Dr. Russell Moore on Husbands and Wives

Dr. Russell Moore finished out Denton Bible Church’s three-week series of sermons on biblical manhood and womanhood. Dr. Moore’s text was Ephesians 5:22-33, and it was a powerful message about marriage as a display of the gospel.

[audio:http://dbcmedia.org/podcasts/1309-062908.mp3]

24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:24-25).

Dr. Moore argued that this particular passage is meant not just for husbands and wives, but for all men and women. In his exhortation to husbands and wives, Paul is giving instructions on what it means to be male and female.

Dr. Moore also commented on this text: “This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:32 ).

According to Dr. Moore, Paul does not use Christ’s work on the cross to illustrate what marriage is supposed to be like. Paul says that God gave us marriage to illustrate what the gospel is all about—Christ’s love for his bride.

This is a great message, and I highly recommend it. Here are the other messages from the series.

Part 1 – Tommy Nelson

[audio:http://dbcmedia.org/podcasts/1307-061508.mp3]

Part 2 – Bruce Ware

[audio:http://dbcmedia.org/podcasts/1308-062208.mp3]

Part 3 – Russell Moore

[audio:http://dbcmedia.org/podcasts/1309-062908.mp3]

127 Responses to Dr. Russell Moore on Husbands and Wives

  1. Sue June 30, 2008 at 12:26 am #

    Oh, the emphasis in starting on verse 22!

  2. Sue June 30, 2008 at 1:22 am #

    Thanks Denny,

    I am glad I listened to that. He definitely deals with some very real issues in an appropriate way. However, he does not offer any comment on spousal abuse, one way or the other.

    A minor quibble. He does say that the husband’s authority pictures the headship of Jesus. The word authority is not in the text. However, he did not use this in his sermon.

  3. Paul June 30, 2008 at 10:20 am #

    Sue,

    I am suprised you didn’t mention Chrysistom in your argument.

    I am afirad that you are so committed to feminism that you are blind to simple presentations of Scripture. If you listen to the whole sermon. He deals with v.21. Please come up with better insight than Chrysostom and your old straw man arguments. Your case is weak and unwise.

    I pray that you will see the truth someday.

    Have a great week.

  4. Brian (Another) June 30, 2008 at 11:26 am #

    Sue:

    Did he say this section of Ephesians specifically used the word authority? I don’t recall that specifically. I would offer that he was alluding to the overall model pictured in scripture.

    I would say that every aspect cannot be addressed (well) in a single sermon. He definitely gives a great picture. It shouldn’t grey the subject, though (I don’t know if that was what you meant).

    Now if you excuse me, I have to go be a hero and eat some lunch.

    Thanks as usual, Denny!

  5. Scott June 30, 2008 at 11:26 am #

    Keep fighting Sue! Don’t let’ em get you down. You have a good case, and a wise one. I pray others will at least one day acknowledge the distinction between a hermeneutic of rigorous investigation and one born of tradition.

  6. Jason June 30, 2008 at 11:38 am #

    Sue,

    I’ve heard Dr. Moore speak quite condemningly against domestic abuse while affirming a complementarian outlook on husbands and wives.

    I think this episode of the Dr. Mohler program, which Dr. Moore guest hosted, covers the issue: http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2007-11-19.

  7. John June 30, 2008 at 12:00 pm #

    Thanks for what you do Sue. Obviously, the arguments and case for the complementarians isn’t quite as strong as they want it to be. It is not as “black and white” as many believe, and I think you have helped us all see that. In fact, any time Denny has tried to address you (which is usually directing you to some article), I think he’s done a pretty horrific job…but the funny thing is he thinks it’s so “compelling.” Typical

  8. Sue June 30, 2008 at 1:19 pm #

    Paul,

    Please quote me before calling me names, labels, whatever.

    Another Brian,

    There is no place in scripture that says that the husband is the authority. It is a model that some read into scripture. Let’s admit it.

    I do not see Tamar, Ruth, Deborah, Huldah, Hannah, Mary, Joanna, Anna, Phoebe, Chloe, Nympha, or ANY other woman in the scriptures who act as if a husband is an authority. Perhaps Sapphira did. I am not sure about that. On occasion Sarah let Abraham get her into a heap of trouble.

    Men should not be given to think of themselves as the authority over a wife. This is not scriptural. Grudem’s kephale study is, overall, less convincing than Baldwins authenteo study. I can see that Denny still does not want to interact with that.

    Moore’s point is very well taken, that a woman has God-given goals of her own, and one of these is to be a mother. NOT to just do the will of the husband, as Ware suggests. Women do not exist to put their husbands through university. Not that that is wrong, but, overall, women exist for more than just to serve the will of the husband. Which you would not know from Ware’s sermon.

    Jason,

    I misunderstood something said in the previous thread and thought that Moore had spoken on abuse in this sermon. It was my misunderstanding. I see he has spoken about it elsewhere.

    I do want to say that egalitarians believe in complementarity without hierarchy. I have no quibble with complementarity. However, to present marriage as an authority-submission relationship is just plain wrong. In fact, it is ludicrous. Complemenatarians need to get rid of that idea, and go for real complementarity.

    Paul again,

    Just so you will know me a little more personally, I have two adult children. My son was traveling in the States this weekend and I did not hear from him when I expected to. As any normal mom would, I stayed up most of the night, worrying and chatting in the other thread. In the end my son called, and he had lost his wallet, and couldn’t continue his trip.

    However, a man picked him up and drove him to his destination. So, I want to say a word in appreciation for American hospitality. Thank you.

  9. Sue June 30, 2008 at 1:35 pm #

    Clearly I have not read enough of Moore. Is this about him,

    “Many complementarians are living according to egalitarian presumptions, and research has shown many conservative and evangelical households to be among the “softest” when it comes to familial harmony, relational happiness and emotional health, Moore said.

    “Evangelicals maintain headship in the sphere of ideas, but practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission, and consensus,” Moore said. “That’s what our forefathers would have called feminism — and our foremothers, too.””

    Does Moore have something against familial harmony, relational happiness, mutual submission and all the rest of this?

  10. Barry June 30, 2008 at 1:49 pm #

    Sue,
    It’s a bit silly to say

    “There is no place in scripture that says that the husband is the authority. It is a model that some read into scripture. Let’s admit it.”

    Never mind Ware’s outstanding 10 point analysis of Genesis, which is in itself compelling, but Paul wrote:

    “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives [ought to be] to their husbands in everything.”

    Does not the church submit to Christ because he is her Lord and authority? She does. To invoke the idea of “source” here doesn’t make any sense. The notion of authority is clear here, and the “But as . . . so also” (alla hos . . . houtos) makes the parallel clear.

    Now, to say “Ah hah! There is no use of the word ‘authority’!” is really a silly argument and one that I would think of all people on this thread, you would not appeal to such a novice argument, since a principle or idea can fully be in a passage even though a specific term is not there. You sound like Sarah Sumner here, and is one of the weakest parts of her book on men and women in the church. She desperately seeks to avoid the term “lead” as you attempt to avoid “authority” when she deals with Eph 5, and her conclusion is to settle on “guide,” (the husband “guides” his wife but doesn’t “lead” her. Wow, that’s parsing things to the point of nonsense) whereas you abandon the idea altogether. Eph 5:24 is not so easily punted, and your attempt to remove it is strained.

    Further, another weak argument you’ve just made above is to say that just because Abraham showed his depravity and was not the ideal leader of his wife does not invalidate the apostolic command of 1 Peter 3:

    “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands . . . For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.”

    This is the clear teaching of Peter. To override it because Abraham wasn’t the perfect husband is just foolish. This is the example that Peter appeals to, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for all believing wives to follow.

    In fact, Sarah obeyed Abraham (hupakouw) IN SPITE of his imperfections. His perfection is NOT the condition of her submission. Peter is so clear here that I am stymied by egalitarians wacky views on this. Peter even says that she is to submit to her husband even if he is lost.

    I need to go club my wife with my caveman club, since I think she just left the kitchen.

    Barry

  11. bonnie June 30, 2008 at 1:52 pm #

    What does all of this mean for single women and single men?

  12. Sue June 30, 2008 at 1:57 pm #

    And Abraham obeyed Sarah. There is not one example in the scriptures of a husband being the authority over his wife.

  13. Sue June 30, 2008 at 1:59 pm #

    I need to go club my wife with my caveman club, since I think she just left the kitchen.

    There is a group of men who find this kind of humour funny. A woman who has been violently abused does not find it funny. Since one in five women have been violently abused, clean up your act.

  14. D.J. Williams June 30, 2008 at 2:05 pm #

    Barry said,
    “I need to go club my wife with my caveman club, since I think she just left the kitchen.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Sue said…
    “And Abraham obeyed Sarah. There is not one example in the scriptures of a husband being the authority over his wife.”

    Could you please elaborate on that statement and respond to the passages Barry exegeted?

  15. Barry June 30, 2008 at 2:09 pm #

    Sue,
    Don’t you dare to try to cast a residue of “abuse” in my direction. I would assume you are familiar with “authorial intent,” but then again, I am becoming more convinced than ever that most egalitarians don’t give a flip about authorial intent. You seem to, and I hope that doesn’t change.

    Barry

  16. Barry June 30, 2008 at 2:10 pm #

    No, what there is not one example of in Scripture is a husband being commanded to submit to his wife.

  17. Barry June 30, 2008 at 2:13 pm #

    One other thing – let’s not miss Moore’s (and Paul’s) main point: the gospel. This is the mystery of marriage, and it is a beautiful thing. It it a glorious mystery now revealed that a woman’s intelligent and willful submission to her husband. Man, when it’s working right it is glory to Christ.

    Also, given the role distinction within the Trinity, let’s not forget a concluding point that Ware made last week: “It is just as God-like to submit to authority as it is to lead.” Great point, and a blinding flash of the obvious.

  18. Barry June 30, 2008 at 2:17 pm #

    Sue, are you married? You seem kind of bitter to the idea of the Christ-church//husband-wife model of Eph 5. I don’t want to tread on personal privacy here, so don’t answer if you don’t want. I am just curious as to how your view unfolds in your marriage.

    Barry

  19. Sue June 30, 2008 at 2:20 pm #

    There is absolutely no mystery about what Eph 5 is saying about the husband and the wife.

