<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Complementarian Hypocrisy?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarian-hypocrisy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarian-hypocrisy/</link>
	<description>A commentary on theology, politics, and culture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 07:44:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Denny Burk &#187; Responding to David Gushee</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarian-hypocrisy/#comment-44636</link>
		<dc:creator>Denny Burk &#187; Responding to David Gushee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:01:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2444#comment-44636</guid>
		<description>[...] have already answered the first question in a previous post. To reiterate, Complementarians do believe that God has given mothers a special responsibility that [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] have already answered the first question in a previous post. To reiterate, Complementarians do believe that God has given mothers a special responsibility that [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarian-hypocrisy/#comment-44205</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2444#comment-44205</guid>
		<description>P.S. By mistakes I mean you are assuming something is certainly true when it is merely possible.  The important thing to see is that there are other possibilities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>P.S. By mistakes I mean you are assuming something is certainly true when it is merely possible.  The important thing to see is that there are other possibilities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarian-hypocrisy/#comment-44203</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:37:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2444#comment-44203</guid>
		<description>Here is how you are making mistakes, my take is not intentionally.

Permit is in the present tense, this means is can be translated as &quot;I am not now permitting&quot; as a temporary injunction.  It is a decision of the translator whether to translate it this was or that.

The meaning of words is provided by context.  A noun like gunaiki without an article might be definite, indefinite or refer to a group (perhaps only 1 in the group) with a property.  If it is definite, it refers to a specific woman and Paul is known to refer to some without naming them.  

Besides that, the noun may mean women or wife.  The same for the term andros, it might be man or husband and this is decided by context.

The neither/nor construction might refer to 1 thing or 2 things.  For example, when Jesus said &quot;neither break in nor steal&quot; he was referring to 1 thing, stealing, the break in part is a part of the process of stealing.  

Authentein is a very challenging word to translate as it is so rare.  We are not even 100% sure if it has a negative or positive connotation.  We KNOW it had a negative connotation in some cases.  If negative, then it is something no believer should do.

It is not recommended to take a verse out of its teaching unit or pericope, this is a major possible way to lose context. Ideally, one wants to understand the whole pericope to make sure the whole thing hangs together, in the case of 1 Tim 2:12 there are other challenges with the nearby verses.

There are at least 3 ways to faithfully understand 1 Tim 2:12 only 1 of which restricts women permanently.  See Ben Witherington&#039;s blog for a discussion on this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here is how you are making mistakes, my take is not intentionally.</p>
<p>Permit is in the present tense, this means is can be translated as &#8220;I am not now permitting&#8221; as a temporary injunction.  It is a decision of the translator whether to translate it this was or that.</p>
<p>The meaning of words is provided by context.  A noun like gunaiki without an article might be definite, indefinite or refer to a group (perhaps only 1 in the group) with a property.  If it is definite, it refers to a specific woman and Paul is known to refer to some without naming them.  </p>
<p>Besides that, the noun may mean women or wife.  The same for the term andros, it might be man or husband and this is decided by context.</p>
<p>The neither/nor construction might refer to 1 thing or 2 things.  For example, when Jesus said &#8220;neither break in nor steal&#8221; he was referring to 1 thing, stealing, the break in part is a part of the process of stealing.  </p>
<p>Authentein is a very challenging word to translate as it is so rare.  We are not even 100% sure if it has a negative or positive connotation.  We KNOW it had a negative connotation in some cases.  If negative, then it is something no believer should do.</p>
<p>It is not recommended to take a verse out of its teaching unit or pericope, this is a major possible way to lose context. Ideally, one wants to understand the whole pericope to make sure the whole thing hangs together, in the case of 1 Tim 2:12 there are other challenges with the nearby verses.</p>
<p>There are at least 3 ways to faithfully understand 1 Tim 2:12 only 1 of which restricts women permanently.  See Ben Witherington&#8217;s blog for a discussion on this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Hamilton</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarian-hypocrisy/#comment-44189</link>
		<dc:creator>David Hamilton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:52:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2444#comment-44189</guid>
		<description>If you would like to follow through with that logic and take the teaching of children away from women, I guess that is up to you.

