In Part 14 of The Joke Was On Me, I spoke about how when confronted about his beliefs, MFFFIL hemmed and hawed and gave my ex some bullbutter about "The Curse of Eve" - which he couldn't really explain other than to infer that because of "The Curse", my ex had to be in submission and obedience to a man, which at that time, he felt should be him.
A conversation elsewhere brought this to the forefront of my mind yesterday, so I want to examine it for just a bit. The entire idea is based on this passage from Genesis 3...
And you will desire to control your husband,
but he will rule over you.
To P/QF types, this seems pretty black and white - and I suppose it is...if you're willing to ignore the new covenant and NT texts (and when convenient, P/QF fundamentalists are more than willing).
"The Curse" was the result of sin. Period. Sin for which there was, at that time, no appropriate atonement. It was also nailed to the cross of Christ, so, any woman who still lives "under the curse", or any man who still oppresses the female gender with "the Curse of Eve", obviously has accepted, at best, only part of the work of Christ. At best.
The work of Christ, and the torn veil, were like a "reset button" to restore original design, to make us all equal before God. As was once discussed in the comment string of Imbibled Marriage, everything about "the Curse", and its impact on interpersonal relationships, was turned upside down by the cross of Christ. As Paul wrote in Galatians 3:28...
There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
God doesn't play favorites. It's fascinating, and at the same time frustrating, how people who dwell so much on "the spirit vs. the flesh" build the foundation of their lives around thinking and relational structures which, according to Paul, aren't "in Christ Jesus", which would, by default, place them "in the flesh", and how they only want to accept a part of the work of Christ. Christ spoke against lording it over one another, yet P/QF organizations like Gothard are built entirely around an "Umbrella of Authority" - emphasizing the weakness of the female gender, and invoking "the Curse" to do so, and then you have groups like Vision Forum utterly obsessed with the authority of human fathers over their wives and children. I once wrote about their Patriarchal Apostasy, and if you've ever read their "tenets of biblical patriarchy", you'd see how most of the BS is culled from the OT, prior to the work of Christ, almost willing followers to remain under the curse for the sake of a culture.
When they only accept a PART, at best, of the work of Christ, maybe you can understand how I don't really consider them brothers and sisters in the faith. We don't share the same faith.
Something else that I loved reading recently, cause this is something I bumped heads with my former future grandfather-in-law on regarding "gender roles", and something that spoke a lot more about him and his beliefs than he probably wanted it to...Mara wrote a great piece about Deborah.
Most of us have probably heard fundamentalists rationalize and explain away Deborah's leadership over Israel with something like "when there were no men worthy or qualified to lead, God raised up Deborah in their absence." Total BS. MFFGIL even argued that Deborah wasn't representative of "God's high purpose for woman" - whatever that religious tripe meant. You can read the account of Deborah in Judges 4 every single way including nekkid and standing on your head, and you won't find so much as a suggestion within the book that Deborah was only chosen because no man was capable, or there was a lack of qualified men, what have you. There's as much "biblical" evidence that Deborah was chosen over half a million FULLY qualified and capable men as there is evidence that she was chosen from a lack of capable men. Judges 4 doesn't even touch on whatever dynamic may or may not have brought Deborah to power - it simply identifies Deborah as who the Israelites went to for judgment, i.e., their leader. The rationalization is a fundamentalist presupposition, reading into the story a dynamic that the relevant scripture doesn't begin to support. Without it, everything about the narrow-minded, black and white fundamentalist interpretation of gender roles crumbles. Really, that's the foundation of pretty much every fundamentalist presupposition.
If MFFGIL so easily accepted this rationalization of Deborah (which he obviously heard from other fundamentalists - probably from his own father), it makes you wonder just how many of his beliefs he's arrived at by taking the cup of Kool-aid and gulping away.
God forbid a fundamentalist would ever have to actually think about what they believe and why they believe it.