    It says,

    “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

    The entire passage is built on passages in Aristotle. But Aristotle says that the man has the courage of command, and the woman the virtue of submission. So, command – submission. For Aristotle, women have the ability to make decisions but it is “without authority.” So, men have the authoritative ability to make decisions.

    Did Christ come to reinforce the teachings of Aristotle? I sure hope not!

    Aristotle also based the household on two principles, philia (love or affection) and soteria (preservation, health, security, salvation) And in the scriptures we have agape (love, affection) and soteria (salvation, saviour).

    (As an aside, the shift from philia to agape is because philia came also to mean “kiss”)

    So, this passage says that the husband is he saviour of the body. He provides “security,” or “health” to the body. There is no mention of authority.

    The contrast with Aristotle is that the husband, the saviour, now modeled on Christ, sacrifices for the body. This is how Paul overturns the teaching of the pagan Greeks. As long as Christians teach that the husband is the authority or power over the wife, they are no better than the pagan Greeks.

    But once the entire paradigm is stood on its head, the husband is the one, who through sacrifice, sees to the “health” of the wife, as the head does for the body. But authority is not mentioned.

    This is what Paul was telling us about the typical pagan paradigm.

    However, we also see that Paul is supportive of women who were the ones responsible for their own household. Probably widows, I don’t know, but Lydia, Phoebe, Chloe, and so on, had their own households, and their own financial resources.

    Women can and do earn money. Women become the providers of their own family, when they are single, caring for parents or other relatives, widowed, divorced, husband is sick, unemployed, handicapped. These women must be respected. The ability of women to protect and provide was highly valued by Paul.

    I am dismayed by those who put the husband OVER the wife, like some pagan culture. I am equally dismayed at those who put women over men.

  20. Sue June 30, 2008 at 2:21 pm #

    Barry,

    I won’t be interacting with you.

  21. norma June 30, 2008 at 2:25 pm #

    Well, I am back after weeks of watching and thinking and I don’t feel like I have anything to contribute.

    I do continue to think that the dialogue is really good and healthy and introduces that both sides of the issue have points that are set and points that still need development.

    Which is to say, let’s focus on what we definitely know and use it to the Glory of God and as a reflection of the corporate church and it’s love.

    Let’s consider thinking about how important it is to focus on any one given biblical issue at a time and how much we should pound and pound on it.

    Let’s consider being wrong or even being right but taking the most Godly road to the most Biblical outcome.

    One thing to remember though, didn’t this all begin because of the accusation of using “trajectory hermaneutics” maybe we should dialogue on the dangers of that alone and how it impacts our understanding of errancy vs. inerrancy.

    I have taken enough of your time…you are all so bright and I have loved seeing that the truths of God are deep and lovely and are being investigated and studied by us all.

  22. Ferg June 30, 2008 at 2:25 pm #

    I guess I could be called an egalitarian – I think it’s wonderful for women to preach and I have learned so much from what some very gifted women have to say. I also like to see women being able to flourish in their giftings as much as possible.
    Despite this, I do believe that women and men are made differently and that men are to lead in the home. Mainly because I believe it’s biblical but also because men are generally better leaders due to their physiological make up.
    I also think comments like “I need to go club my wife with my caveman club, since I think she just left the kitchen.” are wonderful in the midst of a heavy discussion to lighten the mood. It is such a silly comment that to equate it with genuine abuse is absurd. I really enjoy what you have to say Sue and I have learned a lot from you. Try not to take comments like Barry’s to heart.

  23. D.J. Williams June 30, 2008 at 2:28 pm #

    Sue,

    You changed the focus by shifting to “savior.” The text still says that the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church. How is authority not present in this concept?

  24. Sue June 30, 2008 at 2:36 pm #

    DJ,

    The verse says that the head of the church is the saviour of the body. It is incumbent on those who teach that the head is the authority to prove their position. My position is that the verse means what it says.

    Ferg,

    Mainly because I believe it’s biblical but also because men are generally better leaders due to their physiological make up.

    That is your personal belief. It is unsupported.

  25. Sue June 30, 2008 at 2:41 pm #

    Ferg,

    There are a whole lot of women who disagree. Women have insight into their children’s lives, family relations, financial security and many other aspects that require their full participation in decisions.

    Nothing sadder than a woman working to pay off her husbands debts. I know a few women in this situation. The wife is legally responsible as much as the husband. I know a few women who spend time picking up the pieces for decisions they did not make. Let’s face it, wives and mothers have equal responsibility in the law to provide and care for their children and to pay debts. They absolutely must not have less decision-making power.

  26. Barry June 30, 2008 at 2:42 pm #

    “As long as Christians teach that the husband is the authority or power over the wife, they are no better than the pagan Greeks.”

    Then Peter, under the influence of the Spirit, is no better than the pagan Greeks.”

    I would rethink such a charge, Sue. Peter would have a problem with this.

    “Did Christ come to reinforce the teachings of Aristotle? I sure hope not!” NO, you are just reading Aristotle into it!

    As far reading something into the text – holy cow!! Reading Paul in light of Aristotle and then exegeting Eph 5 based on such an inference. Wow! Truly wow! You read this into Paul simply because he didn’t invent the idea of “household codes”? So now you feel free to interpret Paul through Aristotle?

    Again, this whole argument, like Norma said, goes back to the nature of (and sufficiency of) the Scriptures.

    Further, two more things: You still haven’t commented on Eph 4:24, and second, I would think that invoking “savior” from v.23 would actually NOT help the egalitarian argument, given that soter in the NT is a title for “God/Christ our Savior.” Are you saying that the husband is the “Savior, Redeemer, Deliverer” of the wife? How does that help the egalitarian argument?

    “(As an aside, the shift from philia to agape is because philia came also to mean “kiss”)” You claim to know why Paul uses a word even though he doesn’t tell you? That’s a basic hermeneutical fallacy that my first semester students would not make.

    I know that Sue is not interacting with me, so these comments are for anyone else. Seriously.

    Since I am on vacation and not going to be interacted with, I am going to go play with my sons, and teach them to be godly leaders in their homes, to the glory of Christ. And no, there is not one whit of sarcasm in that last statement.

    Barry

  27. Barry June 30, 2008 at 2:44 pm #

    One last thing:

    DR. MOORE AND DR. BURK, ALONG WITH DR. JIM HAMILTON ARE HOSTING THE ALBERT MOHLER RADIO SHOW TODAY. I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND SUE OR FERG OR ANYONE HERE TO CALL IN AND ASK THEM PERSONALLY, ON AIR, ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS.

    THE PROGRAM IS ON 5-6PM THIS AFTERNOON, SO GET YOUR QUESTIONS AND LIGHT UP THE PHONE LINES!

    THE WHOLE TOPIC OF THE SHOW IS THIS ISSUE.

    Peace out.
    Barry

  28. Barry June 30, 2008 at 2:48 pm #

    OK, one VERY LAST THING:

    How does this even speak to the issue?

    “Nothing sadder than a woman working to pay off her husbands debts. I know a few women in this situation. The wife is legally responsible as much as the husband. I know a few women who spend time picking up the pieces for decisions they did not make. Let’s face it, wives and mothers have equal responsibility in the law to provide and care for their children and to pay debts.”

    So what?

    DJ – good question – the issue is clear in v.24 which explains 22-23.

  29. Barry June 30, 2008 at 2:50 pm #

    Here’s the phone number for the radio show:

    Listen Live from 5:00-6:00 p.m. ET.
    Call in with your questions or comments: 1-877-893-8255 (TALK)

    OR Listen Live Online (Windows Media Stream).

    Here’s the website:
    http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_list.php

  30. Ferg June 30, 2008 at 2:57 pm #

    I’d love to phone in – but I’m from Ireland, so unless you’re gonna pay my phone bill, it ain’t gonna happen :o)

    Sue, I hope you don’t hear me wrong. I’m married and I take very seriously that myself and my wife are to submit to each other in love and to look to Christ. However, she feels that when big decisions need to be made and we are not sure of where to go with it she will look to me to make the final call. Nothing in life can ever be considered a full on democracy, especially when there are only two people involved. Someone HAS to make the final call, and I believe that if men are living as they should in Christ, it should be them.
    What is so wrong with that? I think you’re starting from a basis of presuming the man will abuse his authority, where it should be looked upon with neutral eyes. Do you not believe that women are perhaps driven more by their emotions than men are? This has huge benefits over men, but in other aspects it can be a deficit. Just as he opposite is true about men.
    We are not equal Sue and we need to find a way to glorify Christ in that.
    I’m not one who revels in my authority over my wife. In fact, it scares the life out of me, however I beleive that Jesus has called me to lead us both and that is what I will try to earnestly do. And while doing this I will try so so hard to hear from God and to listen to her on where she believes God wants her to minister. I LOVE nothing better than my wife telling me when Jesus has told her something for us.

  31. Sue June 30, 2008 at 2:58 pm #

    I want to make it clear that I am not responding to people who talk to women like this.

    Sue, are you married? You seem kind of bitter to the idea of the Christ-church//husband-wife model of Eph 5. I don’t want to tread on personal privacy here, so don’t answer if you don’t want. I am just curious as to how your view unfolds in your marriage.

    One of the other times I posted here last year, someone from Desiring God, emailed me and asked me a long list of questions like this. Do I email complementarian preachers and ask them what their personal problems are? No.

    The way that some men talk to women is completely outside of normal discourse.

    I want to make it clear that over half of women my age are the main providers for their family. They are single, divorced, widowed, or the husband is sick, handicapped, or unemployed. They are not being respected as providers, as people who are both mothers and providers.

    Why am I surprised that I have to spell this out.

  32. rach June 30, 2008 at 3:03 pm #

    is that you barry clyde ? though i agree with everything you have said, dear friend, your tone may be a bit condescending (likely unintentionally) …in all things love

  33. Sue June 30, 2008 at 3:09 pm #

    Ferg,

    However, she feels that when big decisions need to be made and we are not sure of where to go with it she will look to me to make the final call.

    This sounds fine the way you describe it. This is personal to you and your wife. This is not a rule for everybody. I would not presume to find any fault with a shared story such as yours.

    Do you not believe that women are perhaps driven more by their emotions than men are?

    I have lived in the real world. My experiences tell me the exact opposite. Women reveal their emotions in a different way than men – some of the time.

