0.9 2.5 the literature of the early church  (Page 5/8)

By 1916, the firmness of this hierarchical arrangement had been moderated to an extent. Couples were still cautioned to build their homes "after the heavenly pattern," and the husband was reminded that his responsibility to honor his wife was as important as.her duty to be in subjection. "This is not an unreasonable nor a hard requirement when a husband is not bitter against his wife and when he loves her as Christ loved the church," the author explained. BS, March 30, 1916, p. 6. Another writer admitted that the subject was one he addressed with caution. But after making the point that husbands should be loving and kind, rather then domineering, he reminded women of the twentieth century that they "had better learn anew that God has placed men at the head of the family, indeed at the head of affairs in every department of life. When women rebel and try to change God's order, they are pulling the structure of their own safety and highest well-being down on their own heads.” BS, February 24, 1916, p. 19. Even the most moderate comment on the subject (made during the summer of 1916 when a woman's speaking at the SBC precipitated wide response) agreed that the husband was head of the wife in the marriage contract, yet from that "it [did] not follow that all men in the country are the head of all the women in the country." Nor did it follow that the woman had to marry if there was no man she could love and respect. "All that pushed to its logical end puts woman right back into the pit from which she was digged by the Savior. . . . Paul did not intend to obliterate individuality, personality, and choice in women." BS, July 13, 1916, pp. 10-11. The same author indicated in another article that wifely obedience was limited to the things that related to marriage, but that "wives [were] as free in religion as husbands." BS, August 10, 1916, p. 11. In the same way that a Christian obeyed the law of the land unless it contradicted a higher law of God, a woman remained in submission to her husband unless her commitment to God was infringed upon. This did leave some margin for self-judgment on the wife's part, but it did not basically deny the notion that God's plan for family order from time immemorial was patriarchy.

If the biblical ideal for woman's place in the home was most agreed upon, the plan for her role in the church was most problematic. Far more space and attention was given to this in denominational newspapers than to any other woman-centered issue. Women's organizational efforts and reports took more space, but they were not a biblical issue to be understood and resolved. In particular, the passages that advised women to "keep silence in the churches" and not to "usurp authority" over a man were interpreted and reinterpreted over the 40-year span of this study. Some Baptists maintained the most rigid, conservative position in every decade, and others opted for a freer translation in the nineteenth century, but a general pattern of change can be detected. A gradual opening of the door of participation in church activities and worship evolved. Once a compromise with complete silence was made, however, controversy ensued over each increment of change.