Saying nothing more than Eve received her instructions second-hand, without noting FROM WHOM she recieved her instruction is a very serious omission to the topic at hand. God instructed Adam, and it was Adam’s responsibility to instruct his wife in God’s will. From the beginning, God created a hierarchy for instruction. It was this hierarchy that led to the society in which Moses lived. From Adam through his decendants, it was held that the male was responsible for instruction. If we are to believe that the patriarcal society, and not God’s order, influenced Moses in recording Genesis, then we must hold that society bares more enfluence on the author than the Holy Spirit. At least the Elder’s at IBC did throw in that “Their differences – expressed in different perspectives, ROLES and RESPONSIBILITIES -would bring about God’s ideal plan (emphasis added).

It is also very interesting to note that IBC cites the exceptions, and not the rule, to God’s ideal leadership of His People. God’s People needed leadership, and clearly the vast majority of time, this leadership came from men, continuing the ideal establish at creation. It was only when men failed to take leadership did God bring forth a woman to lead. Once again, this was the exception. Once men stepped forward and assumed their responsibilities, women ceased in this role.

The remainder of the treatis is really a lot of smoke and mirrors, with little relevance to whether or not a woman should serve as a Pastor over adult men in God’s ideal plan.

However, there is one glaring issue that must be addressed. Repeatedly, Andy and the elder’s paper throws up this issue of literal translation. Specifically, I Corinthians 11:3-12. They insist that since versus 4-10 cannot be taken literally, then I Corinthians 14:32-36 (and I Timothy 2:12) cannot be taken literally. And yet, they answer this issue themselve (editorial error?) whenthey state, “Paul made it clear that when a woman prophesied ‘with her hair cover’ – RECOGNIZING THE ORDER OF CREATION AND THE MALE LEADERSHIP GOD SET OVER THE CHURCH…” Put simply, verses 4-7 are restatements of verse 3, with ‘head covered’ being a symbol of putting someone in their unintended postition between the person and God. In other words, God to Christ to man to woman.

Of course, we can also argue that for every example of leadership by a woman in the NT Church, the authors also cite several examples of woman causing disturbances…

(Sarcasm off.)”

I agree with Don. I think it would be horrible chaos to have allowed those with polygamous marriages to serve in such a function in the Body of Christ. I do not see how that would apply to a single man, a woman or even a slave.

Thankfully, complementarians have faithfully followed the pattern of sound words that Apostle Paul exhorts biblically obedient Christians to uphold.

Thank you. Pax.

Wife = child = therefore children are included?

Seriously, it would be honest dialouge for you to answer my questions.

People are not born with polygamous skin but people are born male or female, so you are comparing apples to brocoli. Christ had only 1 bride. Point is how does ‘be faithful to your spouses sound’? (Well you know how it could go, just go get another…) That’s pretty odd. It’s implied that polygamous men are not qualified IMO in the idiomatic phrase. I think the phrase being understood as idiomatic makes more sense while at the same time it makes a restriction on men in polygamous marriages.

Uh, can you explain to me how the children can be the body of the husband (like the wife IS). In other words in the Eph 5 passage how do you fit children into the head/body metaphor. And also, Jesus Christ has no children, he has a bride, we are God’s children and so Christ is not head of any so how can the husband be the head as Christ is head of the church when it is claimed that the husbnad is the head of the home? Please exlain this one to me. And finaly I’d like to know how a special relationship between the husband and wife is taken away by adding children into the picture.

However, using race, wealth, gender, etc. as a filter do not make much sense, IMO. This is yet another reason to make the egal choice of interpretation when one can, because the egal intepretation makes more sense, is more just, and gives more freedom.