    To be more academic, if we take violence as a measure of emotion not properly controlled, men are statistically much more emotional than women. Men get into a lot of trouble from their various physical impulses. I say this respectfully, but not to say that women are better than men, but just that women are not generally of the opinion that men are less emotional. Women just think that men have less of the type of emotion that women have.

    However, in the scriptures we see that Paul often appeals to feminine imagery when talking about emotion, motherly metaphors.

    Personally, I have seen that fatherhood, being a father, is every bit as emotional as being a mother.

  34. Barry June 30, 2008 at 3:09 pm #

    What about

    “I don’t want to tread on personal privacy here, so don’t answer if you don’t want. I am just curious as to how your view unfolds in your marriage.”

    is unclear? Simply say, “That’s none of your business.” Enough said; no problem.

    For the record, I would have written the same thing whether your name was Sue or Mike. Doesn’t matter. What do you mean “speak to women like this”? I really don’t understand, but nevermind, I also don’t understand the fascination with Chrysostom either (Paul [the blog commenter] was right in his questions a few days back). He was born 300 years after Paul [the apostle] was writing. His use of terms is at best of secondary importance.

  35. Sue June 30, 2008 at 3:23 pm #

    Barry,

    I don’t speak to or about anyone the way you speak to me. I don’t want to know what anyone does in their marriage. If they share something then I listen respectfully, but I don’t ask questions or give advice. No way.

    We used to do a lot of camping with our kids, so I envy you. But my kids are grown up now.

    Could you please remind me of the question(s) that I did not respond to.

  36. Ferg June 30, 2008 at 3:24 pm #

    To be more academic, if we take violence as a measure of emotion not properly controlled, men are statistically much more emotional than women. Men get into a lot of trouble from their various physical impulses.

    I like that Sue. Very good point!

  37. Sue June 30, 2008 at 3:30 pm #

    Ferg,

    Thanks. Many people interpret the complementarian position in healthy ways. But some do not. Here is a good story.

    This is one blog post that responds to Ware’s sermon. I think it is worth reading.

    The personal story is at the end of the post, so scroll way down.

  38. Ferg June 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm #

    Thanks for the link Sue. Makes for some very good reading. I have a lot to ponder!!!

  39. Sue June 30, 2008 at 4:23 pm #

    I have found something that Moore has written on wife abuse, and I find it quite inappropriate,

    “But it is not just the personal responsibility of the abuser that is lost in the contemporary world. The sense of corporate responsibility to protect women seems meaningless in post-feminist America. In previous generations, an abusive husband would face the sanction of his fellow men. A wife-beater might find himself called to the door to face a group of community men wishing to speak to him—outside—about his treatment of his wife and children. One could call this an “intimate abuse circle,” I suppose. This strong sense of community responsibility may not have prevented spousal abuse, but it at least recognized it as a societal evil—not just an issue of family therapy. It also recognized a responsibility of men to care for and protect women—a notion long since jettisoned by a culture shaped by the gender theory of Gloria Steinem and the feminized violence of Lara Croft Tomb Raider.”

    There is nothing useful at all in this kind of diatribe. Both men and women can be abusive. It is more important to understand the fundamentals of abuse.

    1. Men and women can both abuse.

    2. Abusers do not need a provocation.

    3. Submission to abuse reinforces the abuse.

    4. Victims of abuse need to be fully confident of their ability to make their own decisions.

    5. Victims of abuse who are “rescued” by other men, pastors, and relatives, often return to the abuser.

    6. Women need to become independent decision-makers to resist entering another abusive relationship.

    7. The rhetoric published by CBMW such as this,

    “From the context of Genesis 3:1-13, where God is pronouncing curses rather than blessings, we can see that the desire mentioned here is not benevolent and healthy; rather it is a compelling urge to control, to dominate, and to master.”

    feeds the misogynist husband and gives him an excuse for his abuse.

    8. This teaching is deeply damaging to women.

    9. This teaching is not found in the Bible.

    10. Abusers are worthy of compassion and support.

  40. Scott June 30, 2008 at 4:26 pm #

    Barry,

    You do understand that the household code in Eph 5 (and elsewhere in the NT) is based on the code developed by Aristotle?

    Aristotle developed the household codes to advise aristocratic men on matters pertaining to the governance of their extended family and slaves (Aristotle, Pol. 1.2.1-2, 1.5.3-4). They were popularized in the Hellenistic world as means to govern civic and political affairs (Plutarch, Sayings of Spartans, Mor. 228CD; Seneca, Epistles 94.1) and as means to regulate legislation pertaining to familial matters (Gaius, Inst. 1.48-51). They were used primarily in the NT era as a way for Romans to safeguard their traditional family values over and against the spread of competing ideologies emerging from the spread of Eastern religions. They were popular throughout the biblical world, and in Jewish, Greek, and Hellenistic Egyptian settings, women were taught to submit to their husbands just as children and slaves were taught to submit to their parents and slaves respectively. Paul presumes a Roman cultural matrix, relates Christianity to the standards of that culture, and then subverts the popular cultural values by either going far beyond them or placing strict ethical or moral qualifiers on the material.

  41. Sue June 30, 2008 at 4:29 pm #

    Here is the larger quote from CBMW. People can certainly read the whole thing in context. It is not biblical in spite of the appearance of many quotations.

    “From the context of Genesis 3:1-13, where God is pronouncing curses rather than blessings, we can see that the desire mentioned here is not benevolent and healthy; rather it is a compelling urge to control, to dominate, and to master. That is the effect the Fall has had on wives — the joy and blessing they would have derived from submission within the authority structure of marriage (established by God before the Fall; Gen. 2:18) has been replaced by an innate desire to control and dominate their husbands. This is why wives so easily chafe under authority, even when husbands exercise it in a legitimate way — as a result of the Fall, submission has become distasteful, not just in marriage, but in all authority structures (just ask your children!). This is why Scripture repeatedly reminds and exhorts those under authority (citizens, members of churches, wives, and children) to overcome their tendency to rebel against it.”

    And this from Dennis Rainey,

    ” Paul says the same to everyone. God has placed the husband in the position of responsibility. It does not matter what kind of personality a man may have. Your wife may be resisting you, fighting you, and spurning your attempts to lead, but it makes no difference. I believe our wives want us and need us to lead. You are not demanding this position; on the contrary, God placed you there. You will not lead her perfectly, but you must care for you wife and family by serving them with perseverance.”

    If a woman is resisting she may just as likely be resisting something wrong as something right.

    This is irresponsible.

  42. Sue June 30, 2008 at 4:34 pm #

    Dennis Rainey

  43. Barry June 30, 2008 at 4:44 pm #

    Scott,
    Though it’s been a while, the background to the Haustafel is not lost on me. My point is that in the end, Paul is the inspired interpreter of the household codes for the Christian community. The NT writers frequently adopted Graeco-Roman forms and recast them in Christian ways (such as the epistolary form itself), and for believers they are therefore authoritative.

    Sue, as far as questions, they are found in my previous posts on this thread. FWIW- I didn’t want to pry, which is why I said what I did about not answering the question.

    We are off to the lake, so my commenting is through for several days.

    Barry

    PS – Hi Raquel! Tell the Hoodlum hi for me.

  44. Truth Unites.. and Divides June 30, 2008 at 6:21 pm #

    Per Denny: “[Pastor Tommy Nelson] said that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church. Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.””

    I have seen attacks upon Dr. Wayne Grudem, Dr. Bruce Ware, Dr. Russell Moore, Dr. Denny Burk, and even Dennis Rainey by Sue.

    This behavior by Sue is ridiculously outlandish. So I’ll just repost what another complementarian has discovered and thankfully exposed in Sue’s agenda-driven methodology, an agenda which Pastor Tommy Nelson has described so eloquently:

    Please do look at this thread where Sue commits the root fallacy” in her lexical research.

    Here’s are excerpts:

    “Sue’s fantasies of interpretation arise out of the “etymological root fallacy,” an interpretive error common among the amateurs and those with special agendas.”
    For an explanation of the root fallacy, click here.

    Also on this page is an explanation of an error dubbed “the overload fallacy.” It looks very much like what D. A. Caron has styled “the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy,” and Sue’s comments might well be an example of this interpretive fallacy as well.”

    “Sue,
    There’s no problem with running to a lexicon. The problem arises when one gets there and finds a range of meanings, dependent on context, which the lexicon-user then ignores, resorting first to an interpretive criterion alien to the text in which the word appears. This generates any number of word-meaning fallacies, some of which I referred to in that link I provided. The “root fallacy” is one of the more common of these.”

    From: Egalitarian Flummery No. 2

  45. D.J. Williams June 30, 2008 at 6:38 pm #

    Sue,

    Could you please explain what was inappropriate about the Moore quote? I’m at a loss here. Also, Barry was quite kind in the way he asked his question – I don’t think it was worthy of your vitriol.

  46. Yvette June 30, 2008 at 6:41 pm #

    Ferg, Barry, DJ, and anyone else who thought the clubbing joke was funny. Abuse jokes are never funny to an abused person. It is NEVER appropriate for a Christian. Abuse is not funny. You only cause an abused person to cringe and feel isolated by the very people they should feel embraced and safe around. If you’ve never had a baseball bat taken to you, it might be funny. For the one who has, it could cause flashbacks.

    I’m disappointed that this is deemed acceptable Christian humor. Barry, I do not believe you intended harm, but often harm is inflicted unintentionally.

    Denny, I’m disappointed you stay silent on abuse jokes.

  47. Greg Anderson June 30, 2008 at 6:53 pm #

    Barry,

    What does Sue’s marital status have to do with the price of crude in Kuwait? And how is it germane to the discussion?

    You are far too transparent, and have all the discretion of a cubby prosecutor trying to implant inference in the minds of some jurors.

  48. Scott June 30, 2008 at 6:53 pm #

    TUAD,

    Per Denny: “[Pastor Tommy Nelson] said that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church. Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.””

    Is there a point to repeatedly posting this quote when it contributes absolutely nothing to your argument? Are you trying to flame emotions? And you put it in bold! Seriously. You are a parody poster. At least get some new material instead of quoting . Do you even know what a root fallacy is? You’ve seemed entirely inept at handling the lexical evidence that’s been placed before you.

    Yvette,

    I’m so sorry such language is used and abuse is repeatedly belittled. If this is headship then there’s little wonder why so many evangelical marriages fail miserably.

