News: Women are not accountable to God according to Dorothy Patterson

Well, if what Ms. Patterson is saying is that she will do as her husband tells her to do, even if he is telling her to sin, that he, not she, will be accountable for her actions, that's bunk. Will he be accountable for asking her to sin? I think so, yes. But submitting to one's husband does not include sinning, even if it is his command. He would be in the wrong for asking, but she would be in the wrong for doing.

As for single women . . . I'm going to go out on a limb ( ) and say "God." But aren't we all accountable to God?

A woman does not completely lose her autonomy by becoming married. Her husband is not God.

 

I agree! I just wonder what some others thought about it (like Ms. Patterson) since they believe that women are accountable to their husbands, not God. Where does that leave the single woman in their minds?

 

Her father.

 

And if he is no longer alive? I suppose her brothers?? Where does it end? All people are accountable to God.

 

Surely there are some godly men who could assist her. I wish I had my father over me when I was "out in the world." Would have protected me from many things.

 

personally, I think the whole statement should be thrown out about wives graciously submitting...
It is not a doctrinal issue, for one thing!

 

I will say this... verse 21 says mutual submission. verse 22 tells the wife to submit to her husband... and the follow up is an admonition to the man to serve his family like Christ serves the church. I will say to you, that if we live up to that admonition, then our wives will have no problem submitting to us. You see, if I lead my wife as Christ leads the church, then I will serve her and my decisions will be for her best interests. If I am looking to serve her best interests, then I need to listen to and seek her input in all decisions. For how can I provide for her best interests without knowing what she beleives is in her best interests. Furthermore, we are to cleave unto each other... this means we become 1 flesh. If we are married, and becoming 1 flesh, then the best interests of both should be the same. If my best interests are not my wifes, then there is a problem in my relationship to her, and we need to realign our lives. It is really a 2 way street if you follow the whole passage properly......

Stepping down from the soapbox, once again... you must interpret a passage as a whole never grab a verse out of context... another rule of hermenutics.

edited to clarify thought and for spelling

 

I think j barner said it well. I've seen many examples of men using v22 to inflict control over their spouses, and I've seen women use v22 to relinquish their own responsibility (wich I think is what Dorothy Patterson is doing). Both of these actions are unbiblical.

If only a wife is to submit in a marriage, then is only a husband is to love in a marriage, right? Wrong. The context of the whole chapter, as well as most of the book, is that husbands and wives are to both submit to each other "as to Christ" and to both love each other "as Christ loved his church".

 

I have to admit, this insight comes from studying the passages which pertain to marriage because my wife and I were having some marital issues. I saught man's advice and my pastor said to look to the Bible. As I looked and prayed over it, I discovered that I was failing in my responsibilities. Song of Solomon also provides much insight. Brothers, often, I am finding, it is our own failures to live up to the Biblical standards which is causing our marriages to be in such dire straits.

 

J_Barner

Thanks for your response. I believe you are right.

Charles

 

The Ephesians 5 passage that talks about the responsibilty of a Husband for his wife spiritually does not absolve her of responsibility, it merely adds an additional aspect to the husband. The wife is responsible for her spiritual condition, and is responsible for her response to her husband's leadership, the husband is responsible for his own spiritual condition, and for leading and encouraging his wife's spiritual condition, he is not however responsible for her spiritual condition, or her response to his leadership. There is a big difference.

The Bible places burdens of leadership on Pastors as well, but they are not personally held responsible for the wayward member, only for fulfilling their responsibility as far as teaching and leading that member, the individuals are still responsible for their own actions and the response to the leadership.

No you cannot blame your husband for making you sin, any more than you can blame your pastor for not keeping you from sinning.

I think clearly a wife's first responsibilty is to God, of course one of his commands is submission to her husband, so it does enter in, but if he asks her to sin, she is fully responsible for the action, and should obey God's clear commands instead, and is not held responsible for disobeying her husband in that situation. The real issue comes down to "what is sin" that gets real complicated! I think some have used the wife's responsibility to God as a way to throw off submission in situations where sin is not involved, ie, tithing, church attendance, certain issues involving children, etc. Where the waters are a little muddy as far as what is and is not acceptable in God's sight!

 

Kelly, I personally doubt the quote given about Mrs. Patterson. The Patterson's have been wrongly quoted many times. Just this last week a reporter interviewed Dr. Patterson about a supposedly upcoming thing. Then within the next couple of days that reporter wrote a newspaper article stating he was leaving Southeastern to take the presidency in TX. A friend followed up on the article, and found out that it would Dr. Patterson hasn't even been offered the job. Many people try to make the Patterson's look bad. From reading some of the article that was linked at the beginning of this thread, the author had an agenda and not stating straight facts, so I discarded it as such. Kelly, I bet you would enjoy Mrs. Patterson's book.

From reading some of Mrs Patterson's books, and from observing her, I do not believe that she believes that she is obsolved of responsibility. She has always exhibited her self well in my observation.

Barner, yes you are right. I agree with what you have said.

 

Hence the "if," FearNot. I don't know the woman, and am certainly not one to use one quote as the basis of my opinion of a person. The grammar of the quote alone makes it difficult to ascertain what she was trying to say. It could be as has been asserted here, or that she would not be held accountable for her husband's actions. I don't know. All I know is, generally, a woman is accountable to God for her actions, just as a man is, his. Her submission to God's will trumps her submission to that of her husband.

 

I can not say I heard it here first because many are GOSSOPING about Dr. Patterson leaving. What I would admit, if in fact he does not get offered the job or does not accept it, that someone like yourself make public apologies here in the BB since you are so bold to state things to which you can only be speculating to. Is your interpretation of Scripture also allow you to gossip.

I stated I doubt the things were true, I am willing to see if the tape is available in the library. Are you willing to admit that your claims are wrong if Dr. Patterson doesn't go to TX? Are you willing to make a public apology? Are you willing to admit that right now, you are gossiping, speculating, and spreading rumors?

 

You make these bold faced statements and instead of stepping upto the plate and being willing to admit when you are wrong, you try to do a fancy word game by saying you are makeing a prophesy. Like a window, you are see through. Well, I have news for you, no matter what you want to call it, at this point you are gossiping. You can retionalize all you want.

It is funny you are angry at Dr. Patterson because you think what he said about people was wrong. Then you do the same thing you are accusing him of, but for you it is right.

I may not always be right, thankfully my parents taught me that when I am wrong, admit it. I follow that advice. If someone proves me wrong, I will admit it. I hope that you will take my parents advice. You will find that people willrespect you a lot more if you admit your faults instead of making excuses for yourself and your behavior. Making excuses just makes you look like a hyporcite. We as believers need to do our best to be upright, honest and open.

Please, I ask you to pray about this anger in your life. You dislike Dr. Patterson so much that you are willing to destroy your witness to others by refusing to admit any statements you have made might prove wrong. I pray you do not teach others to rationalise their anger.

 

This link, by someone who also takes your stance on submission, has the quote different. One of the two authors is wrong, maybe both. Look under the title "wives."
Mrs. Patterson quote

This quote gives the same statement a different meaning. Here it does not give the appearance that she is claiming no responsibility.