Sentences with phrase «revolution nuclear family»

[It should be noted here that complementarian notions of manhood and womanhood tend to be based on culturally — influenced stereotypes, many of which project idealized notions of the post-industrial revolution nuclear family onto biblical texts rather than taking those texts on their own terms — a topic we've discussed at length in the past and will continued to discuss in the future.]

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

Not exact matches

He establishes this point through ipse dixit («The middle - class nuclear family will not be restored to its former place, nor do most people want it to be»), the persuasive force of clichés about the sexual revolution (Had you heard that the 1960s gave us a pill that allowed women to take control of their bodies?)

In their introduction to Domestic Revolution: A Social History of Domestic Family Life (Free Press, 1987) Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg paint a portrait of family life today: Today the term «family» is no longer attached exclusively to conjugal or nuclear families comprising a husband, wife, and their dependent chiFamily Life (Free Press, 1987) Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg paint a portrait of family life today: Today the term «family» is no longer attached exclusively to conjugal or nuclear families comprising a husband, wife, and their dependent chifamily life today: Today the term «family» is no longer attached exclusively to conjugal or nuclear families comprising a husband, wife, and their dependent chifamily» is no longer attached exclusively to conjugal or nuclear families comprising a husband, wife, and their dependent children.

While there is still some disagreement about whether the modern nuclear family is the result of the industrial revolution, most people agree that it can isolate people from other family and relationships.