  49. Matt Svoboda June 30, 2008 at 6:56 pm #

    Sue and all other egalitarians,

    It is black and white. The Bible never even mentions women preaching and teaching and having authority over a man. It does consistently say that men are the head of the wife and of his household. You all say that it isn’t black and white because you don’t want to accept it. Many of you say that complimentarians are implementing tradition into the Scripture reading, but the fact is the church has been complimentarian since the first century(apostles). If you egalitarians would stop putting your own agenda and philosophies into your exegesis this wouldn’t be a problem.

    Matt

  50. Scott June 30, 2008 at 7:01 pm #

    Matt,

    The Bible never mentions women teaching?

  51. John June 30, 2008 at 7:03 pm #

    Scott said about TUAD:

    “Is there a point to repeatedly posting this quote when it contributes absolutely nothing to your argument? Are you trying to flame emotions? And you put it in bold! Seriously. You are a parody poster. At least get some new material instead of quoting . Do you even know what a root fallacy is? You’ve seemed entirely inept at handling the lexical evidence that’s been placed before you.”

    Amen Scott. I agree with you about TUAD. Keep telling the truth, Scott.

  52. Yvette June 30, 2008 at 7:28 pm #

    Scott,

    Thank you for your clear and bold statement.

  53. Sue June 30, 2008 at 8:21 pm #

    Matt #48

    It does consistently say that men are the head of the wife and of his household.

    In fact, the NT nowhere ways that the husband is the head of the household. It does say that an overseer should manage his own family. 1 Tim. 3:4

    It also says that the wife should manage her own house. 1 Tim 5:14

    In fact, in 1 Tim. 5:14 the word used is the Greek word oikodespoteo. It means “to be the head of the house.”

    This word is used throughout the gospels for the householder or owner of a house. You can easily see that Lydia, Phoebe, Chloe, Nympha and the elect lady were the “heads of their house” and had independent financial resources.

    You may be thinking of the word r’osh in the Hebrew Bible. When this word is used for the head of one’s family, tribe, house, nation, etc. then it is translated into Greek as archon, hegemon, archegos, of chiliarch. It is not translated into Greek as kephale, which is the word used in the NT by Paul for the man.

    In Latin, there is the term caput familiae and in English, “head of the family.” This is not linked to gender, but depends on who is the main wage earner, (usually a male, but it is a position of holding the resources.)

    The expression “head of the family” using kephale, occurs once in all of Greek literature, in Hermas, a document written in Rome which appeared at the same time in Latin. circa 140 AD.

    This isolated occurrence at this date, written in Rome, is insufficient evidence for establishing that this relates to the use by Paul in the expression “man is the head of woman.”

    It would be essential to demonstrate that the meaning of authority occurred before Paul’s use in the epistles and not after.

    In fact, I believe Paul is trying to communicate something about the organic unity between God and Christ, and Christ and the church.

    You can ask Denny whether I am actually relating unembellished linguistic facts or not.

  54. D.J. Williams June 30, 2008 at 8:53 pm #

    Yvette said…
    “Ferg, Barry, DJ, and anyone else who thought the clubbing joke was funny. Abuse jokes are never funny to an abused person. It is NEVER appropriate for a Christian. Abuse is not funny.”

    And Barry actually said…
    “I need to go club my wife with my caveman club, since I think she just left the kitchen.”

    I would hope it would be beyond painfully evident that Barry was not saying abuse is funny – he was using irony to highlight how ridiculous the stereotype of caveman male chauvinism is when applied to those of us husbands who seriously, soberly and humbly attempt to live as servant-leaders in our households. If we’re at the point in this discussion where that joke has become a lightning-rod talking point, then this discussion has ceased to be useful and productive. Let’s be able to laugh, people, unless you’d like to tell Paul not to tell castration jokes because they might bring up painful memories to a eunuch.

  55. Truth Unites... and Divides June 30, 2008 at 9:26 pm #

    “There are many Christians today who perceive the differing views concerning women’s roles in the home and church as two alternative models drawn from Scriptural exegesis. Some have chosen to teach and live according to an egalitarian model of manhood and womanhood, while others have sided with the complementarian groups. However, Wayne Grudem and John Piper have demonstrated that egalitarians are unable to support their case using biblical exegesis. Consequently, their egalitarian model must be built upon something else. In the following paper I will trace the roots of evangelical feminism to reveal its actual foundation, namely, [secular] feminist philosophy.”

    Read it all at UNCOVERING THE FOUNDATIONS OF EVANGELICAL FEMINISM/ EGALITARIANISM

  56. Sue June 30, 2008 at 10:00 pm #

    However, Wayne Grudem and John Piper have demonstrated that egalitarians are unable to support their case using biblical exegesis.

    They have amply proved their point to people who can’t actually read Greek. I have read their studies and I am unimpressed. In fact, before I read them I had expected something quite different from the press they get.

  57. Scott June 30, 2008 at 10:00 pm #

    Once more TUAD…

  58. Gem June 30, 2008 at 10:09 pm #

    Barry said in #16
    there is not one example of in Scripture is a husband being commanded to submit to his wife.

    What do you make of God’s command to Abraham here?

    Gen 21:10-12 So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son; … And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham… But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased… whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you,

    I learned from Sarah (the 1 Peter 3 role model of submission to a disobedient husband) that godly submission can have an assertive face and is not always going to be pleasing to the husband.

  59. Truth Unites... and Divides June 30, 2008 at 10:27 pm #

    “I have read their studies and I am unimpressed.”

    And others have read your comments and are likewise unimpressed.

    I echo Bill Mouser cited from #44: ““Sue’s fantasies of interpretation arise out of the “etymological root fallacy,” an interpretive error common among the amateurs and those with special agendas.”

    Followed by: “Sue,
    There’s no problem with running to a lexicon. The problem arises when one gets there and finds a range of meanings, dependent on context, which the lexicon-user then ignores, resorting first to an interpretive criterion alien to the text in which the word appears. This generates any number of word-meaning fallacies, some of which I referred to in that link I provided. The “root fallacy” is one of the more common of these.”

  60. David (not Adrian's son) Rogers June 30, 2008 at 10:30 pm #

    Dear All,

    I began posting semi-regular comments on this blog a few weeks ago when Denny posted the announcement of the complementarian sermon series. With this post I am now choosing to stop doing so. I bid you all adieu for now. My reasons for stopping are several. Whether or not people are actually interested in my reasons, here they are.

    (a) My wife is homebound due to a physical condition of sickness. My pastoral duties require much of my time, and I have accepted other responsibilities (presenting a paper in mid-July at an academic conference, teaching an extension course on the Book of Revelation later this year). These commitments require leaving some things behind.

    (b) I have become too obsessed with checking back on the post and responding. I’ve been spending too much time with this.

    (c) The atrocities of grammar and spelling are irritating me. (I admit this is the lesser of the reasons, but I fear that blogging is contributing to the lessening of well-shaped discourse and well-disciplined communication through writing.) I, myself, in my desire to respond have sacrificed clear communication with quick typing into a comment box. I’m embarrassed to find typos and grammatical problems in my own comments, and the quick corrections posted afterward are far too frequent.

    (d) I had hoped that well-disciplined analysis would proceed in a helpful dialogue between differing viewpoints. And that has occurred. However, there have been all too many tangents that regularly develop with the discourse coarsening due to all too much sarcasm (and I’ve contributed to that somewhat). There are some who post seemingly not to interact but to monolithically act in declaring all contrary viewpoints wrong. The declaration by some has not come due to the conversation proceeding idea by idea and then reaching some realm of conclusion, but by pronouncing from the beginning the idiocy or disease of the contrary position. The other position may indeed be wrong, but I’m not getting confident that it will be shown to be wrong by careful demonstration but only by loudly typed assertion.

    (e) I may be accused of being a Luddite in my assessment, but I’m beginning to sense that blogging may be somewhat detrimental to the advancement of educational conversation. But not totally. I have indeed learned much by the interaction. I’ve been exposed to some new points, some new information through this format. However, the format does have a “Gnostic” feel. The dialogue occurs by its very form in an disembodied exchange of viewpoints. If we were in the same room, or even seeing each other, I wonder if some of the more egregious comments (or attempts at joking, see Prov. 25:18-19) would have been made. Also, some engaged in the back-and-forth are doing so anonymously. That is needed by some due to some serious reasons. Others, I suspect, hide behind the veil of anonymity and as a result feel unhindered in spewing out rants and snideness with little sense of personal accountability. We respond all too quickly, and sometimes we have to apologize for the rapid ranting that we later regret. We would all be better served if we had to write our response out in our word processors, let the response gel for at least a day, be re-edited by us before posting, with each of us honing carefully our communication before publicly expressing our ideas. Some here may do such. I suspect that many of us just type with racing heartbeats and pounding heads and hit submit.

    (f) All of us would be served well if we re-educated ourselves with well-researched, well-written, peer edited analyses of the issues. All of us could use a good refreshing of a well thought out hermeneutic.

    I will now leave, “asserting” a few conclusions that I have come to after years of study. (My demonstration of how I arrived at them will have to wait to my yet unwritten and currently unplanned book. I do not have a blog or website {maybe, in the future}. My demonstrations have been embedded in my preaching and teaching in the congregations I’ve pastored.) You may attack them, affirm them, dissect them, or ignore them.

    The inerrantly inspired nature of the Bible does not guarantee that our interpretations are correct.

    The inerrantly inspired nature of the Bible does not mean that all its statements and commands are timeless and universal. God commanded Israel to circumcise the males of His covenant. That command is no longer required. It is still instructively relevant by analogy but not by literal obedience.

    God chose to inspire His revelation through a variety of contexts including genre and socio-rhetorical situations. A humble interpreter will pay close attention to all contexts especially taking note of the determining impact of genre and socio-rhetorical communication.

    Lexicons are best used as reference tools noting that words have a variety of usages. The best lexicons note where a word is used in different places and thus allow the researchers to go to the actual texts in order to determine by contextual comparison what the word seems to mean.

    Word meaning should be determined synchronically and diachronically. Some words appear in the texts with extreme rarity and thus determination of meaning may have to track its usage over several centuries. One of the reasons Sue appeals to Chrysostom is because he uses the relatively rare term “authenteo,” and he was a native Greek speaker and thus had closer knowledge of a sense of the word more than any of us. While he may be noting only how the word was used in his day, only sheer arrogance would dismiss his contribution for determining the meaning of the word, especially since he used it in some contexts with regards to husband and wife.

