The Trouble with "Respect"

I really like that title. It reminds me of two other titles. One title it reminds me of is a cute Hayley Mills movie called The Trouble with Angels. The other one I'm reminded of is a cute Star Trek episode called The Trouble with Tribbles. (how can a Star Trek Episode be cute, you may ask? well is you have ever seen it, you wouldn't ask.)

But as cute and fun as those two shows were, the trouble with 'respect' is neither cute nor fun. It's frustrating.

It's frustrating when men declare that 'women must respect their husbands' is a straight up command from God based on the needs of men to be respected when I know that the Greek word used in Ephesians that is translated 'respect' is the same word we get 'phobia' from.

I could go on but K. Martin put it so well in a comment under yesterday's post. I'm going to cut and paste her comment here so that people won't miss it.

"It can be difficult to understand Ep 5:33 and the "men need respect" issue from a modern and Western perspective. It's helpful to consider the Greek. The word used for respect in Ep 5:33 is phobeó (Strong's 5399). Synonyms listed for the word phobeo are fear, dread, reverence, am afraid, terrified. Wendy mentioned the word "reverence" in her blog post. However, most commentators totally omit the fear and dread part. The English word phobia was derived from the Greek phobeo. Paul was advising wives to have a certain amount of reverence AND fear for their husbands. Why would Paul say such a thing? The context is very important. In a patriarchal society, women (especially young girls) were forced to marry men that their fathers chose. I think we can all imagine the implications of an arranged marriage for a young girl in a patriarchal society. In ancient Rome, wife beating was legal. It was almost impossible for a woman to get a divorce or seek outside refuge because of ill treatment. We know from Ephesians that the idea of a husband loving his wife like Christ loved the church and died for her was a new, radical concept. In this climate, fear might be a wife's best defense under the circumstances causing her to tread lightly around a potentially abusive, unloving husband.

"With that being said, I believe that Ep 5:33 does infer something very telling about the nature of men, and it all points back to Ge 3:16. Wendy has done an excellent job of fleshing out the "your desire will be for your husband" on her blog. However, the "he will rule over you" is another issue commentators like to omit and remain silent about. The Hebrew word for rule is mashal (Strong's 4910). The definition means to have dominion, reign and master. In light of that I believe that men want to be feared (phobeo) because fear makes it a lot easier for them to dominate, master and reign over their wives. Albeit, the Hebrew word rule (mishal) is very different from the servant leadership that Jesus modeled in the NT, but that's another discussion.

"In the animal kingdom, "being feared" helps predators trap prey and achieve dominance and rank. On the flip side, "being afraid" helps prey be alert, flee and hide from potential predators and dangerous situations."

Mara here again. I really like her comment. I John 4:18 says that perfect love casts out fear. This should cause one question whether or not Paul is really saying that all wives for all time should fear their husbands at the same time he's telling husbands to love their wives. Making respect/fear a command for all time rather than a realizing that it is a particular instruction toward the Ephesian patriarchal structure has no merit.

And as K. Martin has said, men who are demanding respect and being told it is their need, one that their wives should fill unconditionally, this plays into and sanctifies their fallen nature to want to lord over their wives. Anything that plays into any human being's fallen nature, male of female... It's not cute. It's ugly as sin.

New Calvinism Akin to Christian Vulcanism?

Part 5 of New Calvinism for Dummies made me ask this of Paul Dohse. His answer was, yes. The New Calvinist works very hard to remove himself from,... uhm, himself, especially his emotional self, to make himself an objective observer of his life so he can deal with his issues.

He is more like a scientist observing himself with removed objectiveness than a human being dealing with this life. I guess this is why New Calvinist like Driscoll have such a hard time with poetry which deals with the subjective heart and emotions, up close and personal.

New Calvinism for Dummies, part 5

Something Completely Different

Well, sort of completely different.

It's no secret here that I have an appreciation for fiction and in particular, speculative fiction. I've mentioned Star Trek here more than once and did a series on Apollonian and Dionysian and the affects of stories and especially Single Stories have on us.

Well, I follow a number of blogs, more than what I have listed on the side here. I follow a fictional blog in the genre of speculative fiction that also happens to be Christian. Now don't freak. It is NOT of the CBMW or Patriarchy variety. I have no stomach for fiction from those crowds.

No this is a far more mainstream Christian Spec. Fiction blog that includes Catholics and Mainstream Protestants. It is called Avenir Eclectia. Don't ask me how to pronounce it.

Mostly I have just followed it on my own, not mentioning it here because I saw little connection between it and what we talk about here.

However today's fictional post is on a topic a little nearer to what we talk about than usual so I thought I share it. Cultic misprophecies.

The lovely thing about Spec. Fiction is how it lends itself to exploring and resolving the issues we deal with today and even reoccurring issues that come up from time to time in Christian Circles.

So please, if you have time, take a peek at this piece by Walt Staples, "Stony's World: Apocalypse Preempted".

http://avenireclectia.com/2011/09/stonys-world-apocalypse-preempted.html

MLK, Jr. on the Importance of Images

Getting back to my thoughts on MLK, Jr., Nichelle Nichols, and Star Trek, I want to look at King's words to Nichols from the link in the 7/21/11 post. In fact, in this post, I simply want to lay out the basics of the conversation and make a few comments on it.

