3 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
–1 Pet 3:1-6, ESV
Sheila Gregoire explains that in 1 Pet 3:1-6 by referencing Sarah Peter is warning wives that they must not obey their husbands, as doing so would be idolatry:
To Peter, we serve God and God only. We obey God, not men. He was absolutely adamant about this in the way that he lived his life and in the way that he taught the early church. And these two events were pivotal to the early believers. The readers of Peter’s letter, then, would not have taken his words to mean that women should just follow men and do whatever their husbands wanted. That’s putting the husband in the place of Jesus, and that’s idolatry!
Here is the thought experiment:
- Read Sheila’s full post.
- Assume you had to either defend or debunk Sheila’s argument using only previously published quotes from Pastor Doug Wilson to found your arguments. That is, assume Wilson’s writing, and not Scripture, was the governing authority. Moreover, as in academic debate competitions the goal isn’t to get it right, but merely to win the debate.
Which side would you want to be on, defending Sheila’s nutty post or disproving it, given the parameters I just noted?
It would be child’s play to defend Sheila’s argument, and a disaster for anyone foolish enough to try to debunk it under the defined parameters.
See Also: Defenseless