    While some may want to dismiss the leadership and/or teachings and/or proclamations of Deborah, Huldah, Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Phoebe, Priscilla, Philip’s daughters, etc., complementarians should seriously re-examine all the texts again and seriously ask what impact these texts should have for shaping one’s vision with regard to this issue. One important issue is determining one’s hermeneutic for using narrative and didactic passages together for making theological conclusions. Laying aside one’s current position (whether complementarian or egalitarian) for fresh re-examination can be fruitful.

    Being able to respond reasonably, humbly, and scholarly to contrary positions is always better than with snide, dismissive asides. (I have on occasion ventured into or close to or at least been tempted toward that territory, and thus that is why I’m departing.)

    And finally one more question which is very important.

    Who is the fifth Cylon?

    Blessings on all; we’ll meet at the mercy seat

    David Rogers
    Pastor
    FBC Biscoe, AR

    P.S. I’ll post one more thing in a couple of days.

  61. John June 30, 2008 at 11:54 pm #

    David,

    I appreciate your comments because they are always well-researched and thought out. I can tell (unlike many others) that you have wrestled with these issues and base your conclusions on your exegesis and go where the evidence leads you as opposed to just directing somebody to some article their “favorite pastor or theologian” wrote. You hold your own convictions based upon your exegesis, not based upon other people in your camps convictions.

    In fact, for you to be a pastor of a baptist church gives me great hope for the southern baptists. I would gladly sit under your teaching any day of the week b/c you are a man who I can respect and listen to, as opposed to a man who just rehashes a systematic theology or John Piper book.

    On top of all this, I can tell you actually keep up with the original languages. This is certainly a rarity in the church, with most pastors claiming they know Greek and Hebrew but they really haven’t studied it since they were in seminary years ago. Thus, it becomes more of an authoritative tool for them rather than a means to do more careful exegesis and know God more. Bravo to you for that brother! I wish you were my pastor when I was growing up.

    Please do start a blog. Your thoughts a far too good for only your congregation to be the recipients of. I would certainly add you to my roll.

  62. Ferg July 1, 2008 at 1:59 am #

    Yvette,
    I understand your concern and I agree that it may be painful for some. Perhaps my humour is darker than others. I have had a baseball bat to the head but I could see the obvious irony that Barry was alluding too. DJ sums it up better than I will in post 54.

    I think David has a lot of good things to say in post 59 and perhaps it would be good for some to ponder.

    I realise that I have very very rarely seen anyone on here write along the lines of “I didn’t know that”, or “I was wrong in my thinking…”, or “I’ll think about that point, thanks…”

  63. Michael July 1, 2008 at 8:11 am #

    Sue,
    You mentioned:
    “I do not see Tamar, Ruth, Deborah, Huldah, Hannah, Mary, Joanna, Anna, Phoebe, Chloe, Nympha, or ANY other woman in the scriptures who act as if a husband is an authority.”

    Judges 4:8 Barak said to her, “If you go with me, I will go. But if you do not go with me, I will not go.”

    Judges 4:9 She said, “I will indeed go with you. But you will not gain fame on the expedition you are undertaking, for the Lord will turn Sisera over to a woman.”

    Judges 5:7 Warriors were scarce,
    they were scarce in Israel,
    until you arose, Deborah,
    until you arose as a motherly protector in Israel.

    It’s Old Testament 101 to understand Deborah’s leadership as filling the vacancy left by cowardly men (Barak).

    The text also demonstrates Jael, a woman, killing Sisera, a man and general of a large army.

    Even in the case of the exceptions listed, they are not really exceptions in light of their Biblical context.

    Actually, it is interesting to see the parallel of the times.

  64. MatthewS July 1, 2008 at 8:20 am #

    David,

    I have appreciated your comments. Regardless of whether I agree with someone, I appreciate reading comments that bring experience and thoughtfulness to the table.

    I think it is possible for sincere believers to over-emphasize the war metaphor at the expense of other important NT metaphors such as planting, discipling, parenting, being brothers and sisters, shepherding, running, walking, etc.

    This can result in identifing “us” and “them” and in justifying any amount of harshness, sarcasm, insults against “them” because it is war. Your comments often stand out as reflection and conversation, not just throwing grenades.

  65. Sue July 1, 2008 at 11:39 am #

    Michael,

    If one woman was a worthy leader, then women are not, by design in creation, unfit to be leaders. It was perfectly acceptable for Deborah to be a judge, as Huldah was also.

    It was unusual for a woman to go to war. It is possible for a woman to go to war, but not always the best thing. You don’t have to be a warrior to be a leader in the church. I can’t find a scriptural reference for that.

  66. Sue July 1, 2008 at 11:41 am #

    Thank you for those who have helped to create a gentle tone in this thread.

  67. D.J. Williams July 1, 2008 at 11:59 am #

    Sue said…

    “If one woman was a worthy leader, then women are not, by design in creation, unfit to be leaders.”

    Sue, this is faulty logic. Consider the following twist: “If one woman was a murderer, then women are not, by design in creation, unfit to be murderers.”

    To quote Jurassic Park (which has to be a first on this blog 🙂 ), “We were so consumed with whether or not we could that we didn’t stop to think if we should.

  68. Denny Burk July 1, 2008 at 12:10 pm #

    I’m all about being gentle!

  69. Sue July 1, 2008 at 12:53 pm #

    Sue, this is faulty logic. Consider the following twist: “If one woman was a murderer, then women are not, by design in creation, unfit to be murderers.”

    We are both men and women capable of murdering, but morally not to do so because murder is immoral. We are both men and women capable of leadership but women are morally not allowed to lead because ….

    Enlighten me. Was Deborah immoral? Does the Bible teach that?

  70. D.J. Williams July 1, 2008 at 1:06 pm #

    Sue said…
    “We are both men and women capable of murdering, but morally not to do so because murder is immoral. We are both men and women capable of leadership but women are morally not allowed to lead because…”

    …God has proclaimed so, having instructed in Scripture that leadership in the church (eldership) is to be carried out by men and that men are to act as the servant-leader of the home. Deborah was not an elder in the NT church, and, as Michael illustrated in #62, her leadership of Barak was not exactly portrayed as something worthy of emulation.

    But we’re at least agreed, then, that ability does not necessarily indicate oughtness, right?

  71. Sue July 1, 2008 at 1:13 pm #

    Are we agreed that Deborah was morally justified in what she did? Are we agreed that it is not immoral for a woman to lead?

  72. Quixote July 1, 2008 at 1:17 pm #

    Would that preachers spent equal time instructing men on how to love their wives as Christ loves the Church.

    Not one of us will stand before God able to use the excuse, “But he…” or “But she…” We see how much good that did Adam in the Garden: “The woman you gave me…”

    When it comes to my life, God is interested in telling me MY story. As Aslan so rightly says in The Horse and His Boy, when asked to spill the beans on another person, “That is not your story.” (If we can quote Jurassic Park, we can quote The Chronicles of Narnia!)

    So why must these men insist on hammering into women what they ought to be doing. Leave it to Beth Moore or Joyce Meyer or Sue. Please start hammering into men their role as husband and men of God and let us all stand before God as faithful players in our own story.

  73. Paul July 1, 2008 at 1:25 pm #

    DJ,

    “…as Michael illustrated in #62, her leadership of Barak was not exactly portrayed as something worthy of emulation.”

    Barak‘s behavior was not worthy of emulation. However, Deborah stepped up when it was necessary for SOMEONE to step up.

    And that does pose a question for me: if the husband is incapable, unwilling or too stupid to lead his family properly, should the woman then follow Deborah’s lead?

    **please note, I am simply a dumb musician, I don’t know ancient greek, and I am sure that most everyone involved in the discussion can make me look like a little, little man. So, I ask this only out of curiosity, not to stir any pots.**

  74. preacher's wife July 1, 2008 at 1:29 pm #

    Paul,

    I’ve been taught that even if a man fails miserably at being the spiritual leader of the family, in God’s eyes the man is STILL the leader. So I’m to respect him as one. It goes contrary to all my natural tendencies, especially as an educated “free thinking” American that has been taught respect is given to those who earn it.
    However, I’m reprimanded since just as I respect the office of President (even when the actual president is less-deserving of my personal respect), I’m to respect the “office” of husband independent of the actual husband. The Apostle Paul instructs wives to respect their husbands, and he doesn’t qualify it with “if the husbands are…”. Paul also instructs the husbands to love their wives, so in an ideal world, it’s easy to respect a godly man who’s following his own orders from Scripture.

    But my biggest struggle in marriage, church, and life, is respecting/following men who do not (in the natural) warrant any such thing.

  75. a preacher's wife July 1, 2008 at 1:32 pm #

    Denny,

    Did my comment just prior to this about respecting a husband wind up in spam??

    Thx

  76. a preacher's wife July 1, 2008 at 1:33 pm #

    Trying again…

    Paul,

    I’ve been taught that even if a man fails miserably at being the spiritual leader of the family, in God’s eyes the man is STILL the leader. So I’m to respect him as one. It goes contrary to all my natural tendencies, especially as an educated “free thinking” American that has been taught respect is given to those who earn it.
    However, I’m reprimanded since just as I respect the office of President (even when the actual president is less-deserving of my personal respect), I’m to respect the “office” of husband independent of the actual husband. The Apostle Paul instructs wives to respect their husbands, and he doesn’t qualify it with “if the husbands are…”. Paul also instructs the husbands to love their wives, so in an ideal world, it’s easy to respect a godly man who’s following his own orders from Scripture.

    But my biggest struggle in marriage, church, and life, is respecting/following men who do not (in the natural) warrant any such thing.

  77. D.J. Williams July 1, 2008 at 1:37 pm #

    Quixote said…
    “So why must these men insist on hammering into women what they ought to be doing. Leave it to Beth Moore or Joyce Meyer or Sue. Please start hammering into men their role as husband and men of God and let us all stand before God as faithful players in our own story.”

    This is an unfortunate side-effect of the fact that our discussion here has been one-dimensional. Every complementarian pastor or teacher I know does spend just as much time (if not more) instructing men as well as women. That topic just doesn’t make for 800-comment threads. 🙂

  78. Sue July 1, 2008 at 1:42 pm #

    DJ,

    If a woman is abused and then she is made to feel even one scintilla of guilt for her own abuse, that is worth an 800 comment thread. Women cannot stop violence by being submissive. Violent men are egged on by submission. This is dangerous teaching.