I do not know Greek as well as I would like to (1st semester!).  I don&#039;t like having to depend on others&#039; translation of the Greek text.  However, I think it safe to fall back on others&#039; translation when just about every Bible out there translates 1 Timothy 2:12 to say that Paul didn&#039;t allow women to teach or have authority over men.

My three weeks of Greek training at this point unveil &quot;didaskein,&quot; &quot;gunaiki,&quot; &quot;ouk,&quot; and &quot;andros.&quot; Those mean &quot;teach,&quot; &quot;woman,&quot; &quot;not,&quot; and &quot;man,&quot; right.  And the lexicon in the back of my elemetary Greek book tells me that &quot;epitrepo&quot; means &quot;I permit/allow.&quot;  &quot;Authentein&quot; isn&#039;t in the lexicon, but I&#039;m guessing that&#039;s where the whole &quot;exercise authority&quot; part comes into the English translations.

Unless my Greek teacher, textbook, and most if not all Bibles are lying to me, it looks like Paul clearly says &quot;I do not permit/allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.&quot;  

So, if Paul&#039;s words apply to us today, then we should heed Paul&#039;s instructions and not allow women to teach or exercise authority over men in our homes and churches.

As far as I know, the Bible does not prohibit women teaching children.  So, we have liberty in such situations, right?  I&#039;m fine with allowing women to teach children in our homes and churches, but if you disagree, then I would love to hear your thoughts on that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you would like to follow through with that logic and take the teaching of children away from women, I guess that is up to you.</p>
<p>I do not know Greek as well as I would like to (1st semester!).  I don&#8217;t like having to depend on others&#8217; translation of the Greek text.  However, I think it safe to fall back on others&#8217; translation when just about every Bible out there translates 1 Timothy 2:12 to say that Paul didn&#8217;t allow women to teach or have authority over men.</p>
<p>My three weeks of Greek training at this point unveil &#8220;didaskein,&#8221; &#8220;gunaiki,&#8221; &#8220;ouk,&#8221; and &#8220;andros.&#8221; Those mean &#8220;teach,&#8221; &#8220;woman,&#8221; &#8220;not,&#8221; and &#8220;man,&#8221; right.  And the lexicon in the back of my elemetary Greek book tells me that &#8220;epitrepo&#8221; means &#8220;I permit/allow.&#8221;  &#8220;Authentein&#8221; isn&#8217;t in the lexicon, but I&#8217;m guessing that&#8217;s where the whole &#8220;exercise authority&#8221; part comes into the English translations.</p>
<p>Unless my Greek teacher, textbook, and most if not all Bibles are lying to me, it looks like Paul clearly says &#8220;I do not permit/allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.&#8221;  </p>
<p>So, if Paul&#8217;s words apply to us today, then we should heed Paul&#8217;s instructions and not allow women to teach or exercise authority over men in our homes and churches.</p>
<p>As far as I know, the Bible does not prohibit women teaching children.  So, we have liberty in such situations, right?  I&#8217;m fine with allowing women to teach children in our homes and churches, but if you disagree, then I would love to hear your thoughts on that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sue</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarian-hypocrisy/#comment-44177</link>
		<dc:creator>Sue</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:11:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2444#comment-44177</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;It is not controversial because we value the eternal souls and the faith of our church and family members moreso than we value anything that our governments can control.&lt;/i&gt;

So we put children under the teaching of women, but adults under men. Is this because,

&quot;we value the eternal souls and the faith of our adults more so than we value our children?&quot; 