MLK, Jr.: "You have one of the most wonderful roles. Images are so important. The manner in which you have created this character. We have great pride."
NN: "I'm going to miss my costars"
MLK, Jr.: "What are you talking about?"
NN: "I'm leaving the show."
MLK, Jr.: "You cannot do that."
NN: (I was dumbfounded.)
MLK, Jr.: "You have the first non-stereotypical role on television. For the first time the world sees us as we are supposed to be seen, as qualified, beautiful, intelligent people. And you are not a menial. You have to stay there."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood the importance of images, the things people see. He understood how American television in the Sixties portrayed the typical African-American and how important breaking from that visual was.
I read somewhere else that when Whoopi Goldberg first saw the character Uhura on television, she got excited and ran to tell her mother that there was a black woman on TV who wasn't a maid.
This was big stuff. And M.L. King Jr. understood it even if the magnitude of it was lost on Nichols in that day.
But we see from the interview in the link that Nichols gets it today.

Images are so important. And narrow or 'single story' images must be counteracted.
For example, the image of Sarah calling Abraham 'lord' must be counter balanced with the Old Testament story of God changing Sarah's name from Sarai to Sarah, which means female ruler and the image of God telling Abraham to obey Sarah at one point.
And the images of Deborah, Huldah, the Proverbs 31 woman, Junia, the Chosen Lady that John writes about, and many others must be held up in contrast to the images that are pushed by CBMW and Neo-patriarchy.

Images are important. And as a mother of both sons and daughters, I understand the need to provide better images than what CBMW influenced churches want children to see.

Off-topic, But Not Really

Busy, busy so haven't had time to construct my last "You have heard it said" post or follow up on why in the world I would bring up Star Trek, Lt. Uhura, and M.L.King,Jr. When time is more on my side I hope to get to both of these. Until then, let me direct you attention to a former Mix Martial Arts (MMA) fighter's take on Driscoll's obsession with MMA and his foolish attempt to connect it to 'biblical manhood'.
It is called "Confessions of a Cage Fighter: Masculinity, Misogyny, and the Fear of Losing Control"

http://theotherjournal.com/2011/06/28/the-confessions-of-a-cage-fighter-masculinity-misogyny-and-the-fear-of-losing-control/

Star Trek and Dr. M.L. King Jr.

Now for something completely different.

Back in the Sixties there was a new television show that featured a multicultural cast, something never done before.

African-American Nichelle Nichols was cast as the communications officer, Nyota Uhura. This sort of thing is no big deal now. But back in the day, this was unheard of.

But Nichols was a stage actress and grew tired of the work that went into a television series and considered quiting.
Only an encounter with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. made her understand the magnitude of her role and the revolutionary boundary pushing that Star Trek was in its day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNTSV4Eh0R4

(I am going somewhere with this. But I wanted to lay some ground work.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhura (Info on the character Uhura for the initiated.)

Order vs Chaos in Pop Culture

The funny thing about order vs chaos and the human condition is how much it pops up in entertainment. The opposing forces of Apollonian and Dionysian fighting for power and/or balance crop up all over the place.

The girls and I were just watching Jurassic park the other night and sure enough, there it was. Though I was somewhat aware of it before, only after thinking about it for this blog did I realize how blatant it really was.

John Hammond, the creator of Jurassic Park, represents the Apollonian side. He's dressed in white and has complete control (or so he thinks) of this amusement park with electric fences and safety precautions.

Dr. Ian Malcolm, a mathematician and dressed in black, is spokes person for the Dionysus side which is actually represented by the Dinosaurs. He is the one who keeps talking about the chaos theory.

In this scenario, the Dionysian is not necessarily bad. It is just nature doing what nature does. And when that nature is as big and unpredictable as dinosaurs, it is the Apollonian that comes off as in the wrong for trying to create and control what cannot be controlled so easily.

Another obvious place that speaks of the struggle between chaos and control is the TV series and movie "Get Smart". The opposing forces actually bear the names. The good guys work for "Control" and the bad guys work for "Kaos". And in this scenario control is obviously good while chaos is obviously bad.

Remember the old Star Trek from the 60s or at least have you seen a few reruns? Did you know that Captain Kirk had Apollonian and Dionysian advisers. Dr. McCoy was Dionysian and ran on emotion and intuition, whereas Mr. Spock was strictly Apollonian in nature always concerned with logic and reason. And Kirk was always trying to find the balance between them. In this case, then, there are no good guys or bad guys, only a striving for balance between the two poles.

Others who were influenced by the concept of Apollonian vs Dionysian include Stephan King, Ayn Rand, Jim Morrison, Iggy Pop, and the band Rush

The point of this post is to make people aware of how our culture is influenced by this thinking and how WE are influenced by this thinking and how we may apply it to our lives whether we are aware of it or not. Again remember Job and how his friends worked so hard to Apollonize or use Apollonianisms to order and explain Job's unexplainable chaos. It is human nature to do this. But we must remember, our nature is flawed and fallen and we are but finite living in a universe much bigger than we are. We must take care and not use Apollonianisms when really we ought to be seeking God.