    What century are we living in?

  79. D.J. Williams July 1, 2008 at 1:48 pm #

    Sue, not to be dismissive, but I’m struggling to see what abuse has to do with the discussion at hand.

  80. Ferg July 1, 2008 at 1:50 pm #

    if a man fails miserably at being the spiritual leader of the family, in God’s eyes the man is STILL the leader. So I’m to respect him as one

    I really hope this is not true as it could lead to some very very horrible marriages and some very very miserable women.

  81. Sue July 1, 2008 at 2:27 pm #

    Sue, not to be dismissive, but I’m struggling to see what abuse has to do with the discussion at hand.

    DJ,

    The 800 comment thread is because some of us see the words of Bruce Ware, that men being abusive is a response to the non-submission of women as being dangerous and keeping women in abusive relationships.

    An all male clergy is not appropriate for all teaching on abuse. Ware teaches that men have Godlike authority in the home and women have Godlike submission. Then, if a woman is not submissive enough, the husband will respond with abuse of passivity.

    He does not point out that submission to abuse reinforces abuse and is highly dangerous and causes women to suffer criminal assault.

  82. Sue July 1, 2008 at 2:28 pm #

    abuse or passivity – sorry about that.

  83. Brian (Another) July 1, 2008 at 3:03 pm #

    Just to be a bit of a stickler, wasn’t Dr. Ware’s comment that it is a sinful reaction? I.e. I think the quote is “because they are sinners”. We should disdain and condemn the sin of abuse, no questions asked. We hate all SIN (well, we should. Normally we hate all sin except the ones we want to commit right at that moment). But we don’t stop following a biblical command because someone abused it (before the flame comes, an abused women should seek shelter). I’m not going to stop going to church because of Ted Haggerty (pick an abused person of power). Dr. Ware was saying that men can have two SINFUL reactions. He does not say that men only have two choices in how to react. And I understand that we disagree. But maybe I’m missing part of the message.

    And yes Quixote, you are spot on to say that we (as men) are called to an extremely daunting task of loving our wives as Christ loved the church. Yes, we should be training men to do just that. My church does a fantastic job of this. Our men’s program is (teenie word warning) awesome in that we get men in a 1-on-1 relationship to instill the idea of commitment and accountability.

  84. a preacher's wife July 1, 2008 at 3:24 pm #

    Ferg in #80,

    You quoted me as saying: “if a man fails miserably at being the spiritual leader of the family, in God’s eyes the man is STILL the leader. So I’m to respect him as one” and then you replied, “I really hope this is not true as it could lead to some very very horrible marriages and some very very miserable women.”

    Isn’t your comment the very point being made by the umpteen commneters against complementarianism? And isn’t MY comment, what complementarians are asking us wives to do?????

  85. Ferg July 1, 2008 at 4:52 pm #

    Yes, I agree and I think it could lead to some devastating consequences.

  86. Truth Unites... and Divides July 2, 2008 at 1:03 am #

    Paul, #3: “Sue,

    I am suprised you didn’t mention Chrysistom in your argument.

    I am afirad that you are so committed to feminism that you are blind to simple presentations of Scripture. If you listen to the whole sermon. He deals with v.21. Please come up with better insight than Chrysostom and your old straw man arguments. Your case is weak and unwise.

    I pray that you will see the truth someday.

    Have a great week.”

    Hi Paul,

    St. Chrysostom was against women’s ordination as was other Early Church Fathers:

    Tertullian, in The Prescription of Heretics 41, says: “How wanton are the women of these heretics! they dare to teach, . to dispute, to carry out exorcisms, to undertake cures, it may be even to baptize.” In his work On veiling virgins 9. 1:”It is not permissible for a woman to speak in church, nor may she teach, baptize, offer, or claim for herself any function proper to a man, and least of all the office of priest.”

    St. Irenaeus, Against Haereses 1. 31. 2 “After this he gave women mixed chalices and told them to give thanks in his presence. Then he took another chalice much larger than that on which the deceived woman gave thanks, and, pouring from the smaller… to the much later. . the larger chalice was filled from the smaller chalice and overflowed.”

    Firmilian, in Epistle 75. 1-5 to Cyprian, tells of a woman who went into an ecstasy and came out a prophetess. “That woman who first through marvels or deceptions of the demons did many things to deceive the faithful, among other things… she dared to do this, namely that by an impressive invocation she feigned she was sanctifying bread, and offering a sacrifice to the Lord.”

    Origen, in a Fragment of his commentary on 1 Cor 14:34 tells of the four daughters of Philip; who prophesied, yet they did not speak in the Churches. We do not find that in the Acts of the Apostles… . For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.”

    St. Epiphanius, Against Heresies 79. 304 wrote: “If women were ordained to be priests for God or to do anything canonical in the church, it should rather have been given to Mary… . She was not even entrusted with baptizing… Although there is an order of deaconesses in the church, yet they are not appointed to function as priests, or for any administration of this kind, but so that provision may be made for the propriety of the female sex [at nude baptisms]. Whence comes the recent myth? Whence comes the pride of women or rather, the woman’s insanity?” In 49. 2-3 St. Epiphanius tells of the Cataphrygians, a heretical sect related to the Montanists. The Cataphrygians pretended that a woman named Quintillia or Priscilla had seen Christ visiting her in a dream at Pepuza, and sharing her bed. He took the appearance of a woman and was dressed in white.”Among them women are bishops and priests and they say nothing makes a difference’ For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, ” [Gal. 3:”28]

    St. John Chrysostom, in On the Priesthood 2. 2 points out that Jesus said “Feed my sheep” only to Peter. “Many of the subjects could easily do the things I have mentioned, not only men, but also women. But when there is question of the headship of the church… let the entire female sex retire.” And in 3. 9 St. John wrote: “Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but they try to thrust themselves into it.”

    St. Augustine, On heresies 27 also speaks of the Pepuzians mentioned by St. Epiphanius. “They give such principality to women that they even honor them with priesthood.”

    From: Church Fathers Against Women’s Ordination

  87. Gem July 2, 2008 at 7:37 am #

    TUAD,

    Personally, I prefer to stick with God’s Word over the word of these uninspired men.

    preacher= one who preaches
    preach = to herald, to publish, proclaim openly something which has been done; used of the public proclamation of the gospel and matters pertaining to it,

    God’s Word commands me to preach.

    God’s Word has many examples of women openly proclaiming (aka preaching!)

    quote: Luke 2:36-38 And there was one Anna, a prophetess… And she …departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

    or THIS:

    quote: John 4:28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?…39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified,

    or THIS:

    quote: Matt 28:5-7 And the angel answered and said unto the women,… go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead;

    (women- post resurrection- the first “ones sent” AKA “apostles”!)

    or THIS (in church):

    quote: 1Cor 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth

    or THIS:

    quote: Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,

    or THIS:

    quote: Ac 18:26 And he [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
    Ro 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
    1Co 16:19 ¶ The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

    All of the above is pleasing to GOD
    Go ye therefore and do likewise!

  88. Michael July 2, 2008 at 8:33 am #

    I do not see Tamar, Ruth, Deborah, Huldah, Hannah, Mary, Joanna, Anna, Phoebe, Chloe, Nympha, or ANY other woman in the scriptures who act as if a husband is an authority.

    I’ve already addressed Deborah in number 63.

    I’d like to address Hannah here:

    1 Sam 1:23 So her husband Elkanah said to her, “Do what you think best. Stay until you have weaned him. May the Lord fulfill his promise.” So the woman stayed and nursed her son until she had weaned him.

    This seems evident, to me at least, that Hannah would not qualify as a wife who does not act as if her husband is in authority.

  89. Michael July 2, 2008 at 8:40 am #

    Anna should not have made the list either since she does not have a husband. Neither does the text demonstrate her having or exercising any kind of authority.

    Your statement here is a little misleading to say the least. I won’t go as far to suggest you are “un-researched” though, as you fantastically accused Dr. Burk of.

    To one who is not the wiser they might think that the text demonstrates these women having and exercising authority over men.

  90. Truth Unites... and Divides July 2, 2008 at 9:24 am #

    The New Testament is absolutely clear in its repeated, consistent declarations on headship and submission. Here’s a sampling:

    · “wives, be submissive to your own husbands”

    · “the holy women…used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands”

    · “live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker” (1 Peter 3:1, 5, 7)

    · “wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord”

    · “the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church”

    · “as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything”

    · “husbands, love your wives” (Eph. 5:22-25)

    · “wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord”

    · “husbands, love your wives” (Col. 3:18, 19)

    · “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness”

    · “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:11, 12)

    · “encourage the young women…[to be] subject to their own husbands” (Titus 2:5)

    · “the man is the head of a woman”

    · “he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man” (1 Cor. 11:3, 7)

    · “The women are to…subject themselves” (1 Cor. 14:34)

  91. Ellen July 2, 2008 at 9:40 am #

    Which Tamar?

    Tamar also should not be on the list.

    Tamar in Genesis was a widow when she acted on her own. Also, Judah (her father-in-law) said, “go” and she obeyed.

    Tamar in 2 Samuel also was not married (was a virgin) and was told by her grandfather (a man) “go feed your brother” and she obeyed (and was forced by that brother, by no fault of her grandfather) It was a man who acted to “get rid of” the villain.

    Two unmarried women (both of whom took instruction from men) are hardly examples of “egalitarian” marriages in Scripture.

    Although technically an unmarried woman is not under the authority of her husband.

    This is an unfortunate side-effect of the fact that our discussion here has been one-dimensional. Every complementarian pastor or teacher I know does spend just as much time (if not more) instructing men as well as women. That topic just doesn’t make for 800-comment threads.

    Have you listened to many sermons by Mark Driscoll instructing men? Hard teaching.

  92. Ellen July 2, 2008 at 9:49 am #

    Another note on Hannah – wasn’t she in a plural marriage? Whether as a first wife or second…if she was not in submission to her husband;

    as a first wife, how many women would (being in joint control) want another wife to come in?

    as a second wife (and having joint control) who would want to be the second wife?

    Either way, the husband was not doing a good job here, but there is no indication that the wives (plural) were not under authority.