I don&#039;t think anyone would actually say that, but I struggle with the logic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>It is not controversial because we value the eternal souls and the faith of our church and family members moreso than we value anything that our governments can control.</i></p>
<p>So we put children under the teaching of women, but adults under men. Is this because,</p>
<p>&#8220;we value the eternal souls and the faith of our adults more so than we value our children?&#8221; </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think anyone would actually say that, but I struggle with the logic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Hamilton</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarian-hypocrisy/#comment-44079</link>
		<dc:creator>David Hamilton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:34:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2444#comment-44079</guid>
		<description>In the name of hindsight being 20/20, if I could jump in my Delorian, I&#039;d go back and change that first line to, &quot;Jeremy Z made a comment to which I&#039;d like to respond.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the name of hindsight being 20/20, if I could jump in my Delorian, I&#8217;d go back and change that first line to, &#8220;Jeremy Z made a comment to which I&#8217;d like to respond.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Hamilton</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarian-hypocrisy/#comment-44078</link>
		<dc:creator>David Hamilton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:33:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2444#comment-44078</guid>
		<description>Jeremy Z made a comment that I&#039;d like to comment on.  I didn&#039;t read all of the comments after his, so forgive me if I am reiterating something that somebody else has said.

I think this is something that should factor heavily into this discussion.  Jeremy says that it is crazy to think that a woman is able to lead a nation of 303 million people, but not a rural church of 50 people.

Your presupposition here is that the lives of 303 million people are more valuable than the eternal souls of 50 people in a rural church.  That is also the presupposition behind this &quot;complimentarian controversy.&quot;  It is not controversial because we value the eternal souls and the faith of our church and family members moreso than we value anything that our governments can control.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeremy Z made a comment that I&#8217;d like to comment on.  I didn&#8217;t read all of the comments after his, so forgive me if I am reiterating something that somebody else has said.</p>
<p>I think this is something that should factor heavily into this discussion.  Jeremy says that it is crazy to think that a woman is able to lead a nation of 303 million people, but not a rural church of 50 people.</p>
<p>Your presupposition here is that the lives of 303 million people are more valuable than the eternal souls of 50 people in a rural church.  That is also the presupposition behind this &#8220;complimentarian controversy.&#8221;  It is not controversial because we value the eternal souls and the faith of our church and family members moreso than we value anything that our governments can control.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lucy</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarian-hypocrisy/#comment-43920</link>
		<dc:creator>Lucy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:43:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2444#comment-43920</guid>
		<description>I think many people forget the real role of government, when they ask if it is appropriate for Palin (or any woman) to lead, in a position of authority.   Government should exist only to secure and defend the rights of the individual.  &quot;Leadership&quot; shouldn&#039;t even be a question, nor should authority unless you have commited a crime against someone else.   

I cannot think of anything in the Scriptures that would stand against a woman performing the real duties that should be involved in a government.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think many people forget the real role of government, when they ask if it is appropriate for Palin (or any woman) to lead, in a position of authority.   Government should exist only to secure and defend the rights of the individual.  &#8220;Leadership&#8221; shouldn&#8217;t even be a question, nor should authority unless you have commited a crime against someone else.   </p>
<p>I cannot think of anything in the Scriptures that would stand against a woman performing the real duties that should be involved in a government.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarian-hypocrisy/#comment-43915</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:10:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2444#comment-43915</guid>
		<description>Tuad,

I am a member of CBE and subscribe to their statement of faith.  One line says, &quot;We believe in the family, celibate singleness, and faithful heterosexual marriage as God&#039;s design.&quot;

http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/about/who_we_are.shtml</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tuad,</p>
<p>I am a member of CBE and subscribe to their statement of faith.  One line says, &#8220;We believe in the family, celibate singleness, and faithful heterosexual marriage as God&#8217;s design.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/about/who_we_are.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/about/who_we_are.shtml</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Denny Burk</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/complementarian-hypocrisy/#comment-43898</link>
		<dc:creator>Denny Burk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 04:39:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2444#comment-43898</guid>
		<description>J. Swanson,

Thanks for the great comment. I appreciate the &quot;push-back&quot;!

Blessings to you!

Denny</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>J. Swanson,</p>
<p>Thanks for the great comment. I appreciate the &#8220;push-back&#8221;!</p>
<p>Blessings to you!</p>
<p>Denny</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

