new life.
Goc NEVER declares that Eve is anything else than Adam's "Helpmeet". He never changes her status as Adam's equal partner in God's gerand scheme of things all God does is outline the division of labor.
God also never declares that Eve is inferior or of less status when it comes to praying and sacrificing to God. CUSTOMS of MEN over the centuries made the man the "Spritual head of the house", caused women to go to their husbands for guidance. God never once declared Eve to have lesser rights and responsibilities when it came to the relationship between them.
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Then how do you explain Ephesians?
Eph 5:22 ¶ Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 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.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
I have a question.
How does "submitting to your own husband" (who loves you like Christ loves the church)
equal
Degrading women
?
Degradation has no place in a godly marriage, or in any godly relationship between people. I don't think the whole "degradation" bit was part of the marriage vow. I didn't vow to my husband that I would take abuse or be treated as less than a woman of God when I married him. He didn't vow to put me down and treat me like a lower form of life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Well said as a man who never was required to submit to the humiliation and abuse that was required of a woman who desired to stand aproved before God in twi.
Scriptures were used to ensnare and enslave. These pervs found the perfect way to commit their atrocities with impunity. While one would normally stand up in outrage when mistreated, if one feared that they would lack meekness or be considered posessed if they spoke up or raised an objection, an otherwise sound of mind adult would meekly accept the cruel treatment without protest.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
How does your wife explain it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
JJ, the submission to husband deal is being presented as a reasonable explanation of the humiliation and mistreatment that many women endured in twi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Darnit, Rascal! I was hoping that WASN'T what I was reading, because that is SICK.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Spending a few years in an American Cult might possibly be the sign of a “well rounded” education?
But spending...too much time in a cult has to be considered an ill spent youth! 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Oldies you are a smart man, and I know that you have a big heart. So given those two things I am certain that you are not suggesting that these verses, regardless of how interpreted were rightfully used to justify the abuses that some wives endured at the hands of their husbands while in TWI. Are you?
I love this line Mr. Ham. It is sooo "true"! :huh: :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Oldies, you may be talking to Mo, but how would I explain it.. hmm.
If this is the justification for abuse, I would rather throw it away. People are more important than words on a page, especially if we do not understand them correctly, or if they simply don't reflect reality.
"see? It's da WORD of GAWD, in black and white.."
I've seen people counselled to stay in abusive marriages based upon this black and white definition of marriage.
if these really are Paul's words, they don't ring true, at least to me.
I think it is far too much power for an individual, to exercise over another.
If a person lets go of the concept that it is a perfect word, accurate from Genesis to Revelation.. the problem seems to solve itself..
on the other hand, what about the historical context? The husband WAS the head of the wife in that culture. He OWNED her..
Perhaps it is a little bit of sarcasm. "yeah, you're head, like Christ is head".. Luke 10:44- "he who is chiefest among you, let him be servant of ALL".
He didn't exactly boss his way, or pull the strings of his position to become savior.
maybe they couldn't change culture. but they could love as the head..
I'm not sure which, or either I believe at this point.
If the true interpretation justifies "putting the little woman in her place" by bullying, endlessly quoting and harping on, even with scripture, regarding her as more spiritually suceptible to devils merely because she is female, I would throw it away.
Somebody would have to convince me on a practical level otherwise.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Of course not.
I do however believe that it's very possible that many of the legitimate abuses endured by wives didn't come from any teachings or motivations from twi or its leaders. But no matter, the purveyors of victim entitlement want to continue to blame twi and its male leaders for every cruel and evil act of a husband against a wife, while in twi.
But I think each situation must be examined separately to determine whether twi is really at fault.
As it happens, experiences in my own family were exactly the opposite of what some present here. My mother was physically abused by my father, years before twi. But while in twi, none of this ever happened. Far from it ... my mother got our entire family very involved in twi in the early 1970's.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i saw veepee and psychogeer treat their wives like dogs
--
i married a corps person and was NOTHING AT ALL like that
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Getting back to this original question and statement is telling. Look at what Hooner did, she blamed twi because some ex way members ridiculed her for supporting women's rights. ex way members's statements have nothing to do with twi but twi gets the blame anyway.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. I would say that it depends on the particular statements.
If I said "little green men live inside of the moon" you could be pretty safe saying that this statement had nothing to do with der vey, barring the effect it may or may not have had on me.
But if a significant number of followers assert that the U.S. is being taken over in 1976, that the trininty is wrong, that followers are supposed to implicitly obey their leadership, that wives are to be in subjection, that abortion is notsa bad..
you might REASONABLY make an inference that these statements have something to do with der vey..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
In order for a wife to submit to her husband "as to the Lord" she would have to know what was required and be actively practicing submission to the Lord on HER OWN behalf.
This exhorts her to listen to her husbands counsel with the same degree of attentiveness and respect that she would listen to the Lord's counsel. NOWHERE does it decree that she must no longer go to the Lord on her own behalf and instead depend on her husband to do it for her. Nowhere does it demand that she follow her husbands decisions if they are not in keeping with the will of the Lord just because he says too.
I challenge anyone to find ANY passage in the Bible that tells a married woman that she is not to go to the Lord in Prayer and supplication on her own behalf at her own behest.
The husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church. One of the cornerstones of want God and his Son Jesus Christ preach to man is FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Freedom to believe or not believe, freedom to follow or not follow, freedom to obey or not obey. Therefore if the husband is truly following this passage he cannot DEMAND that his wife follow any of his dictates for to do so would violate her freedom of choice and it would be an exercise in "unrighteous dominion".
So the wife is to be subject to her husband as the church is subject to Christ, following his lead when prayer and supplication have revealed his way is in keeping with the will of Heavenly Father all the while NEVER surrendering her right of freedom of choice. Following her husband because she has no choice but to do so, is not a Christian principle in fact the exact opposite, It was Satan who wanted all mankind FORCED to obey Heavenly Father.
TWI, read these passages and interpretated them to support their preconceived ideas that women were lying, spritual inferiors who had to be "dealt with" and "kept in line".
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
good post, mo
i don't remember seeing much in the way of lord-like leaders so i couldn't even fathom the submission thing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Templelady - AMEN SISTA!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Wow, Temple Lady, you are THE WOMAN!!!!!
One thing the "women must submit to their husbands first time every time no questions asked" folks seem to forget is Eph 5:20-21:
"Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; (21) submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God"
So all are to submit one to another? That might (gasp) mean that at times a male believer might have to submit to a female believer! Oh, the horror! Somebody get Oldies some smelling salts!
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
A valid point. John uses his position as head of the house to act as a tiebreaker (when there is a situation and we are vehemently opposed to each other) not as a tyrant who treats me like a five year old child. 1 Peter 3:7 exhorts husbands to 'Dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.' I have heard teachings that 'giving honour to the wife, as unto the weaker vessel' means to treat her as a piece of fine china or rare crystal in value, not to denigrate her as a second-class citizen. The phrase 'heirs together' is the same word that is used of a believer's position as a 'joint heir' with Jesus Christ. Christ is the head of the body but believers enjoy all the same privileges as Jesus Christ and no where (as far as I know) does the Bible refer to believers as second-class citizens. Indeed, that verse seems to imply that if men degrade their wives, their access to God may be limited (prayers be hindered).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Mo , I followed along and agree with everything you wrote, except the above.
The text in Ephesians reads that as the church is subject unto Christ, so the wive is to subject to her own husband in everything.
It doesn't say "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing, except when they choose not to."
I have done this ooodles of times and especially when having female coordinators !
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.