  93. Ellen July 2, 2008 at 10:05 am #

    I keep thinking about Hannah…

    She also was under Old Testament Law and would have known that any vow she made could be countermanded by her husband. By Law, she was under the authority of her husband, the vow to give her child to God did not appear to be an exception, since the husband gave her permission.

  94. Sue July 2, 2008 at 10:46 am #

    having and exercising authority over men.

    Exactly where do we read that this was one of the functions of leadership in the NT church? Nowhere.

    There were an awful lot of women in the scriptures who seemed to be actng without male authority. Worrisome, isn’t it.

  95. Gem July 2, 2008 at 10:51 am #

    I keep thinking about Hannah…

    …the vow to give her child to God did not appear to be an exception, since the husband gave her permission.

    Reading about Hannah’s vow in context: 1 Sam 1:11 she did not check with her husband. She made the vow independently. I read 1 Sam 1:23 not as retroactive “permission” from her husband. To the contrary, he seems to be exhorting his wife to fulfill her independently made vow: “only the LORD establish his word”.

  96. Michael July 2, 2008 at 10:57 am #

    Sue, I was not arguing NT leadership. Your statement above, I feel, needs more vindication.

    You stated: I do not see… ANY other woman in the scriptures who act as if a husband is an authority.

    The evidence is to the contrary – complete contrary.

    The text demonstrates that these women you have listed, either do not qualify for relating to husbands (since most of them do not have them) or are not shown as exercising authoirty independent of a husband or man.

  97. Gem July 2, 2008 at 11:50 am #

    1 Sam 1:23 So her husband Elkanah said to her, “Do what you think best. Stay until you have weaned him. May the Lord fulfill his promise.” So the woman stayed and nursed her son until she had weaned him.

    This seems evident, to me at least, that Hannah would not qualify as a wife who does not act as if her husband is in authority.

    She vows her firstborn son into service in the tabernacle without so much as checking with her husband. 1 Sam 1:23 demonstrated that her husband respected her authority to do so. God answering her prayer says to me that that God rewarded Hannah’s vow. I see no chastisement: by the priest, by her husband, nor by God.

    1 Sam 1:8Then said Elkanah her husband to her, Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons?

    9So Hannah rose up after they had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk. Now Eli the priest sat upon a seat by a post of the temple of the LORD.

    10And she was in bitterness of soul, and prayed unto the LORD, and wept sore.

    11And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.

    12And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the LORD, that Eli marked her mouth.

    13Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken.

    14And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee.

    15And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the LORD.

    16Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial: for out of the abundance of my complaint and grief have I spoken hitherto.

    17Then Eli answered and said, Go in peace: and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of him.

  98. Sue July 2, 2008 at 11:54 am #

    The evidence is to the contrary – complete contrary.

    Sarah was persuaded to do something for Abraham, and it was not a good thing. God told Abraham to obey Sarah at one point. There is a fair bit of give and take in this marriage.

    Rebecca helps to determine which son would inherit.

    Rachel sat on the household gods.

    Tamar deceived Judah and it was counted righteousness.

    Deborah and Jael, although married, were praised for their independent actions. Also Hulda, Abigail and others.

    Hannah pursued her desire for a child, although her husband had other children.

    Ruth introduced herself to Boaz, and later gave their eldest son to Naomi.

    Rahaab protected the spies and rescued her entire family – parents, brothers and sisters.

    Where are the women who are held up as examples of treating their husband as an authority?

    There is Sarah, which is problematic, since we do not know how Sarah obeyed Abraham.

    I do not see the scriptures leaving examples of the role of women as those who live “under authority of the husband.”

    I am only remarking that these examples seem to be largely absent from the text, other than Sarah. However, it should be remarked that Sarah and Abraham’s relationship was complex, and not something we want to emulate in this present day.

    I am not suggesting that women should disrespect their husbands, far from it. I am simply remarking that women appear in the scriptures, much as the men, as the heroes of their own narrative, as human beings in relation to God, the Lord of all.

  99. Michael July 2, 2008 at 1:39 pm #

    without so much as checking with her husband.

    ?

  100. Gem July 2, 2008 at 1:45 pm #

    The Proverbs 31 woman considers a field and buys it (no mention of her husband’s involvement).

    The 2 Kings 4:8ff woman initiates the building of a home addition for the prophet, and later does not even appear to inform her husband of their son’s death, but takes matters into her own hands. Her initiative and persistance is rewarded.

    I see these women as women with authority in their own right. They were free to exercise their gifts and talents with great independence. There is no indication of a one-sided “husband only” authority in these Old Testament marriages.

  101. Gem July 2, 2008 at 1:53 pm #

    without so much as checking with her husband.

    ?

    Looking at 1 Samuel 1:11 in context: Hannah makes a vow dedicating her firstborn son to serve at the tabernacle.

    Where in there do you see her checking with her husband Elkanah before making that vow?

    I don’t see it anywhere in there.

    She made the vow, and the priest-Eli, her husband-Elkanah,and God all honored her vow… which speaks volumes 🙂

  102. madame July 4, 2008 at 5:14 am #

    I’d like to ask a couple of questions regarding the teaching that men have authority over their wives.

    1. Does God give authority directly to husbands? If so, where do you find evidence of this in Scripture?

    2. In the case that a man believes that his decision is the right one for his family, if his wife objects, does his authority entitle him to pull it through regardless? How do you counsel a complementarian man in such a position?

    And regarding submission and love:

    – I’ve read that a wife is in sin if she doesn’t submit to her husband. Is a husband in sin if he doesn’t love his wife? Is he in sin if he is not being considerate?

    – If a husband, although he’s never been commanded to submit directly, is not submitting to his wife (per Ephesians 5.21), is he considered to be in sin?

    – Is a spouse entitled to take any action against the other spouse’s sin?

  103. Truth Unites... and Divides July 4, 2008 at 9:25 am #

    “Does God give authority directly to husbands? If so, where do you find evidence of this in Scripture?

    (Repeating)

    The New Testament is absolutely clear in its repeated, consistent declarations on headship and submission. Here’s a sampling:

    · “wives, be submissive to your own husbands”

    · “the holy women…used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands”

    · “live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker” (1 Peter 3:1, 5, 7)

    · “wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord”

    · “the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church”

    · “as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything”

    · “husbands, love your wives” (Eph. 5:22-25)

    · “wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord”

    · “husbands, love your wives” (Col. 3:18, 19)

    · “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness”

    · “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:11, 12)

    · “encourage the young women…[to be] subject to their own husbands” (Titus 2:5)

    · “the man is the head of a woman”

    · “he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man” (1 Cor. 11:3, 7)

    · “The women are to…subject themselves” (1 Cor. 14:34)

  104. madame July 4, 2008 at 9:59 am #

    TUAD,

    Thanks for all those verses. None of them directly command a man to have authority over his wife.

  105. Truth Unites... and Divides July 4, 2008 at 1:16 pm #

    Madame,

    Have it your way.

  106. Truth Unites... and Divides July 4, 2008 at 1:16 pm #

    Sue, #1197 in Bruce Ware thread (excerpt, but read it all): “When are people going to understand that the greatest danger to women in America and all over the world is their own husband. Ask any emergency ward.

    This is what women need protection from.”

    To see such rancid bitterness manifest itself ….

    Ai-yi-yi-yi-yi. Not good.

  107. Sue July 4, 2008 at 1:34 pm #

    Sadly, this is a fact.

  108. Truth Unites... and Divides July 4, 2008 at 2:06 pm #

    Sue, #1210 on Bruce Ware thread: “The highest cause of mortality to a pregnant woman in America is homicide by the father of the baby. I was myself shocked. I am just citing facts, unpalatable facts.

    The highest cause of mortality to unborn babies in America is the decision by the mother of the baby to abort the baby. 1.3 million abortions per year in America. (2005 data). I was myself shocked. I am just citing facts, unpalatable facts.

  109. Sue July 4, 2008 at 2:52 pm #

    Thank you, TUAD, here also, for your expression of fellow feeling.

  110. Lydia July 4, 2008 at 9:27 pm #

    “This issue has everything to do with the gospel.” Russell Moore in the linked sermon.

    This has been my frustration from day one that the truth was illuminated to me by the Holy Spirit. These men are trying to make this issue of authority over women an issue of salvation. It is insidious.

    This authority issue has become an idol for these guys. I also notice that Moore has toned it down! Where is the guy who was complaining of soft comps in our churches and saying we need more Patriarchy in marriage and the church? Perhaps he is trying to soften his image.

    He leaves out verse 21. Are husbands exempted from verse 21? It really helps to take out verse numbers and chapter numbers and read it like a real letter.

    Let us also remind ourselves that there is no clear evidence that Kephale means authority over someone. He is basing an entire ‘religion’ around the interpretation of a SINGLE word. Had Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit mean ‘authority over’ why not use archon? Or exousia? or even hegeomai? These are clear authority meaning words in the Greek.

    Seems that Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, did NOT use a clear authority over word on purpose.

    Could it be we have misunderstood the entire meaning of the text because of presuppositions?

    In any event, if Moore gives one example of a woman who does NOT have to submit then the whole house of ‘authority over’ cards falls down. And he does…abuse. The house of cards just fell down.

    So, submission is voluntary yielding. It is between her and the Holy Spirit. Because she has no earthly priest and the husband has no authority over her. They are both to love and revere one another.

  111. Lydia July 4, 2008 at 9:42 pm #

    “It is just as God-like to submit to authority as it is to lead.” Great point, and a blinding flash of the obvious.”

    What a strange statement. It is God-like to lead others?

    Jesus came to serve. The NC is about service, being a servant and servanthood. About humility, not lording it over others, not wanting power and leadership. God is no respectors of persons. If you want to enter the kingdom, you have to become lowly…like a child. Matthew 5. There are just too many examples to cite.

    There are no great men of God. There are only depraved sinners of a GREAT and Glorious God who are servants.

    This ‘authority/leadership’ issue has become an idol. It would be very hard to idolize being a servant…like Christ.

  112. Lydia July 4, 2008 at 9:57 pm #

    “To one who is not the wiser they might think that the text demonstrates these women having and exercising authority over men.”

    This is a serious question. The above statement I have seen everywhere as relates to the Body. What does this look like in practice within the Body?

    Can someone paint this picture for me because it really confuses me.

  113. madame July 5, 2008 at 3:09 am #

    Lydia,

    Russel Moore started his reading before verse 21. He actually pointed out that we have to read the book as a letter, not as separate chapters with verses.

    I agree with many of your statements in comment 110.

    ” Could it be we have misunderstood the entire meaning of the text because of presuppositions?

    In any event, if Moore gives one example of a woman who does NOT have to submit then the whole house of ‘authority over’ cards falls down. And he does…abuse. The house of cards just fell down.”

    This last one is one that always puzzles me.
    Are we, or are we not to submit to our husbands in everything?
    Because we can’t OBEY our husbands in everything, submission must mean something different.

    And I think the text has been misinterpreted because of suppositions.

  114. madame July 5, 2008 at 3:23 am #

    Lydia,

    ” There are no great men of God. There are only depraved sinners of a GREAT and Glorious God who are servants.

    This ‘authority/leadership’ issue has become an idol. It would be very hard to idolize being a servant…like Christ.”

    Exactly.
    Anyone remember the song “Servant King”?
    “this is our God, the Servant King
    He calls us now to follow Him;
    To live our lives as a daily offering
    of worship to the Servant King”.

    Christ lead us to him by loving us. We love him because he first loved us.

    I’ve always wanted to ask, is it in any way significant that the verb “loved” in verse 25 is in the past tense? is it in the past tense in the originals?
    I ask because I’ve read a lot of articles that explain how Christ leads the church, and how he loves her by leading her NOW. But the verb is in the past, indicating that husbands should NOW love their wives as Christ ALREADY LOVED the church.

    I don’t think that men are supposed to imitate Christ’s leadership of the church after his ascension, but his sacrificial living and dying for her during his time on earth.
    I may be completely off on this one, but it’s one that has puzzled me for a while.

  115. madame July 5, 2008 at 3:26 am #

    I ask because I’ve read a lot of articles that explain how Christ leads the church, and how he loves her by leading her NOW, and they urge husbands to imitate the risen Christ, not the suffering, sacrificing Christ.
    The emphasis is on LEADING, rather than LOVING.

  116. Lydia July 5, 2008 at 11:02 am #

    “Russel Moore started his reading before verse 21. He actually pointed out that we have to read the book as a letter, not as separate chapters with verses.”

    I missed the part where he taught mutual submission. :o)

    I think he read the blog before he prepared his sermon. As a matter of fact, I think this is being allowed for research and background after the Ware debacle. I am noticed in this sermon that Moore is softening on this issue from his earlier writings and sermons. I just wish he would publicly admit it and tell us why.

    Where is the man who wrote this:

    http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/2005ETS.pdf

    Looks like he is doing what he said Comps should not do in this article: Back down from Patriarchy because many will be uncomfortable with it.

    Now, why would Christians be uncomfortable with Patriarchy? Because it is not of Christ.

  117. Truth Unites... and Divides July 5, 2008 at 1:47 pm #

    Lydia, #116: “Looks like he is doing what he said Comps should not do in this article: Back down from Patriarchy because many will be uncomfortable with it.”

    Au contraire.

    Russell Moore: “Gender identity and complementarianism… I hate ….the word ‘complementarian’, I prefer the word ‘patriarchy’….”

    Russell Moore: “Because complementarianism doesn’t say much more than the fact that you have different roles. Everyone agrees that we have different roles, it just a question of on what basis you have different roles? So an egalitarian would say, “Yeah, I’m a complementarian too, it’s on the basis of gifts.” I think we need to say instead, “No you have headship that’s the key issue. It’s patriarchy, it’s a headship that reflects the headship, the fatherhood of God, and this is what it looks like, you then have to define what headship looks like…”

    From: Russell Moore: “I hate the term ‘complementarian’…”

  118. Lydia July 5, 2008 at 3:11 pm #

    “Because complementarianism doesn’t say much more than the fact that you have different roles”

    And here I thought that a ‘role’ was something you ‘play’ or ‘pretend’ to be.

    We are to BE in Christ.

    So, basically, Moore is teaching an earthly priest for married women.

  119. Truth Unites... and Divides July 5, 2008 at 5:51 pm #

    “Here is yet another little quote drawn from that great big book I’ve been reading. In his Old Testament Theology, Bruce Waltke is careful to prove that gender roles and differences are rooted not in society and culture but in creation. He shows that, though men and women have been created equal, man was to take the leadership role in family and in the church. This is not a result of the fall into sin but a part of the created order. This brief quote stood out to me as an example of godly submission and one that is, of course, exceedingly counter-cultural. Here we see submission not as suffering but as a glorious and meaningful expression of faith.

    “Mary’s response to the angel’s announcement that she would be with child, “I am the Lord’s servant. May it be to me as you have said,” models for Christian women an obedience she offers out of her freedom, her independence, and her thoughtful commitment so that her submission is meaningful and glorious, not a passive resignation to her fate.”

    May we all learn from Mary’s example and submit well to those God has placed over us.”

    From: Quote – Glorious Submission

  120. John July 5, 2008 at 5:58 pm #

    Immature, old, boring, worn out, childish…any other adjectives?

  121. madame July 5, 2008 at 6:53 pm #

    May we all learn from Mary’s example and submit well to those God has placed over us.”

    Mary submitted to God

  122. Lydia July 5, 2008 at 7:20 pm #

    Don’t you find it strange that God did not have the angel tell Joseph first since he was her authority in betrothel. Then Joe would tell Mary what she should do for God? Seems he just informed Joseph of a done deal. Where is the husband’s authority in that.

  123. Truth Unites... and Divides July 7, 2008 at 12:46 am #

    Tim Bayly offers an opinion on Sue and her egalitarian approach:

    “”Sue” claims to be an expert in Greek after many years of study and she has many citations she uses to bolster her idiosyncratic views. But here is how one New Testament scholar with the Ph.D. from Cambridge University sums up “Sue’s” own scholarship: “From what she has written here, I would not be able to say that “Sue” should be considered a reliable source of information for understanding Greek or for quoting other authors (like myself) fairly and with attention to context.” The evidence support[ing] this statement is insurmountable.

    But then “Sue” added to my tension (and exasperation, really) by telling us that she was an abused wife who bore on her body the inevitable marks of patriarchy.

    Of course, I was not exasperated because “Sue” talked about her abuse publicly; healing requires fellowship and love from brothers and sisters in Christ. Rather, I was exasperated because “Sue” used her abuse as a weapon in her war against the plain meaning of the Word of God and I knew from long experience that her bringing up her victimhood, legitimate though it may be, would be a straitjacket it would be exceedingly difficult to escape in dealing with her deceptions and errors here, publicly.

    So what to do?

    I’m not going to allow “Sue’s” attacks upon the plain meaning of Scripture to permanently stand here on our blog. They dishonor Christ and His Word and David and I have no obligation to provide them a public home. Yes, they’ll still be able to be accessed through Google’s caches, but that’s not something David and I are responsible for.

    Some may disagree saying that it’s unfair to allow someone to post comments spending tons of time on those comments, and then pull them off the blog. I agree that this seems unfair, but I can’t see my way clear to do anything else.

    So, I’m pulling all of the parts of “Sue’s” comments that lead readers astray concerning the Word of God, its translation and meaning. But I’m leaving up those parts of her comments where she reports being abused with the hope that she’ll hear the ministry being offered her by our readers in these other areas.

    If you think I’m wrong in my decision, God bless you. I have no doubt I’ve handled this badly, but I’m responsible for what lives on permanently on this blog, and I cannot reconcile my own conscience to “Sue’s” idosyncratic attacks upon God’s Word to have a permanent home here on the Baylyblog.

    Would you please pray for David and me, that God will give us wisdom and grace in our stewardship of this publication? Would you also please pray for “Sue,” that God will heal her heart and lead her into His Truth concerning sexuality? Thank you.]”

  124. John July 7, 2008 at 1:23 am #

    Slander, insulting, judgmental, mean-spirited…are these attributes a Christian is supposed to possess?

  125. Lydia July 7, 2008 at 8:46 am #

    Oh yes, the Baylys have quite an internet reputation for their ‘loving’ and ‘humble’ approach to this issue. (wink)

  126. Truth Unites.. and Divides July 8, 2008 at 12:25 pm #

    From Complementarians Tim Challies and Bruce Waltke:

    “Satan is a theologian who despises God with every bit of his being. When he turns to Eve and says, “Did God really say…?” he brings Eve into a dialogue that opens her mind to a new realm of possibility, one she would not have thought of on her own.

    Satan takes the command of God and rephrases it as a question. “Did God really say?” What was a clear statement suddenly becomes hazy. Posing as a theologian he asks, “Are you sure about this, or is this only Adam’s testimony as to what God said? Are you sure? How do you know? Is this really a command? Can we discuss this a little bit? Is it possible that you misinterpreted what God said? Is it possible that there is some context here we’ve ignored?” Waltke says, “Within the framework of faith, these questions are proper and necessary, but when they are designed to lead us away from the simplicity of childlike obedience, they are wrong.” And so we see Satan raising questions of interpretation and authority necessarily designed to create doubt and confusion and to lead away from the simplicity of a childlike obedience.

    Satan carefully and deliberately distorts, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden” into “You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?” He overlooks the great freedom God gave Adam and Eve and instead overstates the one prohibition. He gets Eve to focus on the prohibition rather than the gift and the freedom. Instead of focusing on the Tree of Life, from which she was free to eat, and on the millions of other trees available to her, Satan got her to focus her heart on that one tree from which she was not allowed to eat. And Eve began to focus not on what she had been given, but on what had been forbidden. And suddenly nothing but what was forbidden could satisfy her.

    He convinces Eve that God is limiting her, that He is not giving her the full measure of humanity. He is holding back, reserving for Himself things that she deserves to know and to experience.

    In the final step, Satan flatly denies what is true. “You will not surely die.” The fruit of all of the doubt and the resentment is unbelief. If God’s words happen to hinder us from becoming what we want to be or from doing what we want to do, Satan convinces us that we can safely ignore them.

    In the face of such temptation, the woman yields to Satan’s denials and half-truths. “Having stripped Eve of her spiritual defenses, Satan’s work is done.”

    And Eve is only the first to be drawn in and to succumb to the temptation. Every one of us has fallen for the same old trap.”

    Excerpted from (but please read it all): The Shape of Temptation

    “And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (1 Timothy 2:14)

  127. John July 8, 2008 at 1:52 pm #

    Weight TUAD’s ridiculous posts hold = 0.0 lbs

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes