Christianity,  Theology/Bible

Bruce Ware’s Complementarian Reading of Genesis

On Sunday, Dr. Bruce Ware delivered one of the finest, most succinct presentations of the Complementarian point of view that I have ever heard. His address was the second of a Complementarian series of sermons being hosted by Denton Bible Church (the first address is here). The message is deeply biblical and powerfully delivered. The audio is available from DBC’s website, or you can listen to it below.

The substance of Ware’s address consists of ten reasons “why we should affirm that God designed there to be male headship” in the original created order. In essence, Dr. Ware explains how Genesis 1-3 teaches male headship as a part of God’s pre-fall creation.

There is much that I could say in commending this sermon, but I want to focus here on one thing that I really appreciated—Dr. Ware’s method. Dr. Ware explains the meaning of the Genesis creation accounts not only by appealing to the historical sense of the text, but also by reading it in light of the apostle Paul’s comments on Genesis. Thus, Dr. Ware moves back and forth between Genesis and Paul’s writings to explain the creation accounts.

The theological and hermeneutical presupposition undergirding Dr. Ware’s approach is worthy of note. Dr. Ware assumes that the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old Testament is normative. In other words, Dr. Ware treats Paul’s interpretation of Genesis as an authoritative and binding interpretation. This is not a presupposition that characterizes the mainstream of biblical scholarship. Most critical scholars treat the New Testament and the Old Testament (and the individual books within them) as if they represented different and sometimes contradictory theological perspectives.

Unfortunately, this critical way of reading the Bible has infected much of what passes for evangelical scholarship. Some evangelical Old Testament scholars have bought into the interpretive assumptions of their guild so much that they no longer feel any need to understand how the Old Testament’s message fits into a canonical unity with the New Testament. For them, the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old Testament is a problem for the NT scholars, not the OT scholars.

Dr. Ware’s presentation offers a reading of the Old Testament that takes the New Testament’s use of the Old very seriously. For this reason, not only is Dr. Ware’s interpretation of Genesis countercultural, but so is his hermeneutic.

UPDATE: It has come to my attention that two liberal websites, Ethics Daily and Religion Dispatches, have published scurrilous, patently false accounts of Dr. Ware’s message. For example, the article at Religion Dispatches falsely reports:

Ware said that women victims of domestic violence were often to blame for their own abuse because they were failing to submit to their husbands’ authority. Men’s sin came in response to their wives’ lack of submission, becoming either abusive or passive: equal failures in the eyes of Ware and many complementarians, who see men who fail to “lead their families” with proper authority as morally deficient as those who rule with too heavy a hand.

This is not true. As indicated above, I listened carefully to Ware’s sermon, and this report is just not true. Dr. Ware said no such thing. In fact, he said the opposite. He said that abusive husbands are responsible for their own sin. But you don’t have to take my word for it. You can listen to the message yourself at the link above.

I should also add that in a private correspondence about these false reports, Dr. Ware wrote to me the following: “These words are his/her [the reporter’s] distorted interpretation of what I said.  I did not say these words and I reject altogether what this statement puts forth.”

Bottom line: These reports are an example of what the Bible calls “bearing false witness” (Exodus 20:16). Both Ethics Daily and Religion Dispatches would do well to retract and apologize for these false stories.

1,790 Comments

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    Most excellent summation Denny!

    Supporting Professor Ware’s presentation, there’s this insightful observation:

    “Recently there has been some emphasis on the part of feminist authors that the Hebrew word used here (ezer) does not necessarily imply subordination of any sort. The word is often used of God as a help for human beings and in such a situation does not by any means imply that God is subordinate to human beings. The word is, in short, similar to the English word “help” which also does not necessarily imply any subordination. The psalms speak of God as our “help” in English as well as in Hebrew. But the observation about the word ezer is only a first step in looking at the phrase in which it occurs. Indeed, to focus on the word by itself, without considering its context in the phrase and in the passage, is not very helpful. The actual phrase says that God created woman to be a help for man; that is, the purpose of her creation was to be a help to the man. Taken in its context, there is clearly some sort of subordination indicated by the phrase as a whole.”

    Read it all: From the Beginning

  • Sue

    Dr. Ware assumes that the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old Testament is normative.

    I know I shouldn’t do this but what would Dr. Ware say about these verses?

    Against you, you only, have I sinned
    and done what is evil in your sight,

    so that you may be justified in your words
    and blameless in your judgment. Ps. 51:4

    By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

    “That you may be justified in your words,
    and prevail when you are judged.” Rom. 3:4

    Or

    You ascended on high,
    leading a host of captives in your train
    and receiving gifts among men,
    even among the rebellious, Ps. 68:18

    “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
    and he gave gifts to men.” Eph. 4:8

  • David (not Adrian's son) Rogers

    Woo-hoo!

    Let’s see how many comments rack up here. I’ll be gone till Saturday, so it will be fun to get back and see what the response is.

    Blessings on all.

    David

  • Brian (Another)

    My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Ware. We were having a discussion after with some folks and two comments were made that espouse ideas I think often get missed in all of this.

    1) One of my wife’s favorite quotes: It takes just as much strength to lead as it does to follow (from Take the Lead, I think)
    2) As biblical men, our calling is to love our wives as Christ loved the church. That is a daunting task to say the least.

  • Benjamin A

    I must concure with Denny having just listened to this message:

    “Dr. Bruce Ware delivered one of the finest, most succinct presentations of the Complementarian point of view that I have ever heard.”

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    Sue, I don’t wish to interact with you until you retract and apologize for your unfounded assertion that Dr. Grudem subordinates God to humans in his textbook Systematic Theology.

    You wrote: “Grudem’s Systematic Theology seems pagan to me because he subordinates God to humans.”

  • Sue

    But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern-day use of the word help in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped.”

    “Grudem’s Systematic Theology seems pagan to me because he puts God in a subordinate and inferior position to humans whenever God helps humans.”

    Is this a better?

  • Sue

    But my point is this. When a person submits, they do not put themselves in a subordinate position. A king can submit, Christians can submit to each other, and Christ submits to death.

    But Stinson wrote this in one of your previous links,

    Eph. 5 used for “submit” (hypotasso) means one-way submission to authority and not two-way.

    I believe that Stinson’s statement is counter-factual because of these examples,

    1 Clement 38.1:

    “So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject (ὑποτασσέσθω) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,”

    2 Macc 13.23,

    ”[King Antiochus Eupator] got word that Philip, who had been left in charge of the government, had revolted in Antioch; he was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded (ὑπετάγη) and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place.”

    I don’t know how this relates to egalitarian literature because I haven’t read much. However, I like to see statements supported by the facts. I would like to see Dr. Stinson made aware that his statement that submission is to an authority is not supported by Greek literature as a whole.

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    People have to apologize for their understanding of a text?

    (1) She doesn’t have to apologize if she doesn’t want to.

    (2) If her (mis)understanding leads her to make such a blatant and egregious misrepresentation of Dr. Grudem’s text and his character, then yes, I certainly do request a retraction and an apology.

  • Sue

    What do you think of my rewrite? I am trying to be more accurate. This is no reflection on Dr. Grudme’s character, any more than Dr. Grudem’s statements on how egalitarian men and women are not attractive to each other is a reflection on my appearance, because we have never met.

  • Sue

    Ev Fem and Biblical Truth page 54

    Under egalitarianism,

    men become unmasculine, unattractive to women
    women become unfeminine, unattractive to men

    Now think of all the Biblical scholars that you know who are complementarian and egalitarian. Does anybody really think that this is true?

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    Sue: “Ev Fem and Biblical Truth page 54

    Under egalitarianism,

    men become unmasculine, unattractive to women
    women become unfeminine, unattractive to men

    Now think of all the Biblical scholars that you know who are complementarian [or] egalitarian. Does anybody really think that this is true?”

    You’re baiting me. Still no retraction, still no apology.

    But to answer your question, (just like I answered your previous question on the previous thread about whether Christ submits to the Church by showing you Egalitarian Professor Alan Padgett’s ETS presentation where he argued that Christ submits to the Church):

    “The most influential work that helped launch evangelical feminism is accredited to Nancy Hardesty and Letha Scanzoni’s book All We’re Meant to Be: A biblical Appproach to Women’s Liberation (1974). …

    Furthermore, both Hardesty and Scanzoni later announce their lesbianism and began applying new hermeneutics to demonstrate that the Bible condones “constructive love” homosexual relationships. …

    Mollenkott, a representative of the more liberal evangelical feminists, believed that certain of Paul’s writings were wrong due to his human limitations. …

    At a conference on feminism and evangelicalism, Mollenkott admitted that at one time she had doubted if she was a genuine evangelical; however, Jewett and Scanzoni had loved her back into “thinking of myself as something of an evangelical.” …

    Biblical authority was called into question, causing a fracture that led to a split at the EWC Conference in Fresno in 1986. Mollenkott and Hardesty promoted the support of homosexuality and advanced the agenda. During this time they also confessed their own lesbian orientation.

    Read it *ALL* at UNCOVERING THE FOUNDATIONS OF EVANGELICAL FEMINISM/ EGALITARIANISM

    Sue, egalitarian scholars/authors Hardesty, Scanzoni, and Mollenkott are all lesbians.

    You asked: “Now think of all the Biblical scholars that you know who are complementarian [or] egalitarian. Does anybody really think that this is true [whether men become unattractive to women under egalitarianism]?”

    Sue, lesbians do not find men sexually attractive. In conclusion, Professor Grudem is well within bounds for what he wrote.

    Now stop baiting me. Bait someone else.

    From Comment #1, this sentence seems to apply frequently to your comments:

    Indeed, to focus on the word by itself, without considering its context in the phrase and in the passage, is not very helpful.

  • Sue

    Well, You have me there because I didn’t know any of that and I have not read anything these people they have written. All I can say is that in this case, I demonstrated my ignorance of these particular people. I don’t feel too bad about that. I’ll continue my ignorance in this case.

    I will not now look up similarly discrepant lives elsewhere. It seems innapropriate to refer to these things that Dr. Grudem has draw attention, so I should just let his remarks return to the obscurity they deserve. I am sorry I brought them up, because I am not prepared to counter.

    Do you find this statement fair to Dr. Grudem?

    “Grudem’s Systematic Theology seems pagan to me because he puts God in a subordinate and inferior position to humans whenever God helps humans.”

    Does this pass as a fair response to the text?

  • Sue

    “Alan Padgett’s proposal is not even Christian,” Moore said. “The idea that Christians will, in the eschaton, no longer submit to Christ is more than simply an unbiblical error. It is virtually pagan.”

    “Dr. Grudem’s proposal is not even Christian,” Sue said. “The idea that God is in a subordinate and inferior position to humans whenever God helps humans is more than simply an unbiblical error. It is virtually pagan.”

    I am trying to be fair and respond to your concerns, Tuad.

  • Terry

    Denny, I have been reading your blog for a while and I have found that whenever the comp/egal issue comes up and Sue is in the thick of it, no one can give a answer to her that is as good as what she gives to everyone else. She knows her stuff and nobody is as well versed in this issue than she is (at least as far as I can understand).

    Sue: I appreciate your answers and comments even though I can’t agree with them (I don’t even know why I can’t because I can’t back anything I know up the way you can). OK, so… Sue: “The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.”

  • Denny Burk

    Dear Terry,

    Yes, Sue is a frequent contributor to gender discussions on this blog. I have interacted with her in the past, and I think we have pretty much reached an impasse.

    Sue frequently brings up the meaning of authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12. About two years ago, we discussed this in the comments section of a 2006 post. I’ll repeat here what I wrote then.

    The meaning of the Greek word authentein is disputed by egalitarians. The usual sense of the word is given in Bauer’s lexicon, “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to.” This definition has none of the negative connotations that egalitarians have tried to assign to authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 (i.e. “to domineer,” “to usurp authority,” or “to kill”). The problem with refuting egalitarian claims, however, is that authentein is not used by Paul in any of his other writings. Moreover, authentein is not found anywhere else in the New Testament or the LXX. Establishing a range of meaning for authentein in biblical literature is very difficult (if not impossible) since it only occurs in 1 Timothy 2:12.

    Authentein is used in Greek literature outside of the New Testament, so that’s where we have to go to find out what it means. The most comprehensive study of authentein in Greek literature was done in 1995 by a scholar name H. Scott Baldwin (“A Difficult Word: Authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12” in Andreas Köstenberger, Women in the Church, 65-80, 269-305). Baldwin found 82 occurences of authenteō in ancient Greek literature and found that there are no negative connotations attached to this word in its appearances in literature around the time of the New Testament. In literature contemporary to the New Testament, authenteō mean “to exercise authority,” not “to dominate,” “to usurp authority,” or “to kill.” Since his study, no other examples have been found in Greek literature to counter his conclusions (see Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, pp. 307-318).

    It’s not that no one has ever refuted arguments that Sue makes. This is well-traveled territory in the literature, even though many who are reading these comments may not be aware of everything that has been written on this topic.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  • Sue

    Thanks Terry,

    I did attempt to go through the proper channels and approach the CBMW by email to remove their campaign against the TNIV. I seek a better treatment for the translators of the TNIV than they get on the CBMW website. Denny seems like an appropriate person to petition in this case.

  • Sue

    Denny,

    We have discussed this before. Let’s run down the few examples of authenteo in before the 4th century.

    ( 1 cent. BCE) BGU 1208 (27 BCE): “I exercised authority (Καμου αυθεντηκοτος) over him, and he consented to provide for Catalytis the Boatman on terms of full fare, within the hour.”

    This can also be translated as “prevailed on” or “compelled”. Grudem agrees that the context was hostile and Baldwin puts this in the category of “compel/influence. Ev. Fem. and Bib. Truth. page 680.

    (2nd century) Ptolemy Tetrabiblos “If Saturn alone is ruler of the body and dominates mercury and the moon.”

    (3 cent. AD) Hippolytus (d. AD 235) On the End of the World. De consummatione mundi, in Hippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schrften, ed. H. Achelis in De griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, 1.2 (Leipzig: Himrichs, 1897), 239-309.

    Translation: by Baldwin

    Therefore, everyone will walk according to his won desire, and the children will lay hands upon their parents, a wife will hand over her own husband to death and a man his own wife to judgment as deserving to render account. Inhuman masters will have legal authority over their servants and servants shall put on an unruly disposition toward their masters.

    Cited from Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. pages 680-682.

    In an online edition of the church fathers this passage is translated as,

    Wherefore all shall walk after their own will. And the children will lay hands on their parents. The wife will give up her own husband to death, and the husband will bring his own wife to judgment like a criminal. Masters will lord it over their servants savagely, and servants will assume an unruly demeanour toward their masters.

    So clearly authenteo meant to “lord it over someone as a mastger over a slave.” Why did Baldwin change the translation as he did?

    I would be interested in seeing any uses of authentein that mean “to have authority” for one person over another in a positive way.

    Jerome’s Vulgate translated authentein with “dominari” the same as mashal in Gen.3:16.

    Chrysostom said that a husband must never authenteo his wife. Did Chrysostom mean to say that a husband has no proper authority over his wife?

    I would like to see one example which supports the understanding that authenteo means “exercise proper authority over.”

  • Sue

    Denny,

    I have read Baldwin’s study and it does not support the conclusions. When I asked you before to check the examples you said that you did not have time.

    However, some people give women career advice on the basis of this one verse. I feel that it is irresponsible not to back up the conclusions that Dr. Grudem makes with examples.

  • Denny Burk

    Sue,

    You know that both Jerome and Chrysostom came centuries after Paul wrote 1 Timothy. Their use of the term should not be read into a Pauline text that predates it.

    Also, their understanding of Paul’s use of the term may or may not be correct. Jerome and Chrysostom are not inerrant interpreters of texts.

    Once again, I don’t expect for us to solve anything here. I’m just saying that I am still not compelled by you appeal to these late sources. It is methodologically problematic.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  • Sue

    Denny,

    There are exactly three examples of authenteo used prior to the 4th century. I cited them. Let me cite them again. This is the sum total of the evidence. Following that we have to resort to what Chrysostom and Jerome suggest.

    Here are the only pieces of evidence.

    1. First piece of evidence.

    (1 cent. BCE) BGU 1208 (27 BCE): “I exercised authority (Καμου αυθεντηκοτος) over him, and he consented to provide for Catalytis the Boatman on terms of full fare, within the hour.”

    Others translate this as

    “I compelled (Καμου αυθεντηκοτος) him, and he consented to provide for Catalytis the Boatman on terms of full fare, within the hour.”

    Baldwin and Grudem explicitly agree with the meaning “compel” in this example.

    2. Second piece of evidence.

    (2nd century) Ptolemy Tetrabiblos “If Saturn alone is ruler of the body and dominates mercury and the moon.”

    3. Third piece of evidence.

    (3 cent. AD) Hippolytus (d. AD 235) On the End of the World. 7

    Translation: by Baldwin

    “Therefore, everyone will walk according to his won desire, and the children will lay hands upon their parents, a wife will hand over her own husband to death and a man his own wife to judgment as deserving to render account. Inhuman masters will have legal authority over their servants and servants shall put on an unruly disposition toward their masters.”

    Cited from Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. pages 680-682.

    However, in an online edition of the church fathers this passage is translated as,

    “Wherefore all shall walk after their own will. And the children will lay hands on their parents. The wife will give up her own husband to death, and the husband will bring his own wife to judgment like a criminal. Masters will lord it over their servants savagely, and servants will assume an unruly demeanour toward their masters.”

    This is the evidence that authentein has a negative connotation and is not used to mean that authority that a leader has in the church.

    I note that in the comments which you linked to my co-blogger, Peter Kirk had presented these same examples to you, and you did not respond at that time.

  • Sue

    Denny,

    I made a practice of sharing this information on many blogs two years ago.

    First, you go to Zhubert or any source of unicode Greek font and choose an appropriate text.

    Copy and paste the text into your text.

    ὁ γὰρ πᾶς νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήρωται ἐν τῷ ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν

    When I post, I work in blogger so I choose the edit mode, in which case only the text is pasted in and not the font tags, and all the rest of the code.

    So, only the text itself is pasted in. In Firefox and IE 7 the font substitution system kicks in. This means that although you did not define the font, the viewer should see all characters of polytonic Greek.

    Alternatively, you can define the font as Palatino Linotype which all computers have. This cannot be done in a comment but only in a post.

    But you cannot retain the code and stuff from Zhubert, you have to chuck all that and define the font yourself. Some people prefer Tahoma or Gentium first.

    If you go do this keyboard you can even type a few Greek words at an internet cafe, which is a good thing if you are addicted to Greek.

    I don’t know if this addresses your issues.

  • Sue

    Denny,

    I think that in all honesty the issue of authentein must be resolved by a ground level discussion or the translation “to exercise authority” must be abandoned.

    You quoted to me,

    “Baldwin found 82 occurences of authenteō in ancient Greek literature and found that there are no negative connotations attached to this word in its appearances in literature around the time of the New Testament.

    In literature contemporary to the New Testament, authenteō mean “to exercise authority,” not “to dominate,” “to usurp authority,” or “to kill.””

    But I have not seen any occurrences of authenteo which support this claim. I do think that they need to be produced, or the translation “to exercize authority” must be rethought.

  • David (not Adrian's son) Rogers

    Denny,

    I certainly appreciate you having this blog in which we can post and rant.

    Sadly, I am a little disappointed with your not interacting with the evidence Sue is bringing up re: Baldwin. You can cite him as having the most comprehensive study, but she is questioning that very study. I’ve gone through his study and find that her questions are legitimate, especially since they deal with the issue at the first level research level such as what Baldwin has done.

    Believe me, I understand time and focus limitations, but I am not being persuaded to think differently about Sue’s contributions until her specific questions are dealt with. You may not have the time, but some complementarian needs to.

    Yes, some of the evidence about “authenteo” is from later centuries but the discernment of the meaning of a word comes from synchronic and diachronic usage. Tracking meaning and coming to conclusion needs to take into accout both the syn- and the dia-.

    Some words do change meaning through time, others do not, some mutate slightly, some greatly.

    The evidence from BGU 1208 (27 BCE) may suggest “compel” as a meaning and that could be understood as having a slight negative connotation.

    Thus:

    “I am not permitting a woman/wife to teach or to compel a man/husband.”

    David

    P. S. I found a computer at youth camp.

  • Daniel

    Denny,

    Did Ware teach that ezer in Gen. 2:18 implies subordination?

    Also, I’ve heard that upotassomenoi actually needs a stronger translation than just “submit.” Rather it should be translated “be in subjection to.”

  • quixote

    Sue,

    IMO, TUAD isn’t worth your replies. His tone is condescending, arrogant, and rude. You may not want to bother.

    More importantly, I’ve read many explanations on here of what First Timothy does NOT mean, arguing against the comp. view of the passage. Can you please explain to me what it DOES mean according to your reading of it? What IS Paul telling Timothy about women in the church?

    Thanks.

  • Benjamin A

    Sue,

    Can you provide one example of aner rightly being translated (person/man-generic) from the New Testament text?

    You cited many from much later sources, showing that aner can be used generically, so I’m curious what you have found in researching the New Testament text.

  • Benjamin A

    Sue,

    Back to authenteo.

    Grudem: “Our problem is this: we have never seen any clear example in ancient Greek literature where authenteō must mean “domineer’ or “misuse authority.’”

    You use this as your PROOF that Grudem is wrong:

    BGU 1208 (first century B.C.): I had my way with him [authenteō ] and he agreed to provide Catalytis the boatman with the full payment within the hour.
    This is the ONLY example of authenteo preceding the epistle. Baldwin classified the meaning under “compel.”

    Compel: Webster’s 9th; “1. to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly; 2. To cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure; 3. Archaic: to drive together”.

    Sounds like preaching to me; how Peter spoke (preached) to the crowd on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41); He was so compelling it says v.41 “there were added that day about three thousand souls.” He didn’t force them to get saved (negative use of authority); He compelled them to believe in Christ as Savior and Lord (positive use of authority).

    I submit that compel could carry both a positive and/or negative meaning with its use depending on context.

    The example from BGU 1208 appears to me NOT to be negative. Whoever the “he” of this line was, “he” needed to be compelled to do something (provide Catalytis the boatman with the full payment) for the benefit of others.

    I would ask of you to be more specific as to why you feel this example of authenteo MUST be negative. Is there more to the story that makes that negative, ‘domineering spirit’ more apparent? If so please provide more of the story if possible.

  • Sue

    Benjamin,

    Grudem cites “compel” as the meaning and “hostile” as part of the context for that occurrence. Then he concludes that authenteo can have a positive connotation. But I can’t find it in his data. We have to deal with the data at hand.

    Is “compel” the normal authority one has in church, or does the Spirit compel people? There is a power and sovereign control which rightly belongs only to God. As you show:

    Compel: Webster’s 9th; “1. to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly; 2. To cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure; 3. Archaic: to drive together”.

  • Benjamin A

    Sue,

    Will you agree that ‘men’ are to be the ‘overseers’ (episkopos) of the church of God based off 1 Tim. 3:1-7?

  • Benjamin A

    Sue,

    I’m no longer concerned with Grudem’s assignment of the word ‘compel’ for authenteo. Looking at the source you provided as proof of Grudem being wrong,

    “BGU 1208 (first century B.C.): I had my way with him [authenteō ] and he agreed to provide Catalytis the boatman with the full payment within the hour.”

    I’m asking if YOU could be more specific as to why YOU feel this MUST be negative. I’m just not seeing it in this sentence.

  • Sue

    Benjamin,

    Grudem writes in Ev. Fem and Biblical Truth page 680,

    “The translation of this text is disuputed. G. W. Knight, 145, gives Werner’s translation here. E, Preisigke, Worterbuch der griechischen Papyruskunden, vol. 1 (Berlin Erben, 1925), 235, lists this under “herr sein, fest auftreften” (to be the master, to act confidently). Liddell, Scott, Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon, with Supplement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) list this under “to have full power or authority over.” P.B. Payne, “oude in 1 Timothy 2:12” (unpublished paper presented at the ETS annual meeting November 21, 1986) implies that the translation of Paul D. Peterson is superior: “when I had prevailed upon him to provide.” Of Payne’s arguments the last it the most important – the use of pros. Payne writes that this use is “denoting a hostile or friendly relationship-a. hostile against , with/after verbs of disputing, etc. (BAG, 717; cf. LSJ, 1497). This passage is about a hostile relationship; his action is called ‘insolence’ in the text. None of the other uses of pros in the over three columns devoted to it in BAG seem to fit the text.”

    It is difficult to evaluate the strength of Payne’s argument. For all extant uses of verbal authenteo that are transitive in the Greek – nearly all are followed by a genitive noun, only twice by an accusative noun, once by the preposition peri, once by the preposition eis, and here alone by the preposition pros. However, the meaning of ‘compel’ does seem appropriate.”

    It is my assumption that Dr. Grudem does not base his conclusion that authenteo means “to have authority” on this occurrence of authenteo. My assumption is that he has based his conclusion on the occurrence from Philodemus. The problem is that Philodemus is not credible evidence. I don’t know if anyone wants to assert that it is. I doubt it.

    So, my question is, exactly what evidence is Dr. Grudem basing his study on. There is only this one, Ptolemy Tetrabiblos and Hippolytus. In the latter case, the connotation is negative. It is possible that there was a neutral use for this term for an astronomical body.

    However, given that Christ said to “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” the concept of a leader being the “lord over” or “having sovereign rule over” others is extremely problematic.

    I believe that the onus is on complementarians who use this text to say that women must be restricted in their leadership roles in church to ground it in better evidence.

    Some people think this passage says that women should not teach in a domineering way, and others see it as a response to a situation. The women, who are dominating in this case, need to stop.

  • Sue

    Benjamin,

    These interactions are quite time consuming. I also regret getting sidetracked earlier by another commenter.

    I would rather just wait for a discussion on whether the evidence supports or does not support Denny’s quote in #20. The book we are both quoting, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth is available online.

  • quixote

    Sue (OR ANYONE),

    Can someone please answer my question? I’ve asked it so many times in various ways, and I’m still at a loss:

    I’ve read many explanations on these threads of what First Timothy does NOT mean, arguing against the comp. view of the passage. Can you please explain to me what it DOES mean according to your reading of it? What IS Paul telling Timothy about women in the church?

    Thanks.

  • Sue

    Quixote,

    I’m so sorry. I wrote,

    Some people think this passage says that women should not teach in a domineering way, and others see it as a response to a situation. The women, who are dominating in this case, need to stop.

    I think 1 Timothy was definitely written in response to a particular situation. I reread the Baldwin study and the uses of authenteo last night and I do not see any way that authenteo can refer to something that is wrong for a woman to do, and right for a man to do.

    That is one interpretation that seems to me to be impossible. Therefore, we just have to pick up the pieces and start from there.

    I am now an egalitarian, after many years in complementarian churches of different denominations. While not all my beliefs are identical to other egalitarians, I do believe that women can serve in every way as men do in the church. Reading missionary biographies and knowing many single women who are leaders in education and business has helped. Women were given the capacity to lead and should offer their gifts to God to be used fully. For years, someone told me to improve my piano playing so I could play in church. What a joke! I am so bad. I taught the 5 year old Sunday School class instead and enjoyed it very much.

    Ultimately, I don’t know if my experience is a big help to someone else who is still complementarian. I guess I would recommend reading egalitarian literature with an open mind. I know that at first I just thought that they were full of excuses to explain away the Bible. Oddly it wasn’t until I started reading complementarians books that I suddently saw things that I knew were somehow misrepresented that I started digging deeper. It is a personal journey for everyone. Of course, I had already studied the biblical lgs before but had not looked at exegesis in a critical way when I was younger.

    Probably most influential for me was the life of Catherine Booth.

    You can see some of her papers at the bottom of this post and read through them. I think knowing that this woman, wife, mother, and preacher, had an enormous influence on the morals and laws in her era, is a real example of the full ministry of women.

    So, quite simply, I believe that in Christian ministry, whatever is good for a man to do, is also good for a woman to do. Hope this helps.

  • Sue

    Denny,

    I have just listened to a short segment of Dr. Ware’s sermon. I was stopped cold by the fact that he explicitly states that wife abuse is a response to a wife challenging her husband’s authority.

    Is this kind of teaching widespread in complementarianism, that a wife challenging the husband is the primary cause of wife abuse? I think that this is diametrically opposed to what most people, complementarians included, teach about spousal abuse. It is completely and totally the responsibility of the abuser. In fact, being submissive to abuse is one way to ensure that it will continue.

    I believe that it is simply irresponsible to post this sermon.

  • Sue

    This was the statement.

    “the very wise and good plan of god of male headship is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, and seek to have their husbands fulfill their will, and their husbands now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged.

    May God forgive me if I distorted it.

  • Sue

    The very wise and good plan of God, of male headship, is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them; and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged .or more commonly to become passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.

    I believe I made a couple of important omissions last time in haste. This is the corrected text.

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    Sue, #45: “I was stopped cold by the fact that he[Ware] explicitly states that wife abuse is a response to a wife challenging her husband’s authority. … I believe that it is simply irresponsible to post this sermon.”

    Denny, #46: “I’m not sure where you’re getting that from, but Dr. Ware never said any such thing. Please refrain from distorting his message.

    Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Sue distorts a complementarian scholar’s message to advance her egalitarian agenda. In comment #7 I asked her to apologize for asserting a blatant lie about Dr. Grudem. Thus far, she has refused to do so. Which is her right. Conversely, I have the right to show what she is doing.

    Below is an excerpt from the passage in question. I have boldfaced the snippet that Sue uses to advance her specious claim that Dr. Grudem subordinates God to humans. Read the sentences before and after that boldfaced snippet to get the entire context. You will then see how petulantly wrong and deceptive Sue is.

    Grudem, Systematic Theology, p.461-462:

    “Recently some writers have denied that the creation of Eve as a helper fit for Adam signals any difference in role or authority, because the word helper (Heb., ‘ezer) is often used in the Old Testament of someone who is greater or more powerful than the one who is being helped. In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern-day use of the word help in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped. That is true even when I “help” a young boy in my neighborhood to fix his bicycle – it is his responsibility, and his task, and I am only giving some assistance as needed; it is not my responsibility. David Clines concludes that this is the case throughout the Hebrew Old Testament:

    What I conclude, from viewing all the occurences in the Hebrew Bible, is that though superiors may help inferiors, strong may help weak, gods may help humans, in the act of helping they are being “inferior.” That is to say, they are subjecting themselves to a secondary, subordinate position. Their help may be necessary or crucial, but they are assisting some task that is someone else’s responsibility. They are not actually doing the task themselves, or even in cooperation, for there is a different language for that. Being a helper is not a Hebrew way of being an equal.”

    Therefore, it is an egregiously blatant and willful distortion by Sue to take what Dr. Grudem has written, wrench an excerpt violently out of context, and then blithely assert “Grudem’s Systematic Theology seems pagan to me because he subordinates God to humans.”

    Consequently, I redouble my call for Sue to retract and apologize for her willful distortion of Dr. Grudem’s text, a blatant distortion which she then used to wrongfully assert that Dr. Grudem subordinates God to humans.

    Shame on you Sue.

  • Sue

    Tuad,

    In the previous thread, comment #157 I carefully typed out the entire first paragraph which you have cited above, starting where you did and continuing to the bicycle illustration. I meticulously provided the context first. I guess that shows how hard it is to follow a thread. I understand.

  • Corrie

    Shame on Sue?????? You requote what she just quoted but add more and that proves what? Imho, it proves you are wrong and you are the one who owes Sue an apology. To me, the extra quotes from Grudem just prove exactly what Sue has claimed- that Grudem asserts that God is our subordinate or inferior when he helps us.

    “But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern-day use of the word help in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped. ”

    TUAD, why not just explain what he means when he says the above quote? Stop casting aspersion (ie., “willful distortion”) and start explaining WHERE Sue has distorted. Also, the term “willful” goes to motive and I would be very careful, if I were you, because you are dangerously close to being guilty of the very thing you accuse Sue of doing.

    Grudem clearly states that, whether in Hebrew or our modern English, a person who helps another person is occupying a SUBORDINATE OR INFERIOR POSITION IN REGARD TO THE ONE BEING HELPED.

    If Grudem is some little boy’s subordinate merely because he helps him with his bike tire, then he certainly SUBMITS and SUBORDINATES himself and occupies the INFERIOR position to his wife when he helpers her! What a pickle that is!

    When he quotes Clines, it is clear that he is teaching that God is subordinate to humans when He acts as ezer (which is ALWAYS!).

    Could you just stop accusing and start explaining? What does he mean by the above quote, in your opinion?

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    Fallacy of Equivocation

    Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.

    Of course, most words are ambiguous, but context usually makes a univocal meaning clear. Also, equivocation alone is not fallacious, though it is a linguistic boobytrap which can trip people into committing a fallacy. The Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound.

    You’re committing the fallacy of equivocation. You’re taking Dr. Grudem’s sound argument on what subordinate means in his exposition of ezer in Genesis 2, and then equivocating on the word subordinate to produce the unsound argument that ““Grudem’s Systematic Theology seems pagan to me because he subordinates God to humans.”

    I understand.

  • quixote

    Sue,

    Thanks for your comment directed toward me. I’m neiter a complementarian or an egalitarian. The jury is still out. I have a question based on your comment, but I have to run. I’ll ask later. Thanks again.

    Q

  • Lynn

    Grudem, quoting Clines:
    “What I conclude, from viewing all the occurences in the Hebrew Bible, is that though superiors may help inferiors, strong may help weak, gods may help humans, in the act of helping they are being ‘inferior.’ That is to say, they are subjecting themselves to a secondary, subordinate position.”

    Then Grudem teaches mutual submission in marriage. Because a good husband will do things to help and serve his wife, and however infrequently he may do these kinds of things, in the act of helping, he is assuming an inferior, or subordinate position. And if you subject yourself to a secondary, subordinate position, then you are in a place where you are submitting.

  • D.J. Williams

    Surely you all have noticed that Ware was simply stating a painful reality, not endorsing spousal abuse? He simply said that a natural way for a sinful man to react to his authority being challenged is with violence. I think history, both domestically and politically, demonstrates this statement to be true. I don’t think for a second (having heard Dr. Ware in person while visiting his church in the past) that Ware is saying that men’s passiveness or violence is the fault of women, he’s just saying that none of these things takes place in a vacumn. He’s making an observation, not prescribing what is right.

  • Paula

    Matthew 20:

    25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    These words of Jesus tell us point blank that believers are to be different from the world, in that the leaders are the servants. Jesus, as the Cornerstone, is not on the roof but in the basement, lifting everyone up– and he told us to be like Him. And as He said, if He, being God, could come down to the lowest level (ref. also Phil. 2:5-11), then so must all of us who claim to follow Him.

    So my question would be, What would Jesus say to anyone who claims priority over another believer?

  • Ellen

    Surely you all have noticed that Ware was simply stating a painful reality, not endorsing spousal abuse?

    Yes. I did.

    Ware is saying that men’s passiveness or violence is the fault of women, he’s just saying that none of these things takes place in a vacumn. He’s making an observation, not prescribing what is right.

    Not only that, he also is NOT saying that this is the ONLY “reason” for abuse. Some people are abusive jerks – end of sentence.

    That this is ONE reason, I have no doubt. I have seen it.

  • Daniel

    As a complementarian, I have problems with that sort of statement in Grudem’s ST. Taking ezer in Genesis 2 to imply subordination seems to be inferring too much.

    There are pretty of texts that actually teach the complementarian position. We don’t have to twist the meaning of a word to fit our position.

  • Sue

    There needs to be a proper understanding of the realities of abuse. It is a pathology that cuts across all demographics. It is internal to the abuser. The notion that a wife can mitigate the abuse by her behaviour is extremely dangerous. I appeal to someone to be responsible for this.

    Of course, Ware is not endorsing wife abuse, but he places the responsibility on the woman for not being submissive, whereas an abusive person is abusive because of internal causes, and submission to this pathology reinforces the abuse.

    A abuser abuses because of events or other factors in their childhood that have shaped him or her before the relationship. Yes, for the wife, the abuse happens in a vacuum, and then the husband notes some behaviour of the wife which he then claims is the trigger.

    This could be serving dinner 10 minutes late or not having the laundry done on time.

    The trigger is in reality mental illness on the part of the abuser. This is very dangerous.

  • D.J. Williams

    Sue said…
    “The notion that a wife can mitigate the abuse by her behaviour is extremely dangerous. I appeal to someone to be responsible for this.”

    I don’t think that’s what Ware was saying at all. I think you’re reading far too much into his comments.

    “Of course, Ware is not endorsing wife abuse, but he places the responsibility on the woman for not being submissive,”

    No, he nowhere states that the wife is responsible for her abuse. He simply makes an observation about reality. You’re drawing a conclusion that he did not intend.

  • Sue

    I disagree with his view of reality. Spouses are abused because the abuser has a need to abuse. If the wife is controlling and abusive blame the wife. If the husband is controlling and abusive, blame the wife.

    This is serious business. Even the complementarian pastors that I know, recognize abuse as a serious problem. The untrained elders and Biblical scholars are not trained psychologists.

    In an abusive relationship, the abuser is abusive already. Then we observe the wife’s behaviour, either loud and defensive or mousy and quiet, submissive. How can someone observing from outside pronounce the wife as the one who first sinned and the husband responded with abuse.

    We need to listen to clinical psychologists on this.

  • D.J. Williams

    Sue said…
    “If the wife is controlling and abusive blame the wife. If the husband is controlling and abusive, blame the wife.”

    Sue, nobody’s blaming the wife for abuse. Ware never said that and he doesn’t believe that. You’re arguing against a straw man here.

  • Sue

    He describes abuse as a “response” to a threat to the husband’s authority. Is this an accurate description of abuse or not?

  • Ellen

    i>He describes abuse as a “response” to a threat to the husband’s authority. Is this an accurate description of abuse or not?

    That doesn’t mean the husband is not responsible for his own action.

    A woman responds to a whiny child by hitting him. Who is responsible? The woman.

  • Corrie

    “Sue said…
    “The notion that a wife can mitigate the abuse by her behaviour is extremely dangerous. I appeal to someone to be responsible for this.”

    I don’t think that’s what Ware was saying at all. I think you’re reading far too much into his comments.”

    Then what is he saying when he claims that a man will respond to a woman who is “rebellious” and not “serving” him enough with either violence or passivity?

    Surely he is claiming, at the very least, that SOME instances of domestic abuse are caused by a wife who is seen as challenging her husband’s authority, no? There are no caveats issued that the vast majority of domestic violence stems from either mental illness or unchecked rage and is often caused by NOTHING the victim does at all.

    “The very wise and good plan of God, of male headship, is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them; and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged ”

    Also, where does the Bible teach that it marriage is a one-way street? In 1 Cor. 7 it tells us that a married man is concerned with how he may please his wife and a woman is concerned with how she may please her husband. That is a two-way street with both spouses giving to the other.

    Men are called to serve their wives. Men are called to lay down their lives (desires, own way) for their wives. Marriage is not about a man getting his own way and doing what he wants to do and seeking to work to get his wife to fulfill his will, is it?

    Any spouse who seeks to get their own way and works to have their spouse fulfill their will is in sin.

  • Sue

    A parent can abuse a child without the child being whiny. A parent can hit a child for spilling, dropping, making a mistake, coughing too much.

    Even Augustine was hit as a child for not getting his math right. Children have been abused for speaking their mother tongue. Children are sexually abused.

    This kind of thinking that puts the one under power, the victim, as the first actor in an abusive episode, is shocking.

  • D.J. Williams

    Sure, a parent can abuse a child without the child being whiny – but sometimes abuse does occur in response to the child being whiny. The responsibility still falls on the parent.

    In the same way, spousal abuse can (and does) occur with no contributing factors, but that doesn’t change the fact that sometimes it does have contributing factors, one of which Ware has pointed out. Even these contributing factors do not shift responsiblity away from the abuser any more than the whining of a child does.

    By making blanket assertions from Ware’s statement, you are misrepresenting him and attacking a straw man.

    For clarity’s sake: would you be willing to say categorically that abuse is never a (horrible, wrong, and unjustified) response to a behavior of the victim?

  • Sue

    The abusive behaviour is caused by a complex set of circumstances which include the abuser’s childhood experience, their mental health, their social, political and economic position AND their belief that they have power over the victim, as well as substance abuse.

    This needs to be said. Ware cannot say what he said without modifying it.

    Ware should say that the challenge to a husband’s authority provides the husband who has been taught that he has authority in the first place, an excuse for his abusive behaviour. Most of the time he is just randomly abusive, but he latches on to any excuse.

  • Sue

    The way to solve this is to teach the husband that he does not have “authority” that he has responsibility. Then, if he is abusive, the wife will not think that she can prevent future abuse by submitting. That is not possible for more than a short term part of the abuse cycle.

  • Sue

    Another major factor is the isolation of the victim. If no one is observing, no other adult, then the opportunities for abuse are higher. If the wife is allowed to tell others from the beginning, then the abuse may stop.

    But if the wife is prevented by threats of further abuse, or moral suasion by the husband that discussing the abuse with others is a betrayal of the husband, or that the abuse is a response to her own sinful behaviour, she will not get help. This is very dangerous.

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    This is a metastasizing cancer spiraling virulently out of control.

    1st, we have Sue asserting that Grudem subordinates God to humans.

    2nd, we have Sue saying that Grudem’s text, Systematic Theology, seems pagan to her because of the assertion above.

    3rd, we have Sue suggesting that trained clinicians and clinical psychologists come and comment on Dr. Ware’s sermon because of how she (wrongfully) interprets his message.

    4th, we have Sue telling Denny that he is simply irresponsible for posting Dr. Ware’s sermon.

    This is unbelievable. This is tragi-comedy. It is just ludicrous, ridiculous, and pathetic.

    Sue, I not only ask you to retract and apologize for your defamatory remarks about Dr. Grudem, but to also repent and apologize for your defamatory remarks about Dr. Ware.

    Your continual misrepresentations and distortions are reprehensible.

  • D.J. Williams

    Sue,

    I don’t know what else to say. You’ve read way too much into Dr. Ware’s comments, something I can state with confidence having met him and heard him speak in person on multiple occasions.

  • Sue

    D J,

    I make absolutely no comment on a person’s character here. I do not believe that abuse is in any way caused by or a part of the complementarian doctrine.

    What I am saying is that this teaching is not responsible.

  • Lynn

    As a complementarian, I have problems with that sort of statement in Grudem’s ST.
    Daniel:
    Taking ezer in Genesis 2 to imply subordination seems to be inferring too much.

    There are pretty of texts that actually teach the complementarian position. We don’t have to twist the meaning of a word to fit our position.

    Daniel, exactly why I said if Grudem defines ezer the way he does, then he has to believe in mutual submission in marriage, which I do not think he agrees with.

    His definition and inferences from the definition require him to believe in mutual submission in marriage, however.

  • Lynn

    1st, we have Sue asserting that Grudem subordinates God to humans.

    Beg pardon, but it appears Sue got that idea from what Grudem and Clines said — that whenever someone is an ezer, that person is occupying a subordinate position to the one being helped.

    The term ezer is more often used of God than of woman, and it wasn’t Sue who made the claim that any time (categorical statement) a person helps another person (God is a Person), then that person occupies a subordinate, or inferior position. That is what Grudem said.

    I don’t buy Grudem’s and Cline’s inference for one second. When I first read it, I immediately understood that if you believe that about anyone who helps someone else, then you have to believe in mutual submission in marriage, and applying it to God is ludicrous, but by their own definition and inference from the term, that is what Grudem did.

    So what is it that Sue needs to repent of? I thought she said it straight. It sounds more to me that on this point Grudem needs to retract and admit that the term ezer in and of itself does not carry with it the absolute, categorical necessity of a person occupying an inferior position to the one being helped. His statement was categorical — it included every instance, and there was no qualification or mitigation given.

    Sue just took their definition to its logical conclusion.

  • D.J. Williams

    Sue said…
    “What I am saying is that this teaching is not responsible.”

    Because it can be misapplied by people? By that standard no teaching is responsible. Perhaps we shouldn’t speak negatively about homosexuality, since we might irresponsibly give rise to the next Fred Phelps.

  • Bonnie

    D. J. Williams,

    spousal abuse can (and does) occur with no contributing factors, but that doesn’t change the fact that sometimes it does have contributing factors, one of which Ware has pointed out. Even these contributing factors do not shift responsiblity away from the abuser any more than the whining of a child does.

    Then why make the statement as Ware has? His statement does place at least some responsibility for the husband’s action on the wife, assigning her a portion of the blame. He says that women “want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them; and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged.”

    He is presenting a double standard in saying that it is fine for the husband to pursue his own will and expect his wife to help him do this, but that it is wrongful for a wife to have a will that she is not willing to subordinate completely to that of her husband. He is calling the husband’s will “authority” and the wife’s will “sinful.”

    Yet is the husband in the situation Ware outlines not selfish as well as sinful? Is his desire to have his wife subordinate her will to his, as he expects her to do to him, not exceedingly selfish? Would a loving husband not care about his wife’s wants and wishes, seeking to fulfill her too rather than have her just be a servant to his wants? Is the latter attitude not narcissistic and exploitative?

    TUAD,

    Your treatment of Sue is reprehensible. You are not merely disagreeing with her, you are mocking and ridiculing her.

  • Lydia

    “What I am saying is that this teaching is not responsible.”

    Because it can be misapplied by people?”

    Then it should be a concern that abusers will misunderstand Ware. I do not think it was wise teaching at all.

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    Bonnie: “TUAD,

    Your treatment of Sue is reprehensible. You are not merely disagreeing with her, you are mocking and ridiculing her.”

    Timeout. Think about this Bonnie:

    Sue’s treatment of Dr. Grudem is reprehensible. She not merely disagrees with him, but she mocks and ridicules Dr. Grudem by saying that his textbook, Systematic Theology, seems pagan to her and that Dr. Grudem subordinates God to humans.

    Sue’s treatment of Dr. Ware is reprehensible. She not merely disagrees with him, but she mocks and ridicules Dr. Ware by saying that trained clinicians and clinical psychologists be called in to evaluate his statements on abuse. She then goes on to say that Denny is being irresponsible for posting Dr. Ware’s sermon, a sermon that Denny said was “one of the finest, most succinct presentations of the Complementarian point of view that I have ever heard.”

  • Kathy

    Hello, quixote

    ‘Sue (OR ANYONE),

    Can someone please answer my question? I’ve asked it so many times in various ways, and I’m still at a loss:

    I’ve read many explanations on these threads of what First Timothy does NOT mean, arguing against the comp. view of the passage. Can you please explain to me what it DOES mean according to your reading of it? What IS Paul telling Timothy about women in the church?

    Thanks.’

    Paul is prohibiting 1 woman from teaching 1 man. The passage in context shows this. V15 is key. ‘She’ will be saved if ‘they’ (a woman and a man, probably a married couple) continue in faith and love (the very things some were straying from, see 1 Tim 1:5). The context is false teaching from chp 1. If steps are taking from v10 through v15 it is clear that Paul is speaking of 1 woman, and not unsing the phrase ‘a woman’ genericaly for all women.

    That’s the skinny! 🙂

  • Kathy

    5. Man (not woman) was given God’s moral commandment in the garden; and woman learned God’s moral command from the man (Gen 2:16-17).

    God did give his command to Eve. Eve said in Gen 3, ‘God said’. She didn’t say ‘Adam said’. God’s command is given in Gen 1 to both, and in Gen 2, to the man before the woman was created. The woman’s wittness is given in Gen 3.

    He told them both in chp 1 what they could eat which encompassed (!) what they could not eat as there could be no contradiction. Important to God was what they could eat, as well as what they could not.

  • Lynn

    On the abuse issue, I think what Ware said is serious, for reasons I will explain below, but it is far less serious than an audio clip, which may be found in the link I will give, of what Paige Patterson said.

    Patterson out and outright said a woman should not leave her husband, even in a lot of cases where there is physical abuse going on. Wives are supposed to put up with some level of physical violence before they separate. He only said she should leave if the battery was “serious” and he didn’t say what the cut-off between non-serious and serious was.

    It does make one wonder how much violence one should put up with from one’s employer, or associate, before calling the police, you know?

    Then Patterson topped it off with one anecdote that proved how right he was to say these things.

    The audio clip may be found on this page:

    http://sbcoutpost.com/2008/02/25/defendant-paige-patterson-to-be-deposed-today/

    You can counsel someone to pray all you want to, and that is good, but especially if there are little children involved, you do everything you can to get both you and them out of harm’s way, if you can, and you set limits as to what you will tolerate being done to your person.

    Marriage does not exist in a vacuum, and any adult, be they male or female, who hauls off and strikes with the fist should be arrested for taking the law into their own hands, and that includes family members.

    Now, regarding what Ware said, while I agree that abusive people who have anger problems can have those problems triggered, it is also very true that they exaggerate what these triggers are to where the victim is falsely blamed — IN A LOT OF THE CASES. I personally know a wife where there has been violence in their home. He has (or has had) an anger problem, and she is one of those real cases of an adult with ADD. I know how deeply scarred she feels for feeling defective, but to be honest, she is one of the greatest cooks, decoraters, and creative people I know. She works very hard, and keeps changing the subject when we talk, but as far as her life goes, she keeps things on track.

    But I do know she has been beaten because he’s been angry with her, and has interpreted her impairment as a lack of submission to him. I have also had some counseling in abusive patterns (from working in a hospital) and was taught it is extremely common for abusers to blame their victims for their problems in order to keep the victims under their control.

    This is why there is such a fracas being made over Ware’s comments. Because there is such a high percentage of battered wives who are being told if they would just submit more, the problem would go away, and that just isn’t true. And it isn’t just the abusers who are saying this. Some things Bill Gothard teaches, for example, are just ready to be abused by an abuser. With that kind of overlay, it is not surprising that many people are reacting to Ware’s comments very stridently. Because not only does sinful man strike back and take his own vengeance when he really is wronged — he very often does it when he hasn’t been wronged at all, but just says he has, in order to blame the victim.

  • D.J. Williams

    Bonnie said…
    “Yet is the husband in the situation Ware outlines not selfish as well as sinful? Is his desire to have his wife subordinate her will to his, as he expects her to do to him, not exceedingly selfish? Would a loving husband not care about his wife’s wants and wishes, seeking to fulfill her too rather than have her just be a servant to his wants? Is the latter attitude not narcissistic and exploitative?”

    Yes. Ware would agree. Thus my contention that Sue is getting him wrong.

  • quixote

    Thanks Kathy. Thanks Sue. Thanks Lynn. Thanks to all who have stood up against this popular notion that abuse is a warranted reaction from ungodly husbands toward (their notion) of unsubmissive wives.

  • Daniel Davis

    quixote, that would include denny, dr. ware, ellen, and others too, right? as none of them hold to this “popular notion” that abuse is a “warranted reaction” from ungodly husbands toward their unsubmissive wives.

    and in case i’ve misunderstood, who ever said abuse is a “warranted reaction?”

  • quixote

    Daniel Davis,

    warrant: to serve as or give adequate ground or reason for

    Both Ware and Patterson (see above vebatim quotes) said (I believe clearly) or intimated that a wife who rebels against her husband’s will gives grounds or a reason for his abusive (or passive) reaction.

    As far as Denny is concerned, he doesn’t believe that Ware said what he said, or perhaps he just “heard” it differently. But perhaps Ware needs to reword it since it has certainly caused a stir among readers. And if he did NOT mean it to say what we’ve understood it to say, then he would certainly reword for he would not want such a groww misunderstanding to even possibly linger in the minds of husbands (or wives).

  • D.J. Williams

    Quixote said…
    “And if he did NOT mean it to say what we’ve understood it to say, then he would certainly reword for he would not want such a groww misunderstanding to even possibly linger in the minds of husbands (or wives).”

    Or perhaps we should be more careful to examine what someone means by an observation (not a prescriptive ethic) before we say that they teach that a failure to submit gives grounds for abuse. You inferred that Ware teaches “abuse is a warranted reaction from ungodly husbands toward (their notion) of unsubmissive wives.” Show me exaclty where he says that. You’ve got to read a lot into his words to get that meaning. I feel the irresponsibility here is on the part of the interpreters, not the speaker.

  • Sue

    I do not wish to imply that Ware said anything that he did not.

    There are two extremely absolutely vital issues here.

    First, abuse is terrible and pervasive. ALL statements on abuse should be vetted by those with clinical experience. Abuse should not be talked about in such a dismissive and callous way.

    This teaching that “sinful abuse by a male is a response to sinful behaviour by female” is like selling tobacco. Not every woman will stay in an abusive situation because of it, but some will and they and their children will experience criminal assault because of it.

    Second, this teaching is found in many major complementarian books. It is a foundational complementarian teaching. I have documented 4 major writers last night, who concur with Ware’s viewpoint.

    This doctrine is based on a new interpretation of Gen. 3:16 that the wife “desires to control her husband and he will rule over her.” For 15 centuries that verse was translated that the wife “will be under the power of her husband and he will rule over her.”

    Since the reformation, the Pagnini Latin Bible, this was interpreted that she “would desire her husband and he would rule over her.”

    It is only complementarians who teach that it says “she will desire to control (or exert her will) and he will rule over her.”

    The complementarian theology and interpretation is novel and irresponsible.

    Doctrinally and clinically, this teaching needs to be examined and repented of. Why are men saying that the wife is the one who sins first? Is this Adam all over again shifting the blame?

  • Ellen

    Doctrinally and clinically, this teaching needs to be examined and repented of. Why are men saying that the wife is the one who sins first? Is this Adam all over again shifting the blame?

    Because sometimes it is. Unless you are teaching that is is always the husband that sins first.

    I happen to believe that there is enough sin to go around and that most times (marriage consisting of two human beings) that the “you did it first” is pretty even.

  • Corrie

    “3. While both man and woman are fully the image of God (Gen 1:26-28), yet the woman’s humanity as “image of God” is established as she comes from the man. Adam names her “isha” (woman) because she was “taken out of ish (man)” (Gen 2:23; cf. 5:3).”

    Huh? What is he saying here? That woman was NOT made in the image of God”

    What in the world does he mean by the “woman’s humanity as “image of God” is established as she comes from man”?

    That makes no sense and it is convoluted and it smacks of double-speak.

    It sounds as if he is saying that woman is the indirect image of God and that man reflects God’s image onto woman.

    Here is what the Bible says:

    “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. ”

    God created MANKIND (adam) in His own image. That word does not refer to males but to ALL human beings- both male and female. Then he goes on to define what “adam” encompasses- male (zakar) and female (neqabah), He created THEM.

    So, women are created in God’s image and a woman’s humanity’s humanity as the image of God (whatever that gobbleygook means) is established by GOD not through man.

    I am getting tired of men trying to rewrite the Bible for their own pet agenda.

    “4. The woman was created for the man’s sake or to be Adam’s helper (Gen 2:18, 20).”

    Marriage is a mutural relationship. A married man is concerned about pleasing his wife and a married woman is concerned about pleasing her husband.

    Point #4 is only telling half the truth and that is the exact error that Paul was correcting in the church at Corinth in Chapter 11.

    Here is the rest of the truth that pats/comps always seem to leave out:

    “HOWEVER, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.”

    See the “however”? That is Paul driving home the truth to those who only had half of it and were formulating doctrine on only half the truth.

    We are seeing the same thing in the patriarchal movement. It is the same error all over again.

    “5. Man (not woman) was given God’s moral commandment in the garden; and woman learned God’s moral command from the man (Gen 2:16-17).”

    This is another example of a rewrite for the sake of agenda. This point really stretches the boundaries of sound doctrine.

    Genesis 1:28-29 tells us that God spoke to both Adam and Eve and gave them the “dominion mandate” (it was not solely given to Adam as the pats like to assert).

    As far as giving Adam the “moral commandment”, Ware is referring to the prohibition of the tree of knowledge. Well, what does this mean? It proves not Ware’s point. Eve wasn’t created yet. Adam was told to name all the animals as an exercise to teach Adam that he was in NEED of one of his own kind. God couldn’t create Adam and not give him that command because what if Adam strolled over to the tree and ate the fruit?

    It was simply a command to Adam to not eat of the fruit. It is like me telling one of my children something and then the next one is born. Does that mean I have a more special relationship with the older child because he was born first? LOL NO! Because I am going to tell that new child the same things I told the older sibling and I will have my own relationship with that new child and that relationship is not dependent upon my relationship with the older sibling.

    And how do we know that God didn’t talk with Eve about it? Is Ware saying that Eve didn’t receive any direct fellowship with God while she was in the Garden and all of her information about God came through Adam?

    “6. Man named the woman both before and after the entrance of sin (Gen 2:19-20, 23; 3:20).”

    This proves authority?? Recognizing that someone is a woman and referring to her as a woman means they have authority over her?

    “7. Satan approached the woman (not the man) in the temptation, usurping God’s design of male-headship (Gen 3; 1 Tim 2:14).”

    #7 is ridiculous. There was no “usurping” going on. That is reading something into the text that cannot be supported. Who in the world believes that Satan is supposed to come through the husband first before he tries and tempts the wife? Eve disobeyed God, not her husband. Eve didn’t usurp her husband nor did Satan.

    In 2 Cor. Paul warns believers:

    “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

    Why wasn’t this usurping business mentioned anywhere in the Bible? We, as believers, need to be ware of Satan and his craftiness.

    What he [Ware] is basically saying is that Satan is supposed to go through the husband, first, and get his permission to tempt the wife.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    I happen to believe that there is enough sin to go around and that most times (marriage consisting of two human beings) that the “you did it first” is pretty even.

    And that is a fair statement. Thank you very much.

    I am tired of hearing someone who has the privilege of speaking from the pulpit pointing the finger at women. This is absolutely unbelievable!

  • Corrie

    Sue,

    “This doctrine is based on a new interpretation of Gen. 3:16 that the wife “desires to control her husband and he will rule over her.” For 15 centuries that verse was translated that the wife “will be under the power of her husband and he will rule over her.””

    In my studies, I have come to this realization that this is a NEW interpretation of Gen. 3:16., also.

    “Since the reformation, the Pagnini Latin Bible, this was interpreted that she “would desire her husband and he would rule over her.”

    That is what the text says.

    “It is only complementarians who teach that it says “she will desire to control (or exert her will) and he will rule over her.””

    And the comps/pats, once again, have to add to scripture words that are not there and thoughts that are not even hinted at in order to shore up their eroding doctrine.

    “The complementarian theology and interpretation is novel and irresponsible.”

    I agree.

  • Lydia

    “Since the reformation, the Pagnini Latin Bible, this was interpreted that she “would desire her husband and he would rule over her.”

    True. A better translation is the Greek OT which says (paraphrasing) ‘She will turn (from God) toward her husband and he will rule over her’.

    And this consequence of sin is exactly what is being taught to men and woman as God’s design!

    Yet, they do not teach that it is God’s design that men must toil on bad land as farmers. ;o)

  • Corrie

    “8. Although the woman sinned first, God comes to the man first, holding him (not her) primarily responsible for their sin (Gen 3:8-9; Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:22).”

    Where does it say that the woman sinned first?

    Jesus taught that if a man lust after a woman IN HIS HEART, it is the same as if he physically committed adultery with her. Mt. 5:28

    It could very well be that Adam DID sin first. He was with Eve in the Garden. He heard Satan’s whole spiel and did nothing to correct his false doctrine. Maybe he was lusting after the fruit of that tree in his own heart and wanted to eat it and he had been entertaining the thought of eating it for a while and it finally grew into full-blown lust? And THAT was the moment when sin entered into the world?

    James 1:14-15

    “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”

    “Thou shalt not covet” is a commandment against the sin of the HEART.

    I wonder why this avenue of sin entering the world has not been pondered by the comps/pats since this is the basis of the entire New Testament and what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for?

    Shall we now teach, in order to be consistent with this point, that coveting is not really a sin? That it is only sin when it becomes stealing? Shall we just get rid of that commandment since sin can only come into the world through a physical act?

    These are questions we should be asking and we definitely should NOT be adding to scripture things that are not there in order to protect our precious manmade doctrines.

  • Sue

    Yes, most complementarians do not know that they are being taught something very novel.

    This is from Grudem again,

    “Susan Foh has effectively argued that the word translated “desire” (Heb. teshûqah) means “desire to conquer,” and that it indicates Eve would have a wrongful desire to usurp authority over her husband. (Systematic Theology. page 464)”

    Would someone please tell me who Susan Foh is? And why does a systematic theology have interepretations that are a few years old in it, but does not have interpretations from the Septuagint, from Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, from Calvin, from everyone else in church history in it.

  • Sue

    Yet, they do not teach that it is God’s design that men must toil on bad land as farmers. ;o)

    On a world scale there are more women toiling on the land.

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    Denny, #46: “Sue,

    I’m not sure where you’re getting that from, but Dr. Ware never said any such thing. Please refrain from distorting his message.”

    In my view this thread is being destroyed by a malignant distortion which has given rise to spurious allegations which do not further the discussion. I wish people would heed Denny’s request.

  • Sue

    Here is an excerpt from the Olivetan Bible, which has a preface by Calvin.

    This is from Gen. 3:16.

    et te soumettras à ton mari, Bible Olivétan (with preface written by Calvin)

    “and you will submit to your husband.”

    That is the statement about what will happen to women because of sin.

    Now, here is what Dr. Grudem has chosen for his Systematic Theology,

    “Eve would have a wrongful desire to usurp authority over her husband.”

    Now somebody tell me why Dr. Grudem quotes Susan Foh above Calvin. Please.

  • Sue

    I know it is hard to believe that the meaning of Gen. 3:16 has been turned on its head since the Reformation. However, that is what has happened.

    Ware is citing a tenuous interpretation that seems to date back to Foh. What is the history of this?

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    For anyone who’s interested,

    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

  • quixote

    Denny,

    Have you left the building? I know you posted a message by Dr. Ware, but you did so because you agree with the message. Surely you can rise to its defense?

  • Cheryl

    #96 Corrie says:

    “It sounds as if he is saying that woman is the indirect image of God and that man reflects God’s image onto woman.”

    Yes, that is exactly what Ware is saying. Ware says that the man is the “direct” image of God and woman is the “indirect” image of God. The audio quotes are in the DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” Many have been shocked to hear what Ware actually teaches about the creation of woman and it is shocking to hear his actual words regarding this teaching.

  • Bonnie

    D. J. Williams,

    Yes. Ware would agree. Thus my contention that Sue is getting him wrong.

    My reference to narcissistic, exploitative behavior is not the husband’s passivity or abuse in response to his wife, whether she’s sinning or not, but his desire that she “submit to him, to do what he would like to do and seek to work to have him fulfill his will,” I’m assuming in all things.

    Is this or is this not an accurate quote of Ware’s:

    The very wise and good plan of God, of male headship, is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them; and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged, or more commonly to become passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.

    If it is, then Ware is saying that wives are sinners for not wanting to “submit to their husbands, to do what he would like to do and seek to work to have him fulfill his will,” and calling this will of the husband’s his authority. But this is not his authority; authority and will are not the same thing. Such an attitude on the part of the husband is sin — it is narcissistic and exploitative.

  • Lydia

    “Yes, that is exactly what Ware is saying. Ware says that the man is the “direct” image of God and woman is the “indirect” image of God.”

    Do we receive the ‘Image of God’ by the Creation materials He uses?

  • Greg Anderson

    Dang! I can’t remember if I’ve been permanently banned from this blog or not, and if I have been, “oh well” as they say in present-day parlance…

    To Corrie, post # 99 and others, Your reasons for rejecting complementarian ideology are the same ones I arrived at years ago after being challenged by someone to provide a good answer as to why women should be restricted in what’s available to them so far as corporate church ministry goes.

    Even with no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew and just using the various English translations as a sort of straight edge and compass, I can find no “proof” even in a Euclidean sense of Dr. Ware’s 10 point thesis. The data to support it is simply not there.

    The concept of a pre-fall hierarchy based on the male-headship of Adam has to be “choppered in” so to speak and constructed on site with the girders of extrapolation, and the Lincoln arc-welder of interpolation.

    To say that Paul reaches back into the creation account in order to establish a universal ban on women teaching scripture for all time and all places, is tenuous at best. What does one do with Acts 15:28-29 and Galatians 3:28? Build a chain-link fence around them so that their application is limited?

    To me, the far simpler solution is to recognize Paul’s famous Timothy passages concerning women teachers as a specific refutation addressed to specific individuals.

  • Don Johnson

    As I see it, there are many things Ware stated that are not true.

    The man sinned first, he did this when he did not obey God’s injunction to protect the Garden, do not forget the positive commands as well as the famous negative one not to eat from the TOKOGAE.

  • Corrie

    I would like to supply the quote by Moore concerning negotiation in marriage equalling feminism.

    The reason why I think this important is because of what Ware said about a wife “challenging” her husband’s authority.

    The pats/comps want to live unfettered in our wonderful democracy/republic where their own personal “rights” are never infringed upon but then they turn around and want to run their homes like dictators (one who tells people what to do and how to do it and when to do it and expects to see obedience to his commands) where they direct, command, and issue edicts and the good wife simply obeys because that is her “role”.

    And I am sure that this is where some comps will give me the child question. You know the one where they ask us if we tell our children what to do and expect them to obey it. All I have to say is that they are children, women are adults (not children).

    Negotiation simply means “discussion aimed at reaching agreement”. Moore believes that negotiation, concensus (harmony, solidarity) and mutual submission are NOT supposed to be part of a comp marriage. This is the stuff of a feminist agenda and of the egalitarian marriages.

    I have no idea why comps are threatened by the concept of solidarity, harmony, agreement and discussion when coming to a decision. But, they obviously believe that a marriage isn’t biblical if these things are going on.

    That means that a true comp marriage is one where the husband gives the orders and the wife does not “challenge her husband’s authority” as to not give him a reason to hit her.

    “Likewise, in her Evangelical Identity and Gendered Family Life Oregon State
    University sociologist Sally Gallagher interviews evangelical men and women across the
    country and across the denominational spectrum and concludes that most evangelicals are
    “pragmatically egalitarian.”6 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.

    That’s what our forefathers would have called “feminism”—and our foremothers,
    too.

    And yet Gallagher shows specifically how this dynamic plays itself out in
    millions of homes, often by citing interviews that almost read like self-parodies. One 35-
    year-old home-schooling evangelical mother in Minnesota says of the Promise Keepers
    movement: “I had Mike go this year. I kind of sent him…. I said, ‘I’m not sending you to
    get fixed in any area. I just want you to be encouraged because there are other Christian
    men out there who are your age, who want to be good dads and good husbands.”7 This
    “complementarian” woman doesn’t seem to recognize that she is “sending” her husband
    off to be with those his own age, as though she were a mother “sending” her grade-school
    son off to summer youth camp. Not surprisingly, this evangelical woman says she doesn’t
    remember when—or whether—her pastor has ever preached on the subject of male
    headship. ”

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

    What is wrong with sending one’s husband off to a retreat? Maybe he is a workaholic and she sees this and knows that he needs to get away? Surely a woman can know what is best for her husband in the same way a husband can know what is best for his wife when it comes to blind spots?

    These guys seem awfully over-sensitive about anything that appears to be challenging their “authority”. “How dare a woman think she can “send” her husband anywhere! The nerve of her!”

    I know a highly patriarchal wife who told her pastor-husband that he “failed” to include scripture to back up his beliefs on courtship. How do I know this? Well, he wrote it on his own blog.

    And that is exactly why Ware’s statement is dangerous. Even a simple question could be seen as a provocation and challenge.

    Where does this “how dare you question me” attitude come into play when we look at the scriptures? We, as Christians, are supposed to be teachable and open to correction, are we not? Or does that not apply to husbands? Did I miss the exception clause?

    This attitude is not a biblical attitude at all.

  • Corrie

    “This is from Grudem again,

    “Susan Foh has effectively argued that the word translated “desire” (Heb. teshûqah) means “desire to conquer,” and that it indicates Eve would have a wrongful desire to usurp authority over her husband. (Systematic Theology. page 464)”

    Would someone please tell me who Susan Foh is? And why does a systematic theology have interepretations that are a few years old in it, but does not have interpretations from the Septuagint, from Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, from Calvin, from everyone else in church history in it.”

    And why is a complementarian such as Grudem using a woman’s teachings to prove his case? Does that not violate the very thing that he teaches?

    As for the rest it seems they pick and choose whether newer is better or older is better depending upon whether or not it helps their case.

  • Corrie

    “Sue, that being said, Ware still did not say that a sinful response is justified.”

    But what Ware says justifies a husband’s response.

    Justify means to “give a good reason for” something.

    So, Ware did provide justification for a husband’s violent response if he *feels* that his authority is somehow being challenged.

    Just because he said it was wrong doesn’t mean he didn’t provide justifcation for that action.

    Any abuser will take what he said and run with it. And any person who denies this knows nothing about abusers.

  • Sue

    I want to say very clearly that I have absolutely no knowledge of Dr. Ware as a person and I do not think that he is excusing abuse.

    I do believe that he is saying something that many complementarians also write and teach, that a husband’s sinful actions are a response to his wife’s sinful actions.

    This can be used by a husband and sometimes church elders to teach that the submission of a wife will reduce abuse, when, in fact, it is likely to do the opposite.

    Subsequent Bi

  • Sue

    One of the things that I am trying to say here is that this teaching is widespread. It is not unique to Dr. Ware. All teachers of complementarian doctrine have to take responsibility for this.

    This is from the gender blog today.

    “In the curse pronounced by God upon the newly guilty Adam and Eve the distinctive nature of each part of the curse implies the need for men to protect women. The facet of the curse spoken to women includes vulnerability to the serpent, risk and pain in child-bearing and the spiritual danger of desiring to master her husband.

    Distinctively, the curse upon men includes difficulty in all matters of the earth, and in providing for oneself and family.”

    You notice how this writer has taken the words from scripture in Gen.3:16 and taken the part of the curse that applies to men, that the husband “will rule over her/be the lord of her,” and removes its application to men, and then puts this phrase into the curse on women, that she has the “spiritual danger of desiring to master” her husband.

  • Sue

    All teachers of complementarian doctrine have to take responsibility for this.

    Sorry, not all. I take that back. I will make a documented list at some time.

  • a preacher's wife

    I was talking to my husband about this debate earlier this week, after the man who pastors him mentioned in a mentoring session that women shouldn’t be in authority in the church because of 1 Timothy. I asked my husband some questions about it, mentioning some things I’ve read here, and do you know what his bottom-line answer was?

    “Well, no man wants a woman telling him what to do.”

    And I replied (as genteel as I could), “But what has that got to do with Scripture?”

    As true as my husband’s statement might be, isn’t that letting a personal philosophy (albeit one historically hammered into men) cloud the lens by which men read the Bible?

  • Lydia

    pastorswife,

    The whole issue of authority/submission has become an idol. Everyone is talking about who is in charge, who has authority, who is not submissive, etc. Careers are built around this issue in Christendom.

    Why aren’t the men talking about being the most humble servant? Or a bondservant like Paul?

    Instead, the whole focus is on a woman’s ‘role’, her place and being submissive and the sin of being unsubmissive. Even to the point of teaching that she has to do a work to be saved: Childbirth. No matter how they spin it, that is what is being taught.

    It makes me weep for all of us.

  • Molly

    Lydia,
    I am very much in the same place.

    All,

    Count me in as a former complementarian of Ware’s same stripes who, upon really digging into Scripture, came away thoroughly amazed at how unsupported my complementarian philosophy was.

    I feel now that my comp foundation sat on the bedrock of reading things into the texts, reading meaning into words, that simply are NOT there. This thread touches on many of those same words and concepts that have to be read INTO Scripture (ezer meaning subordinated, teaching that the Gen. 3:16 “desire” means desire to usurp, etc).

    But I’d rather not comment on those words, because they’ve been discussed here and will be and continue to be elsewhere. I have two other thoughts that I’d prefer to spend time on.

    1. Through reading this entire thread, I couldn’t help but think of aaaall the passages in Scripture (the amount of which blows away the small number of Scriptures we have on gender!!!) that speak of how God’s righteous are those who are known to protect the weak, the downtrodden, the defenseless, from those who have power over them and are abusing it.

    And I compare that to what Ware said about men who abuse.

    For those who are claiming Sue brought up a straw man, I must say that Ware’s statement instantly struck me as terribly irresponsible too. This man may not have intended to feed abusers, but anyone who has either history with abuse or psychological awareness of what makes abusers tick [and what makes the abused keep on taking it. Please, please, do not cry straw man until you’ve done some research about abuse.

    2. Women aren’t saved by faith alone, if Ware is correct. Boiling it down, he’s saying that women are saved by a faith that *includes* their acceptance of female subordination.

    This is SO grievous. Denny, I don’t understand how anyone could say that Ware’s speech was “deeply Biblical.” This is not an issue of one opinion vs. another, where we can apply a liberal dose of Christian liberty. Ware’s words on how women are saved strike at the very heart of the Gospel. Sola Fida for men, but not for women. Why is anyone applauding this sort of teaching?

  • Quixote

    Denny,

    Disagree with us readers and call us irresponsible (or worse names), but we’re not the only ones who have understood Ware to be linking abuse and a wife’s unsubmissiveness. If you are his friend or peer, perhaps you could pass the word along to him that his beliefs are being misconstrued and ask him to rephrase his message.

    For TUAD, DJ Williams, and all the other commenters who feel we’ve grossly twisted the text, we’re not alone.

    http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=10675

    And that’s just one article.

    Either an admission or a retraction from Dr. Ware is in order. Please.

  • Ellen

    we’re not the only ones who have understood Ware to be linking abuse and a wife’s unsubmissiveness.

    Yesterday, on another blog, I reacted badly to the words of another commenter and
    “snapped” at her.

    That is my own sin. Was I reacting? Yes. Are the actions linked? Yes. Is the sin my own? Yes. Is it the fault of the other commenter? No.

    There are many, many ways that the sin on the part of a person is “linked” to something else (living or inanimate or even a concept). That does not make the sinner any less responsible for his or her sin.

    There are times that unsubmissiveness and abuse may be linked. Shoot, there are times when overspending and abused may have a link. Or abuse and any other really annoying behavior.

    I have a question. When Ware says “abusive” – does he specifically mean “physical”? Or does he refer to a verbally abusive man who yells a lot?

    Also, does he mean a man who is a chronic abuser, or a man who loses it in a single outburst and goes on to repent and cease the behavior (but in that time, was indeed abusive)?

    Not that those two questions have a lot to do with the course of the discussion, but they are questions I’ve been asking myself.

  • Sue

    I think there is a serious misunderstanding here. What Dr. Ware said was not a statement in passing. It is the faoundational complementarian interpretation of Gen. 3:16 that

    a wife will desire to rule her husband and he will rule her.

    Words are being added to scripture.

    My point is that it is wrong to point the finger at Ware as the only one who teaches this. As I cited Grudem’s Systematic Theology and could cite many other complementarian authors.

    This is one of the foundational beliefs of complementarianism. So, it should not be placed solely on Ware’s shoulders. It needs to be addressed in a global way.

    One person should not be scapegoated for this belief. People need to disassociate from this teaching as a whole.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    That is my own sin. Was I reacting? Yes. Are the actions linked? Yes. Is the sin my own? Yes. Is it the fault of the other commenter? No.

    Ellen, Ware is saying that the wife provokes her husband by not acquiescing to his will — by wanting her will to be served as well — and that this is her fault.

    It is sin on the part of the wife if she sins by abusing or otherwise mistreating him. But she is not mistreating him by wanting her will to be served as well as his. He has a will, she has a will. Why did God give her one if its only purpose is to be subordinated to his?

    Ware says she sins by insubordination if she asserts her will. He says her husband doesn’t sin if he asserts his will over hers and expects her to submit to it; he only sins by abusing her or being passive.

    This is a double standard.

  • Ellen

    Bonnie, complementarians believe it is Biblical for a wife to submit to her husband as unto the Lord.

    If she does not, that is “sin”. Is the husband sinning in reacting badly? Yes. Is he responsible for his own sin? Yes.

  • madame

    Comments 121 and 122,
    I couldn’t agree more.

    Corrie, you express a lot of what I think.
    Lynn, so do you.
    Sue, thanks for your hard work and research. You save people like me a lot of time and effort.

    I don’t go into whether hierarchy was established pre-fall or post-fall. I don’t believe God ever had hierarchy in mind.
    Headship, to me, is a lot more about RESPONSIBILITY than authority.

    Don Johnson, comment 113, great point. Adam was supposed to keep the garden. Did he let down his guard? (it’s all assumptions, I agree!!!)

    Comment 95, including the quote from #94, completely agree.

    I think that preachings like Bruce Ware’s get people so wound up because, although we hold a complementarian view in the relationship of marriage and in the church, we believe that these preachers are missing something.

    I always remind myself that

    – God didn’t turn around to Adam and tell him to rule over Eve. If he had meant it to be that way, he would have given a clear command. We don’t find ANY clear command from God for a man to rule over his wife.

    – We don’t find any direct command from God for a man to have any greater authority over his wife than a wife has over her husband. A wife is told to submit, a husband is told to love, live with understanding, respect….

    – Marriage is about unity in the first place, and then about mutually pleasing each other, loving each other, respecting each other, esteeming each other as above oneself, etc… Nobody is entitled to dominate, that’s the opposite of Christ likeness.

    – Passages like 1 Corinthians 13 and Philippians 2 apply in every relationship, including marriage. According to Complementarian teaching, they stop at the doorstep of a married couple’s home. A man dominating is not sin, a wife wanting her way is, is that not double standards? Is that not missing the point? Aren’t we all supposed to grow in our likeness to Jesus?

  • madame

    – Passages like 1 Corinthians 13 and Philippians 2 apply in every relationship, including marriage. According to Complementarian teaching, they stop at the doorstep of a married couple’s home. A man dominating is not sin, a wife wanting her way is, is that not double standards? Is that not missing the point? Aren’t we all supposed to grow in our likeness to Jesus?

    I mean, according to some complementarian teaching, like Bruce Ware’s…

  • Sue

    Bonnie, complementarians believe it is Biblical for a wife to submit to her husband as unto the Lord.

    If she does not, that is “sin”. Is the husband sinning in reacting badly? Yes. Is he responsible for his own sin? Yes.

    This is very the problem with complementarianism. In an abusive relationship, if coughing too much is forbidden by the husband, then coughing too much is labeled unsubmissiveness.

    Since this can happen in a relationship that is not physically abusive, the wife has no recourse to the elders or other governing bodies or authorities.

    This discussion is not about abuse per se, but about the explanations for abuse. It is also about adding words to scripture.

    Here is Gen. 3:16

    “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” KJV

    Here is a complementarian interpretations of that.

    “In the curse pronounced by God upon the newly guilty Adam and Eve the distinctive nature of each part of the curse implies the need for men to protect women. The facet of the curse spoken to women includes vulnerability to the serpent, risk and pain in child-bearing and the spiritual danger of desiring to master her husband. Distinctively, the curse upon men includes difficulty in all matters of the earth, and in providing for oneself and family.”

    Notice the words added to the curse spoken to women and taken away from the curse spoken to men.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    I believe that a wife is to submit to her husband as unto the Lord too, as stated in the context of Ephesians.

    Are you saying that a wife is sinning by wanting her will to be served as well as her husband’s? That is what Ware is saying, and I do not believe it is what Ephesians 5 is saying.

  • Sue

    Madame,

    I think there are two strands in complementarianism. One is about two people complementing and loving each other as God intended; and the other strand teaches that marriage is an authority submission relationship.

  • Ellen

    Bonnie,
    Are you saying that a wife is sinning by wanting her will to be served as well as her husband’s? That is what Ware is saying, and I do not believe it is what Ephesians 5 is saying.

    As unto the Lord…

    Sue,

    Sue, what is the Hebrew word for “rule” and how is it used in the only other place in Genesis that it is used?

  • Ellen

    I think there are two strands in complementarianism. One is about two people complementing and loving each other as God intended; and the other strand teaches that marriage is an authority submission relationship.

    Yes.

    The difference is that you see them as mutually exclusive and complementarians do not.

  • Kathy

    ‘There are many, many ways that the sin on the part of a person is “linked” to something else (living or inanimate or even a concept). That does not make the sinner any less responsible for his or her sin.’

    But the link here is not to something else. The link is to the wife not being submissive and so in this case it does make the husband less responsible in the sense that the wife is more responsile because here she is responsible for her sin and causing his sin yet, the husband is to be fully responsible for his own sin whether or not she is sinning. This begins with calling the wife’s unsubmissiveness, sin.
    Does an unsubmissive wife truely cause her husband to abuse her? Everyone directly says ‘NO’ right? Well, then why are some saying ‘yes’ indirectly, in the sense that her ‘sin’ causes his sin because that’s the link? That’s the problem. The link along with calling her unsubmissiveness sin.

  • Lydia

    Does the husband get to arbitrarily decide when she is being submissive and when she is not. Can he call anything he decides about her unsubmissive and therefore sin?

    This implies a woman has no personal intimate relationship with Christ. If you say still she does, then she would have two “heads” according to the definition that many comps use. Christ AND her Husband would both be her ‘head’.

    If she has ONE ‘head’then that means her husband is her priest/mediator in place of Christ.

  • Don Johnson

    Gen 1-5 (the 3 origins accounts) does not tell us everything we might wish, so from our perspective there are gaps in the story. How one fills in the gaps tells more about the gap-filler than it does about God.

    What is specially egregious is to alter the meaning of words, such as teshuqah/desire to give it a negative connotation. It derives from a running stream “trying/desiring” to flow downhill, there is no negative connotation at all.

    Beware people who would add or subtract from Scripture or try to control the dictionaries/lexicons.

  • Sue

    Sue, what is the Hebrew word for “rule” and how is it used in the only other place in Genesis that it is used?

    The Hebrew word for “rule” is mashal מְשָׁל

    יִמְשָׁל-בָּךְ

    “he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16

    Another place in Genesis where this word is used is in Gen. 1:18

    וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים:
    אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל, לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם

    And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day.

  • Sue

    Here is Gen. 3:16

    “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” KJV

    Here is a complementarian interpretations of that.

    “In the curse pronounced by God upon the newly guilty Adam and Eve the distinctive nature of each part of the curse implies the need for men to protect women. The facet of the curse spoken to women includes vulnerability to the serpent, risk and pain in child-bearing and the spiritual danger of desiring to master her husband. Distinctively, the curse upon men includes difficulty in all matters of the earth, and in providing for oneself and family.”

    Notice the words added to the curse spoken to women and taken away from the curse spoken to men.

    Okay, I explained this improperly. The curse on woman is not that she will desire to dominate her husband as complementarians say, but that her husband will dominate her.

  • Lydia

    “I think there are two strands in complementarianism. One is about two people complementing and loving each other as God intended; and the other strand teaches that marriage is an authority submission relationship.

    Yes.

    The difference is that you see them as mutually exclusive and complementarians do not.”

    That is because the comp interpretation puts a mere human being in place of Christ. And the interpretation completely ignores verse 21. Again, the “one anothers” taught in scripture seem to stop at the comp marriage door.

    This interpretation would mean a husband cannot be a brother in Christ to his wife who is saved because he could not practice mutual submission with her as taught for all believers in the Body in verse 21.

  • Ellen

    Okay…so we do have (as part of the “curse”) that a man shall “rule” over his wife (as the two great lights rule over their respective time of day.

    Is that “rule” a “negative” thing? No. So the husband’s leadership and ruling of a home is not necessarily negative, any more than having the sun rule the day is negative. In fact, the sunshine is rather a good thing.

    Now let’s talk about “desire” (Genesis 3:16).

    The woman would “desire” her husband. Where else is that word used in Genesis?

  • Ellen

    That is because the comp interpretation puts a mere human being in place of Christ. And the interpretation completely ignores verse 21. Again, the “one anothers” taught in scripture seem to stop at the comp marriage door.

    We disagree.

  • Sue

    Yes, the rule is a negative thing. That is why it is part of the curse.

    The astronomical use of mashal links with the astronomical use of authenteo. The rule of an astronomical body is absolute power. The rule of a man over his wife in this way, is absolutely part of the curse. That is why it is in Gen 3:16.

  • Don Johnson

    One needs to be careful about the word curse, there are only 2 curses given by God, on the serpent for the serpent’s actions and on the land for the male’s actions. The other things are consequences, but not curses.

  • Don Johnson

    When God tells the woman that the man would rule over her, it was not a command to the man, nor a command to the woman, it was a WARNING from God to the woman about what to expect being married to the deliberate sinner.

  • Lydia

    Christ AND her Husband would both be her ‘head’.

    What does Scripture say about the husband being the head of the wife?”

    Ellen (LOL), please drop the school marm act. It is getting a bit old and does not fit the situation because I disgree with your interpretation in the first place.

    The scripture says that man is the source of woman. It also says that man comes from woman and all things come from God. It also says that believers are to submit to one another…just one verse ahead of the one we are discussing! But it does not apply to husbands. Strange.

    Are you suggesting a wife cannot sacrifice for her husband? Or that she should not love him? Are you suggesting that a husband should NEVER submit to his wife?

    Do you realize you people have built an entire religion, that is not even primary doctrine about the saving truth of Christ, and made it a primary doctrine of salvation where a woman who many NOT even know HOW she was unsubmissive IS according to her husband and therefore in SIN! And is saved in Childbirth!

    In the example Ware uses, the husband gets to decide what is SIN when it comes to another his wife!

    Has everyone failed to see this?

  • Ellen

    Are you suggesting a wife cannot sacrifice for her husband? Or that she should not love him? Are you suggesting that a husband should NEVER submit to his wife?

    I would challenge you to quote where I did. (I have not)

  • Sue

    Don,

    You are absolutely right. These are consequences not curses. I was imitating one of the quotes above. But, thanks for the heads up.

  • madame

    ” is that “rule” a “negative” thing? No. So the husband’s leadership and ruling of a home is not necessarily negative, any more than having the sun rule the day is negative. In fact, the sunshine is rather a good thing.”

    Ellen,
    I disagree. That “rule” in the context it is in, because it’s part of the “curse” or the result of sin, is negative.

    Why didn’t God command Adam to rule over Eve?

  • Ellen

    Ellen (LOL), please drop the school marm act. It is getting a bit old and does not fit the situation because I disgree with your interpretation in the first place.

    You say that a woman would have two heads if her husband were her head. Scripture says that the husband is the head of the wife and Christ is the head of the church.

    Regardless of your interpretation of “head”, the husband is still “head” of the wife, Christ is still “head” of the church and “head” is still the reason that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands.

  • Lydia

    “Are you suggesting a wife cannot sacrifice for her husband? Or that she should not love him? Are you suggesting that a husband should NEVER submit to his wife?

    I would challenge you to quote where I did. (I have not)”

    I have no idea what this means or what you are talking about?

  • Don Johnson

    A wife can simply say she cannot do what the husband asks her in faith and she should not sin and do it, as anything that is not done in faith is sin. This stops the supposed man-rule in its tracks.

  • Don Johnson

    It is important to see that all of Gen 3 are not bad things, some are good. If you use the term “curse” for the whole set, you can miss that as you will not be looking for good things.

  • Ellen

    Why didn’t God command Adam to rule over Eve?

    I believe that man and woman were made to complement each other – man was created first, woman was created as a helper…the teaching that loving leadership and submission was in place from creation makes the most sense to me.

  • Ellen

    It is important to see that all of Gen 3 are not bad things, some are good. If you use the term “curse” for the whole set, you can miss that as you will not be looking for good things.

    What part of what is generally accepted a “the curse” do you see as a good thing?

  • Don Johnson

    teshuqah is used 3 times in the Bible, in SOS it is used in a very good way, sexual desire between lovers.

    It is true that the 2 uses in Genesis have some form similarities and one is to discern what is similar and what is different between the 2.

  • Lydia

    “Regardless of your interpretation of “head”, the husband is still “head” of the wife, Christ is still “head” of the church and “head” is still the reason that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands.”

    ‘Head’ does not mean authority over another.

  • Ellen

    It is true that the 2 uses in Genesis have some form similarities and one is to discern what is similar and what is different between the 2.

    How is it used by the writer of Genesis?

  • Ellen

    Head’ does not mean authority over another.

    We disagree.

    But, as I said, no matter what your chosen interpretation is, it is still the reason that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.

  • Don Johnson

    On good things in Gen 3, one needs to check an interlinear, as many translations do not show it.

    But after hearing that the crusher of the serpent’s head would be from her, the woman is told she will have multiple children.

    Also, desire for your husband is a good thing is you are going to have kids per above but good in general anyway.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    (Are you saying that a wife is sinning by wanting her will to be served as well as her husband’s? That is what Ware is saying, and I do not believe it is what Ephesians 5 is saying.)

    As unto the Lord…

    The husband-wife relationship is not the equivalent of Christ’s relationship to the church in that the husband is not the savior of the wife, and also that Christ is both God and human, yet both man and woman are human. Christ was sinless; both man and woman are sinful.

    A woman must be as devoted to her husband as she is to the Lord, and a man must give his life for his wife as Christ gave Himself up for the church. This is not a battle of wills, but a matter of the person (or Person) on behalf of whom one works.

  • Ellen

    Also, desire for your husband is a good thing is you are going to have kids per above but good in general anyway.

    That depends on how it is used by the writer of Genesis uses it in other passages. Which is what I’ve been asking.

  • Don Johnson

    In Gen teshuqah is used once for a good thing, a wife’s desire for her husband, and once for a bad thing, sin’s desire to rule over Cain. In the first case, the rule is not a good thing, in the second the rule is a good thing, but Cain fails to do it.

  • Ellen

    A woman must be as devoted to her husband as she is to the Lord, and a man must give his life for his wife as Christ gave Himself up for the church. This is not a battle of wills, but a matter of the person (or Person) on behalf of whom one works.

    Bonnie, is the word used in the “as unto the Lord” “devoted”? Or “submit”?

    Nobody says that the husband is the saviour – but Scripture does make the parallel.

  • Ellen

    In Gen teshuqah is used once for a good thing, a wife’s desire for her husband,

    But you see, in the complementarians interpretation of the meaning, there is no conflict between whether “desire” is good here and bad there.

    They are in unison, agreement.

    Eve “desired” her husband in the way that sin “desired” Cain. As a consequence, Adam’s leadership became domination.

  • madame

    Ellen,
    comment 167, just because it makes sense doesn’t mean it’s what God meant.

    Another question:

    A wife doesn’t go along with what her husband says, she wants her way. She is in sin because she is not submitting
    Wouldn’t the husband be in sin for trying to push his will through? Isn’t love supposed to be “not seeking one’s own?”, aren’t husbands directly commanded to love their wives?

    To much complementarian teaching seems to be built on suppositions (that God wanted Adam to rule from day one, that headship means authority over) to the detriment of direct commands: husbands love your wives, live with them in understanding, respect them as fellow heirs. And that’s just the passages directed at married couples, there are a lot more commands for interpersonal relationships that are ignored. I repeat, where’s a good teaching of Christ likeness as a guideline for headship and the right attitude towards one’s wife?

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    I makes no difference what that word means. If abuse by the husband is labeled a response to an action of the wife, then we have Gen 2:12 all over again,

    And the man said: ‘The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.’

    So let’s just point the finger at God. God made woman in the first place. Does a man have to rule a woman? No, the fact that a man does this is a consequence of sin.

    Men must take full responsibility for their own actions, and women for theirs.

  • Don Johnson

    On the 2 teshuqahs in Genesis, one needs to see that one CANNOT make a complete mapping in unison, as the woman does NOT map to sin. So there is no fundamental reading both in unison, it fails. Once one sees that it fails, one needs to looks for similarities AND differences. Cain is an example of what one is to master, the sin in one’s life. The other is not an example at all, it is an encouragement to the woman, AND a warning about what to expect from being married to the deliberate sinner who blamed her.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    Eve “desired” her husband in the way that sin “desired” Cain. As a consequence, Adam’s leadership became domination.

    Would you look an abused woman in the face and tell her that the abuse is a consequence of the way she desired her husband? Franky I do not think you would do that. You are, in real life, a champion of abused women.

    If you actually tell me that you believe that in general abusive men come into being because their wives desire them as sin desired Cain, I will be very surprised.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    is the word used in the “as unto the Lord” “devoted”? Or “submit”?

    Nobody says that the husband is the saviour – but Scripture does make the parallel.

    What does “submit” (or “be subject) mean in this passage? The verb “hupotasso” in Eph. 5:22 carries over from v. 21, where all are to hupotasso one another in the fear of Christ.

    Is the parallel, then, between Christ and man, or between the type of submission (or devotion, or respect, or reverence) given to each?

  • Don Johnson

    There are 8 examples following Eph 5:21 about how submission worked in practice in the 1st century. If you check out the Transline translation, you can see this easily from the Greek.

  • Sue

    There is a misconception that “submit to” requires that the submission be to an authority. It does not. There is no such meaning in the Greek or anywhere else.

    1 Clement 38.1:

    “So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject (ὑποτασσέσθω) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,”

    People can submit to each other. But complementarianism says that certain groups, the women, slaves and children, are to submit to the man. Is that what Christianity is about?

  • Sue

    Actually, in Greek, Clement doesn’t say “each man” but simply “each one.” He means that each person submits to their fellow Christian in a mutual way. Or maybe each person should submit to their fellow human being in a mutual way.

  • Sue

    In my view, this is not central. People should submit to each other.

    The problem is that complementarianism seeks to proclaim that a woman making any decision of her own, no matter how small, is a sin, and that the abuse of a husband is a response to that.

    Complementarianism also does not accept that the rule of a husband over a wife is the consequence of sin.

    I think many complementarians are not fully aware of this teaching and do not hold to it in this form. Complementarians should seek a scriptural doctrine that is in line with the central teaching of the gospel, that all have sinned equally and that Christ died for our sin. He gave us all, men and women alike, a model of submission.

    Once again complemetentarianism has twisted this. Here is David Kotter on this point,

    The husband is called to be the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the church. He imitates the headship of Jesus Christ. The wife is called to imitate the submission of Jesus Christ to the Father. Jesus Christ is so great that both a man and woman together are needed to display his glorious leadership and servanthood.

    So men are exempt from imitating the submission of Christ. I am dumbfounded.

  • Don Johnson

    What Kotter wrote sure seems like idolatry to me. I say this knowing I make idols myself, but we are not to do this.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen

    Regardless of your interpretation of “head”, the husband is still “head” of the wife, Christ is still “head” of the church and “head” is still the reason that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands.

    This I agree with. And this:

    I believe that man and woman were made to complement each other – man was created first, woman was created as a helper

    I don’t agree with this: loving leadership and submission was in place from creation.

    There is nothing in the creation account to suggest that man = leadership and woman = submission. When Paul references Gen. 2:24 (for this cause…the two shall become one flesh) in Ephesians 5, he’s explaining why the husband nourishes and cherishes his wife as his own flesh just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body.. This cause is also why the wife submits to (respects) her husband.

  • Don Johnson

    History has examples of those who would interpret the Bible to their advantage over others, such as the supposed divine right of kings and the way slaveholders understood the Bible pre-Civil War. We need to learn from their mistakes and not do similar, be VERY suspicious when you think the Bible authorizes you to be over another adult.

  • madame

    Ok,
    if a husband is to live out Christ’s headship, why then is he commanded to love his wife by laying down his life? Isn’t that Christ’s utmost submission to the Father?

  • Don Johnson

    A husband as head is to serve his wife as body, as all the examples of Christ for the church are serving functions, not leadership functions.

  • Don Johnson

    Clarification, in Eph 5, they are all serving functions. Of course Jesus is also Lord, but those aspects are not being discussed there.

  • Sue

    My sense is that some are teaching that it is the role of women are to imitate the submission of Christ.

    Biblical manhood and womanhood must be rooted in the doctrine of the work and person of Christ. Therefore all women’s ministry in the local church must rely on the doctrine of Christ. Jesus is the example of perfect submission. The work and submission of Christ radically reorients Christian service for Christian women because it is following in the footsteps of our Savior.

  • madame

    Don Johnson,
    Right. A husband is not commanded to be lord as Christ is Lord, he is commanded to love as Christ loved.
    The marriage relationship is described as mutual laying down of one’s will for the other.
    The only way to have harmony in marriage is if each is looking out for the other one. As soon as one is self-serving, the natural reaction is selfishness. It’s natural tendency.

  • Don Johnson

    Many people just read the head metaphor as meaning leader, as that is what the primary metaphor in the 21st century means. However, it was just a possibility in the 1st century and there were other possibilities that seem strange to us, such as Athena springing forth from Zeus’s head.

    So reading some verses written in the 1st century SEEM TO say something obvious in the 21st century when that is not the case, it is eye opening when one figures this out.

  • Sue

    Don,

    Perhaps you would be interested in my post on kephale on the BBB.

    In brief the word r’osh in Hebrew, and the word caput in Latin refer to the “head of the family” in English. However, in Greek, the leader is called the archon, chiliarch, hegemon, archegos, etc. R’osh is NOT translated as kephale when a leader over his own people is in view.

    Amazingly, I can say this with confidence, having examined Grudem’s study piece by piece.

  • Don Johnson

    I agree archon, etc. are the normal term for leader. I think the LXX used it 3 times, IIRC, for leader, as least it might be leader.

    I do not have a problem with kephale POSSIBLY being leader, as it is text context that determines which is the best choice. I might be wrong on kephale, one can always learn more, but that is where I am at today.

  • Corrie

    “Don, it was Cain that was ruling sin…

    it was sin that desired to rule over Cain…not a good thing.,”

    Ellen,

    Cain was ruling sin? That is theologically impossible. The natural man is a slave to sin. Do we see any evidence at all that Cain ruled/mastered sin except that he was a master at IT?

    It doesn’t say that sin desired to rule over Cain. It personifies sin and says that it desires Cain. Again, we are inserting a word into the text that isn’t there and we are doing it because we want Gen 3:16 to say it because it fits into our theological paradigm.

    I have tried to find a conclusive understanding of Gen. 4:7 but I have yet to find one. Scholars, at least the ones who can admit they don’t know everything, really are not all too sure what this verse is saying.

    What we do know is that if one is not of God, they are slaves, already, to sin. Cain was already mastered by sin and his proclivity was to sin and do it all the time. He can’t help but to sin.

    Why can’t we just read the plain text of Scripture? I hardly think that Gen. 3:16 carries with it the same meaning. Eve was not sin personified. The language and tone and context are both very different.

    If God had said to Adam that “Eve is crouching outside the door and her desire is for you but you should rule over her.”

    If the Bible had said the above, then maybe you could compare Gen 3:16 with Gen. 4:7.

    God was speaking to *Eve* when He told HER that she would desire her husband and he would rule over her. It was in conjunction with bearing children which fits because even though she would have trouble in childbirth, she would still desire the very relationship that would cause her to go through the trouble in childbirth.

    Her desire was good but that desire would bring her much pain and trouble. The least of which was that now her husband would try and dominate her.

    When has God commanded anyone to have dominion over another person? The Christian life has its foundation on self-government, being ruled from within not from without. Your take on Gen. 3:16 doesn’t even fit with the whole counsel of Scripture and the very foundation of the Gospel.

    Don:

    “When God tells the woman that the man would rule over her, it was not a command to the man, nor a command to the woman, it was a WARNING from God to the woman about what to expect being married to the deliberate sinner.”

    Exactly. Her desire is for her husband, a desire to have a relationship even though that relationship will bring her trouble (1 Cor. 7 tells us that a woman is happier if she stays single) both in the form of childbirth and child-rearing and her relationship with her husband.

    It doesn’t make sense to take this verse as prescriptive. God is laying out the consequences. Adam will work the ground but he will have trouble with thorns and thistles and he will have to work by the sweat of his brow. The serpent will now crawl on his belly. The woman will still desire her husband in spite of the fact that he will not treat her like he used to because of sin.

  • Corrie

    “Right. A husband is not commanded to be lord as Christ is Lord, he is commanded to love as Christ loved.”

    Don and Madame,

    If the comps/pats recognized this one fact, it would really stop a lot of this other stuff dead in its tracks.

    A husband is to love as Christ loved by laying down His life.

    A husband is never told to lead and he is certainly never told to be lord as Jesus is Lord because that is impossible for a sinful human being. That is more in line with Mormon theology than anything else.

  • Quixote

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think Ellen was using the word “desire” in a good way…the way you think of an enamored woman desiring/wanting her husband. She was equating it to its other Genesis usage: when SIN “desired” Cain…but don’t leave out the missing words. Sin didn’t desire Cain and that’s it. What are the missing words? Sin desired TO RULE OVER (or master) Cain…and those are the key words that Ellen (IMO) and other comps. are adding to the Adam/Eve narrative. That God “cursed” Eve with the desire (to rule over) her husband. Ellen, am I wrong in this understanding of your statements?

  • Sue

    I would like to keep the focus on the doctrine rather than on the people. There is, to my mind, no point in suggesting that all complementarians hold to all these things. I think we need to bring certain statements into the light and ask if people really do believe this, yes or no.

  • Ellen

    if a husband is to live out Christ’s headship, why then is he commanded to love his wife by laying down his life? Isn’t that Christ’s utmost submission to the Father?

    Why do you suppose they are mutually exclusive?

  • Ellen

    Sin desired TO RULE OVER (or master) Cain…and those are the key words that Ellen (IMO) and other comps. are adding to the Adam/Eve narrative. That God “cursed” Eve with the desire (to rule over) her husband. Ellen, am I wrong in this understanding of your statements?

    I add nothing, but it makes sense that that is the “feel”…why would a woman desiring her husband in a sexual way be part of the consequences of sin?

  • Ellen

    What does “submit” (or “be subject) mean in this passage? The verb “hupotasso” in Eph. 5:22 carries over from v. 21, where all are to hupotasso one another in the fear of Christ.

    Is the parallel, then, between Christ and man, or between the type of submission (or devotion, or respect, or reverence) given to each?

    I would guess that “hupotasso” means much the same thing as it does every other place in Scripture.

    However, most people realize that while submission runs in both directions (mutual), it is not identical.

    If you look at the definition of “devotion”, it seems more similar to “worship”, than it does to “submit”. I may submit to my husband with the same attitude with which I submit to God, but is the “devotion” the same that I owe to God?

    Perhaps “venerate”?

  • Ellen

    A husband is never told to lead and he is certainly never told to be lord as Jesus is Lord because that is impossible for a sinful human being. That is more in line with Mormon theology than anything else.

    If a wife specifically (as it says in Scripture) submits to her husband as the church submits to Christ…somebody is leading and it isn’t the wife.

  • Ellen

    (I most likely missed something…generally that brings an accusation of “ignoring”…if a question was directly directed at me, please just ask again.)

  • Ellen

    It doesn’t say that sin desired to rule over Cain.

    Sorry, I misquoted…Sin desired Cain. Since the word we’re looking at is “desire”, do you think that sin “desired” Cain in a good way?

  • Paula

    Let me see if I understand the comp line of argument here.

    1. Eve naturally, before the Fall, desired to rule over Adam and take his authority, so she talked directly to the serpent without first asking permission from Adam and then ate the fruit.

    2. When God spoke to Eve about eating the fruit, he told her that her desire ‘WILL BE’ for her husband.

    So which is it? Did Eve “desire” before eating the fruit, or after? If she had already desired to usurp Adam’s alleged authority, then what was God predicting? But if she did not previously have that “desire”, then she could not have eaten the fruit out of a sinful usurping of authority. Likewise, if Adam had already been vested with authority over Eve before they ate the fruit, then what was God predicting when he said that Adam “WILL rule over you”?

    The problem is that comps want to have their cake and eat it too; they want Eve to have had this evil desire to boss Adam before God predicted it, and then claim that this desire only entered her as the result of sin. So then they start adding fine print: Adam would now rule BETTER or MORE SUCCESSFULLY; Eve would desire MORE GREATLY. In fact, the entire comp rendering of the first three chapters of Genesis consists entirely of this fine print that nobody but they can see.

    What is actually says, without fine print or heavy inference, is that Eve would desire ADAM himself and not something he had; that Adam would now rule over Eve whereas before he did not. Nowhere in any part of the Bible is Eve blamed for sin; nowhere in all the Bible does it say Eve TEMPTED Adam; no scripture at all says she was fooled (lit. beguiled or even hypnotized) because of some weakness in her that Adam did not have. What is actually says is that Adam was right there watching the serpent tempt Eve. And remember that Eve, as the last one created, had the least amount of experience; she never saw God create, whereas Adam at the very least knew God had formed Eve.

    That inexperience– NOT weakness– is why the serpent went after her instead of Adam. Comp, you disagree on the basis that scripture never gives us the reason? Then you just undermined your own argument, because practically NONE of what YOU assert is stated in scripture. Show me that Adam had authority over Eve pre-sin; show me that order of creation indicates superiority (and why the animals, created first, had no authority over Adam, remembering that this argument states ORDER INDICATES AUTHORITY; it either does or it does not, you can’t have it both ways); show me where naming someone is cited BY SCRIPTURE as being an act of authority; show me where scripture says that the one who needs help must be superior to the one who provides what they lacked.

    Now these are all rhetorical questions, because I know from experience that the same assertions will be made in spite of everything. But exposing them is the first step to freeing the long-bound half of the Body of Christ. For more detail please see my Summary of Christian Egalitarianism.

    PS: I would still like a comp answer, from scripture, to the question I posed earlier (about #51 or so).

  • Ellen

    That inexperience– NOT weakness– is why the serpent went after her instead of Adam. Comp, you disagree on the basis that scripture never gives us the reason? Then you just undermined your own argument, because practically NONE of what YOU assert is stated in scripture.

    You are in the same position…you state that inexperience is the reason…and then state that Scripture never gives us the reason…

  • Ellen

    Does the man in Song of Solomon desire his partner in a good way? Look at my post on this.

    Different writer and definitions change over time. At least Cain was in the same century.

  • Lydia

    “So which is it? Did Eve “desire” before eating the fruit, or after? If she had already desired to usurp Adam’s alleged authority, then what was God predicting? But if she did not previously have that “desire”, then she could not have eaten the fruit out of a sinful usurping of authority. Likewise, if Adam had already been vested with authority over Eve before they ate the fruit, then what was God predicting when he said that Adam “WILL rule over you”?”

    Excellent point!

  • Sue

    This is a complementarian blog. I have challenged Denny to look at what is factual and scriptural in in complementarian doctrine.

    I am incredibly grateful to Denny for not moderating me out of his blog. I want to acknowledge his courage in allowing so many of us to post here.

    I do think the point needs to be made that many women who have formerly lived in the complementarian paradigm have suffered greatly and are rightly upset at the finger being pointed at women.

    How can we appropriately appeal to complementarians to examine their understanding of the Bible and treatment of women critically?

  • Don Johnson

    Words can change meaning, but teshuqah does not change defs, it is rooted in a river heading downhill, this is not bad or good in itself. And to think all of Gen 3 are bad things is not correct either; this is a common mistake, see it all as bad and then try to see how each piece might be bad; but this is bringing a huge assumption into the text.

  • Paula

    You are in the same position…you state that inexperience is the reason…and then state that Scripture never gives us the reason…
    I expressly stated this. I’m glad you saw it. So now the question is, if something can be accepted on inference alone, then both sides are allowed to use inference; if it is not allowed, then neither side can use it.

    So which does comp choose? Inference (which then egals can use as well) or only what is expressly stated (which rules out almost the entire comp argument)?

    Simple question: is inference scripture, or is it not?

  • Ellen

    “So which is it? Did Eve “desire” before eating the fruit, or after? If she had already desired to usurp Adam’s alleged authority, then what was God predicting? But if she did not previously have that “desire”, then she could not have eaten the fruit out of a sinful usurping of authority. Likewise, if Adam had already been vested with authority over Eve before they ate the fruit, then what was God predicting when he said that Adam “WILL rule over you”?”

    We can attempt this…

    Perhaps (and this is supposition) the “punishment” fit the “crime”. Eve, having acted on her own to sin is forever destined to fight against her husband.

    Adam, having blown the whole leadership thing, is forever destined to fight against being domineering in his effort to lead in a loving way.

    Likewise, if Adam had already been vested with authority over Eve before they ate the fruit, then what was God predicting when he said that Adam “WILL rule over you”?”

    “Rule” is not equal to “lead”. You can lead without being a ruler and you can rule without being a leader.

  • Ellen

    So which does comp choose? Inference…or only what is expressly stated (which rules out almost the entire comp argument)?

    As I read CBMW…I disagree that almost the entirety of the COMP argument is ruled out.

  • madame

    Ellen, answering post 211
    Why do you suppose they are mutually exclusive?

    I’m basing my question on Sue’s quote of Kotter in comment 191
    “The husband is called to be the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the church. He imitates the headship of Jesus Christ. The wife is called to imitate the submission of Jesus Christ to the Father. Jesus Christ is so great that both a man and woman together are needed to display his glorious leadership and servanthood.”

    According to this, Kotter believes that a husband imitates the leadership and a wife imitates the submission. But God commands men to imitate Christ in his love and submission.
    Kotter has made them mutually exclusive.

    I don’t think men are directly commanded to display the leadership or Lordship of Christ. That’s where I don’t agree with complementarian teaching.

  • Paula

    Perhaps (and this is supposition) the “punishment” fit the “crime”. Eve, having acted on her own to sin is forever destined to fight against her husband.

    Adam, having blown the whole leadership thing, is forever destined to fight against being domineering in his effort to lead in a loving way.

    Pure conjecture, i.e. inference. So inference must be the comp choice. Therefore it follows that egals can use it too, making our claim for Eve’s being the serpent’s target equally valid. This is good to know.

    “Rule” is not equal to “lead”. You can lead without being a ruler and you can rule without being a leader.

    If “rule is not equal to lead”, then leaders do not rule, i.e. they have no authority. Hence, a leading husband has no authority to usurp. If he is only leading and not ruling, then his wife’s decision to not follow his lead is not sin; it is impossible for her to usurp that which has no authority.

  • Ellen

    If he is only leading and not ruling, then his wife’s decision to not follow his lead is not sin; it is impossible for her to usurp that which has no authority.

    Right up to the point where Scripture says, “wives submit to your husbands as the church submits to Christ.”

  • Don Johnson

    Follow Paul as he follows Christ. Christ is perfect, husbands are not. This is a key question, who determines if a husband’s request/command to his wife is sinful? It MUST be the woman, if she cannot do it in faith, she would be sinning and only she can answer that question.

  • Paula

    Right up to the point where Scripture says, “wives submit to your husbands as the church submits to Christ.”

    Which is it? Does the husband lead or rule? Is there a rule for the wife to usurp or does she have the option to not follow his lead, without sinning? Please choose one.

  • madame

    Ellen,
    Can we agree on one point?
    Is the man given authority over his wife, directly from God, yes or no?
    I don’t find a direct command for a man to exercise authority over his wife. I do see a command for a wife to respect her husband, submit to him as the church does to Christ, because the man is the head.

    My understanding of this is that a wife voluntarily submits, but a husband shouldn’t just assume that his wife is going to do so. A husband voluntarily lays his life down, but a wife shouldn’t assume he is going to do so.

    Complementarians, like Ware, seem to teach that God has given man the authority and he has the right (they call it responsibility) to exercise it over his wife. He has the last word. He is the leader. He rules. He can “impose” his will.
    But I don’t find this taught in the Bible. I find something a lot more akin to mutual submission.

  • Don Johnson

    Another point is the sex is explicitly symmetrical and well as many other things in 1 Cor 7. Paul goes out of his way being repetitive to show the symmetry. A woman has authority exousia over her husband’s body and vice versa, there is no leader and follower, just mutuality.

  • Quixote

    Question for Sue (or anyone)…

    If I understand correctly, the “curse” we are discussing is that of the Fall of Man, and Sue and others are saying that comps cannot refer to this as “the current state of things” since we are post-Christ and Christ has redeemed us from this “cursed” state. He has made things right…as God intended orginally.

    Is that what is being said, overall I mean, about Egalitarian doctrine?

    Because I was under the impression that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the LAW, not the curse of the FALL. The earth still produces thorns, and childbirth still causes pain. We are still fallen in the sense that we sin and need to be covered in our nakedness…our glory is yet to be restored, and that of creation.

    So I’m confused as to why Sue and others use Christ and redemption from “the curse” as a defense of Egalitarianism. IF Complementarianisn was put into effect in relation to the Fall, then it is rightly still in effect, since the Fall is still in effect.

    Please correct me.

  • Sue

    Quixote,

    I don’t remember saying all of that. What I have found is that throughout most of church history teshuqa in Gen.3:16 has be interpreted in these ways,

    καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου LXX
    and to your husband your turning*

    et sub viri potestate eris Vulgate
    and under the power of the husband you will be

    ad virum tuum eris desiderium* tuum Pagnini
    towards your husband will be your longing

    and thy lust shal pertayne vnto yi hußbande Coverdale

    and thy desire shal be subiect to thine husbande, Geneva

    and thy desire shall be to thy husband, KJV

    and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, D-R

    et te soumettras à ton mari, Olivétan (Calvin)
    and you will submit to your husband

    Your desire shall be for[a] your husband ESV
    (a) or against

    ———

    These are the traditional interpretations of Gen. 3:16. The traditional understanding in the church has been that this state of affairs would continue on earth, that is the subordination of women. But it was not taught as a GOOD thing, but as a consequence of sin. Women also appeared to be naturally, by nature subordinate or inferior, so a bit of both/and. But this is the scriptural base.

    Now that we have representative government, and the abolition of slavery and a general intention to seek equitable relations is society, some men and women believe that it is more honouring to God for men and women to treat each other with equal respect and those with equal God-given authority.

    I would date the beginning of this movement as a modern understaning around 1640 with the Quakers and Margaret Fell. Go to my site, click on my name and search the site for Margaret Fell. There are many other women who followed in her footsteps, Susanna Wesley, Elizabeth Fry, Catherine Booth, and others.

    In short, even though we live on an unredeemed earth, we don’t force all men till the soil with stone age instruments.

  • Sue

    Notice above that the ESV is the first Bible to introduce a hostile interpretation of desire, calling it desire “against.” Whatever can be said for or against this interpretation, it needs to be recognized that it is very recent.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    I would guess that “hupotasso” means much the same thing as it does every other place in Scripture.

    What is that?

    However, most people realize that while submission runs in both directions (mutual), it is not identical.

    Most people realize? I would offer that the attitude is identical, while the workings-out may or may not be, which is perhaps what you mean. Yet the not-identical part need not translate into “husband leads and wife submits to his lead,” or to his will over hers.

    The New Commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves — does this not also include spouses of both sexes? We are also to give preference to one another in honor (Romans 12:10) — does this not also apply to spouses? This is why I say it is not a matter of someone’s will over another’s, but giving preference to another, including one’s spouse, whether one is the wife or the husband.

    If you look at the definition of “devotion”, it seems more similar to “worship”, than it does to “submit”. I may submit to my husband with the same attitude with which I submit to God, but is the “devotion” the same that I owe to God?

    Perhaps “venerate”?

    I agree that “devotion” is not a strong-enough term. “Venerate” is not bad, as long as we do not allow it connotations of deity. I also would not say that a wife owes her husband the same devotion or veneration that she owes God. This is why I find “source” or “origin” language as a definition of headship more helpful than “authority” or “leader.” A man may be accorded a sort of leadership as head, as well as a sort of authority, but I do not believe it is as Ware describes.

    If a wife specifically (as it says in Scripture) submits to her husband as the church submits to Christ…somebody is leading and it isn’t the wife.

    Why the assumption that if someone is submitting, someone else (the one to whom they are submitting) is leading?

  • Molly

    So I’m confused as to why Sue and others use Christ and redemption from “the curse” as a defense of Egalitarianism. IF Complementarianisn was put into effect in relation to the Fall, then it is rightly still in effect, since the Fall is still in effect.

    It would make male rule a part of something less than desirable, just as pain in childbirth is less than desirable. It would mean that just as we work to escape the curse (via epidurals, via John Deere tractors to minimize the “sweat of our brow”, etc), in the same way organizations like CBMW could not exist, because there would be no more place for claiming that male rule glorifies God.

    Rather, we would have to conjecture that male rule is less than God’s ideal, that male rule is a sign of brokeness instead of wholeness.

    Whereas the complementarian position is that male rule *is* God’s ideal and is a sign of wholeness.

    Btw, Ellen, when I studied the Scriptures and came out of my former comp paradigm, I found it a pretty big deal that “rule” over women is first mentioned at the Fall. Much of Genesis 1 is devoted to who rules over what—the sun, as you mentioned, ruling over the day, etc. So here would be the obvious place for God to mention male rule. Instead, at the end of the chapter there is nothing but a huge statement about humans and rule over the creation, but *nothing* about one human ruling over another human. The first time we have one human ruling over another human, it’s post-Fall. To me, that’s a pretty big deal.

    As was the fact that “rule” there is just plain old ordinary rule. I was always taught, having grown up in patriarchal churches, that the rule in Gen. 3:16 meant the WRONG type of rule—-that male’s were in authority over females but that Gen. 3:16 was promising an oppresive rule versus a positive rule. But the Hebrew speaks of ordinary rule which can be both positive or negative.

    On whether or not the woman’s desire is a desire to have a relationship with the man at any cost OR the desire to usurp his authority, I think we have only to look at history.

    History is pretty clear about what the Fall did to us. Childbirth is a difficult thing, as is laboring for ones food. The things God said would happen as a result of the Fall are all pretty obvious.

    So here’s a school marm sort of question. 🙂 Does history show a long long line of rebellous women always seeking to overthrow men, or does history show a long long line of women being ruled by men and putting up with it, DESPITE the fact that in so doing, most of the time they are considered a lesser level of human being (including but not limited to burqas, widow burnings, and female circumcision?

  • madame

    If a wife specifically (as it says in Scripture) submits to her husband as the church submits to Christ…somebody is leading and it isn’t the wife.

    Why the assumption that if someone is submitting, someone else (the one to whom they are submitting) is leading?

    In a sense, it’s obvious. But not in the way Complementarians teach it. I’ll keep saying,give me the place where God commands men to lead, rule, exercise authority over wives.

  • Lydia

    “So here’s a school marm sort of question.”

    That did not qualify as a school marm question because your question implied the obvious right answer. :o)

  • Ellen

    Does history show a long long line of rebellous women always seeking to overthrow men, or does history show a long long line of women being ruled by men and putting up with it, DESPITE the fact that in so doing, most of the time they are considered a lesser level of human being (including but not limited to burqas, widow burnings, and female circumcision?

    Yes.

  • Molly

    To me, that is the biggest argument for translating “desire” to mean a desire for the relationship, even when it comes at the cost of her own personhood.

  • Molly

    Ellen,
    If you think female rebellion through history equals female oppression, I truly don’t know what to say. It would be historical revisionism to the extreme.

    Even just reading the Bible shows a common and ever-running thread of women being viewed as lesser-than-males, not a common ever-running thread of women always seeking to usurp.

  • Ellen

    If you think female rebellion through history equals female oppression, I truly don’t know what to say. It would be historical revisionism to the extreme.

    Molly…that was not your question. Your question was what history shows.

    It shows both women of rebellion and women in slavery. It also shows dearly loved women who submitted, yet were cherished. It shows women who submitted and were killed. It shows rebellious women who murdered their husbands.

    If you ask was history shows…the answer is “both”. They’re just not necessarily the same women, the same religion, the same century, the same continent.

    If there is a different question you would like to ask (like “does female rebellion equal female oppression”) then ask.

    But you asked about history. Cleopatra and Mary, the mother of Christ lived only a few decades apart, yet the facts of their history are very different.

  • Corrie

    “Notice above that the ESV is the first Bible to introduce a hostile interpretation of desire, calling it desire “against.” Whatever can be said for or against this interpretation, it needs to be recognized that it is very recent.”

    Sue,

    Why is this? Is a Hebrew word in the original text that translates into “against”? Or is this added in?

    ESV claims this:

    “To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text.”

    This comes from the preface of one of my ESV Bibles.

    It appears that there are nuances being added to the text that are not in the original text and that there are some verses that have been over-translated.

    I see that Wayne Grudem was on the translating committee. Dr. Lane T. Dennis who is on the CBMW Board of Reference. Dr. R. Kent Hughes is also on the CBMW Board of Reference. And so is J.I. Packer on the same board.

    I wonder if that has anything to do with it? 1/3 of the names on the ESV oversight committee are named in connection with the running of CBMW. And that is only the ones I briefly checked on. If I did some more looking, the portion may go up.

    This is disturbing. To think that a whole translation that is being highly pushed on Christians is nuanced towards a particular mindset instead of allowing scripture to speak for itself.

    I have several ESV Bibles because I was under the impression it is highly accurate. I guess I need to do some studying.

  • Corrie

    David M. Howard is on the translation team for the ESV and he is also on the board of CBMW.

    Also, Raymond Ortlund Jr.

    Ligon Duncan III is on the ESV Advisory Committe. Dr. Albert Mohler Jr., Dr. Paige and Dr. Dorothy Patterson, John Piper are all on the same committee with Duncan.

    These are only the names I recognized off the bat as being part of CBMW.

    Maybe it means nothing.

  • Corrie

    “Pure conjecture, i.e. inference.

    yes…that is why I said, “(This is supposition””

    Can someone explain to me why the comps/pats can engage in pure conjecture and then teach it as absolute truth but when the egals engage in conjecture they are being influenced by the feminists?

    I don’t get the double standard at all. I have seen many times where an egal is taken to task for engaging in speculation and conjecture, even though the egal will totally be up front that this is what they are doing but comps do it all the time and we are to believe it is straight from the mouth of God?

    And I say that as someone who does not call herself an egalitarian. I still have not come to the belief that the Bible allows for female elders/pastors. But, I cannot call myself “complementarian” anymore because those who teach it frequently engage in adding to and taking away from scripture and teaching the doctrines of men as the very precepts of God.

  • Don Johnson

    The ESV is an admitted masculinst translation, altho they do not use that term. It is pretty good in general, but whenever there is a choice to make, they make it in favor of men on top.

  • Sue

    to thy husband shall be thy desire

    ve·‘el-i·shech, te·shu·ka·tech

    וְאֶל-אִישֵׁךְ, תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ

    אֶל

    ‘el – preposition

    1. with all activities and occurrences implying direction to

    2. direction toward

    3. motion toward

    4. as far as

    5. into

    6. pregnant, of rest at arrival

    7. with verbs of adding and uniting

    8. with regard to

    9. combined with other prepositions, etc. etc.

    (HALOT Holladay)

    Here is the way it looks in the ESV,

    16To the woman he said,

    “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
    (A) in pain you shall bring forth children.
    (B) Your desire shall be for[a] your husband,
    and he shall(C) rule over you.”

    Footnotes:

    a. Genesis 3:16 Or against

    It is only a footnote, but I regret that this type of intrusion into the text occurs more than once in the ESV. I would recommend checking with a KJV.

    Here is a list of verses in the ESV where interpretation intrudes into the text relating to women.

    1 Cor. 11:10 – adds “symbol of”
    2 Tim. 2:2 – Greek word for “people” is translated as “men”
    1 Tim. 2:12 – “exercize authority” and not “dominate” (most translations do this)
    Rom. 16:7 Junia is “well known to the apostles” instead of “notable among the apostles”

    Its not very much but influential passages. I think there might be more but I can’t think what.

    There is also the paragraph separation between Eph. 5:21 and 5:22.

    “Her desire will be to usurp her husband’s authority” Bruce Ware

  • Sue

    Much of the masculinist character of the ESV is in rejecting the use of “children of God” and using “sons of God” instead. Rather silly when Luther’s translation, Tyndale and the KJV used “children of God.”

    It gets to be a little odd when you get to this passage.

    And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage,

    Obviously it is referring to both men and women, but the translators believe that one must tranlate “sons” because men represent women.

  • Sue

    And I say that as someone who does not call herself an egalitarian.

    There is no need to call oneself anything, but eventually you might be labeled as I was. Not so bad in the end to be egalitarian.

    I work a schoolteacher, I cuddle and cook for my own children and I actually have a male pastor.

  • Ellen

    1 Cor. 11:10 – adds “symbol of”

    How does the NIV translate it? NASB?

    Amplified Bible? New King James?

    New Century Version? American Standard Version?

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    You are right – they all do, except the TNIV. That is one reason for the fuss against the TNIV, because it does not add “symbol of” into the text. The KJV also. Yeah for the KJV. Don’t tease me, Ellen, that’s why, some of the time the KJV really is better. Not always, but sometimes.

  • Don Johnson

    The KJV had their own version of political correctness, but it was different back then so in some cases the translation is very accurate. All translation involves interpretation due to word choices made, but to ADD or SUBTRACT words from Scripture is not to be done. If you can do that, you can end up with anything.

  • Alan Paul

    Not sure I have heard anything more silly than to say a husband abuses his wife because she doesn’t listen to him. A husband abuses his wife because he is warped, twisted and sick. THis is a dangerous thing for this guy to say. All that being said, I can’t say that I am surprised… most people who want so badly for their view to be right are willing to say anything that will promote it.

  • Don Johnson

    On Junia, the Greek word is “en” which has a primary meaning of “within” so the ESV is translating AWAY from the primary meaning of the Greek. This is possible to do for a reason, but there is no textual reason to do that, except they do not believe Junia was an apostle for other reasons.

  • Ellen

    It would seem to me that context would indicate that even the KJV was speaking symbolically.

    You can have a hat on your head – how do you put a concept on your head?

  • Corrie

    Interesting. When I looked up 1 Cor. 11:10 and the Greek word for “power”, the first definition for that word (exousia) is this:

    “power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases; leave or permission”

    It could also mean a “sign of regal authority, a crown”.

    “The woman ought to have power on her head because of the angels.”

    Sue, do you have any opinions on what this particular phrase means and what it is alluding to?

    What is this power? Some say it is to be a sign of a husband’s authority over his wife. Does the text really say that?

    The word symbol looks to be added and not in the original text.

  • Corrie

    Sue,

    re: the “sons of God” claim.

    There was a theologian, I recently read, that claimed that there is only “sonship” and that we all become sons of God and he asserted that the Bible never mentions “children of God”. After looking into it, I found that the Bible most certainly does call us “children” and it does not teach that we all become literal male sons.

    Do you remember who that was? I wish I could remember because the claim was so out in left field and the person who made it is quite influentual.

  • Sue

    What is this power? Some say it is to be a sign of a husband’s authority over his wife. Does the text really say that?

    No, the text does not say that. It says “power on the head.”

    A few facts we do know is that slave women were not allowed to wear stoles. Stoles were a symbol of status.

    Exousia can mean a crown or symbol of power, but never a symbol of submission. That never once occurs in Greek literature, that exousia is a symbol of submission.

    Otherwise, no I can’t say exactly what is means.

  • Lydia

    “The woman ought to have power on her head because of the angels.”

    Sue, do you have any opinions on what this particular phrase means and what it is alluding to?”

    It is referring back to 1 Corin 6…where were are told we all believers will judge the angels…women believers, too!

    1 Corinthians 6:2-4 (New King James Version)

    2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    You can have a hat on your head – how do you put a concept on your head?

    It could mean

    1. a head covering of some kind, a symbol of status.

    2. permission or liberty to make decisions about your own head.

  • Sue

    There was a theologian, I recently read, that claimed that there is only “sonship” and that we all become sons of God and he asserted that the Bible never mentions “children of God”.

    That is so amazing because Luther’s Bible never had “sons” in it.

    Here is Romans 8:23

    Nicht allein aber sie, sondern auch wir selbst, die wir haben des Geistes Erstlinge, sehnen uns auch bei uns selbst nach der Kindschaft und warten auf unsers Leibes Erlösung.

    It is true that in Hebrew there was no word for children. There was only “sons” or “daughters.” So, generally when we read “children of Israel” that used the word for “sons” in the plural. The older translations always translated this word as “children” because generally that is what it meant.

    This is typical for Hebrew and Greek, that the masculine word stood for both male and female together. There was no third word.

    For example, in Hebrews 11:23,

    “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.”

    The word for “parents” is really the word “father” in the plural. But it means his mother and father. It would be ridiculous to suggest that Moses had two fathers.

    So, when you see “brothers” the same thing. There are famous brother-sister pairs who were called adelphoi. Cleopatra and Ptolemy, and Electra and Orestes. But we would not call Donny and Marie “brothers” in English.

    So, that is why it is more accurate to use the gender neutral terms like “parents” and “children” and “brothers and sisters.”

  • Corrie

    Lydia,

    That is interesting to link it back to 1 Cor. 6.

    We, as saints, both male and female, will be judging the world and the angels according to this verse. A woman should have power on her own head because of the angels. The Greek word for power does not mean “symbol of submission to authority”. It means power to choose, the power of rule or government, the power of judicial decisions.

    The more I look into all of this, the more I realize how much man’s own reasoning and will is foisted upon scripture. I suppose that makes me a woman who challenges a man’s authority to expect his will to be the one that rules? I hope this will not cause a violent riot to break out. 😉

    Also, in this discussion, I am seeing the comps doing the inferring and adding to scripture and the egals sticking as close to the original scripture as possible without adding or inferring. That is troubling.

    The Corinthians were guilty of teaching only half the truth and Paul clearly was correcting their misunderstanding about men and women.

    The word “saints” doesn’t include only males, does it? Nor does it mean that the “saints” are the men and the women will assist them with lemonade and cookies as the men judge the world and angels and the women assist them in their fruitful dominion mandate?

    Angels know that someday women will judge them, right?

  • Sue

    There was a theologian, I recently read, that claimed that there is only “sonship” and that we all become sons of God and he asserted that the Bible never mentions “children of God”. After looking into it, I found that the Bible most certainly does call us “children” and it does not teach that we all become literal male sons.

    Do you remember who that was? I wish I could remember because the claim was so out in left field and the person who made it is quite influentual.

    Maybe you are referring to Sproul?

    This is from an article called “Evangelical Lap Dogs”, by R. C. Sproul, which appeared in an excerpt from the November 2002 issue of Tabletalk:

    “Actually, the TNIV appears to be a move not toward greater accuracy but away from it. One example: In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.’ (Matt. 5:9). The TNIV changes sons to children. But the Greek word huios in its plural form means ‘sons,’ not ‘children. ‘My Latin Bible translates it ‘sons’ (filii). My German Bible, my Dutch Bible, and my French Bible translate it ‘sons.’ Likewise, every English Bible I own translates it ‘sons.’ Indeed, from the first century until today, the whole world has understood what the Greek says.”

    Of course, the Luther, Tyndale, KJV and many more Bibles had “children of God” in it. Don’t ask me why Sproul would not own one of those.

  • Ellen

    I would guess that it doesn’t mean the 2nd possibility – the preceding passage includes the concept of being “covered” and “uncovered”. I think I read somewhere that the Septuagint uses the same word in Esther 6 – the last time I looked at the issue.

    A symbol of status seems unlikely, given Paul’s teaching that women should adorn themselves not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire…status symbols didn’t seem to carry a lot of importance for Paul.

  • Ellen

    It means power to choose, the power of rule or government, the power of judicial decisions.

    Here’s a problem. In this passage it also says that men should not have their head covered.

    Are you saying that Paul is teaching feminist superiority?

  • Lydia

    It was a pretty big deal for women of the 1st Century to have this freedom to cover or not within the Body of Christ. It was a real cultural dilemma for them.

    It is referring to liberty not a real fancy headress. After all, she will judge the angels, too.

  • Ellen

    The status is that of a free, married woman. I think it is very possible that is what Paul meant – that or personal liberty.

    That seems a little strange…given that Scripture also tells us that we are not to discriminate among us and speaks of gold rings and status.

    If it refers to personal liberty, why cannot men have it?

  • Lydia

    “Here’s a problem. In this passage it also says that men should not have their head covered.

    Are you saying that Paul is teaching feminist superiority?”

    Absolutely not. The reason Paul talks about the shame of men covering is because Jewish men covered their heads in worship and prayer to show their guilt for sin before God. With Christ…that is no longer necessary and even an insult to the One who took away their sin. It sent the wrong message to those Jews not in the Body for Jewish Christian converted men to cover their heads in worship and prayer.

    But with women, the covering was cultural. A man could divorce his wife if she uncovered in public. A woman who was married to an unbeliever was in real danger of this. Some may have felt uncomfortable uncovering in front of men in the Body.

    The whole passage is about freedom in Christ but it is translated very badly. The verses about men’s hair is bizarrely translated.

    “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?”

    ?? How does NATURE teach us this since both men and women’s hair grows long if not cut? We also have examples of long hair in scripture. Even Paul grew his hair for a vow.

    But he is saying that a woman’s hair can be a covering. He sums it up nicely for those who think this is about authority over another instead of the cultural dilemma of headcoverings:

    “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”

  • Ellen

    It is referring to liberty not a real fancy headress. After all, she will judge the angels, too.

    Craig Keener (egalitarian) would disagree with you:

    “When Paul urged women in the Corinthian churches to cover their heads (the only place where the Bible teaches about this), he followed a custom prominent in many Eastern cultures of his day.13 Although women and men alike covered their heads for various reasons,14 married women specifically covered their heads to prevent men other than their husbands from lusting after their hair.15 A married woman who went out with her head uncovered was considered promiscuous and was to be divorced as an adulteress.16 Because of what head coverings symbolized in that culture, Paul asked the more liberated women to cover their heads so they would not scandalize the others. Among his arguments for head coverings is the fact God created Adam first; in the particular culture he addressed, this argument would make sense as an argument for women wearing head coverings.17”

  • Sue

    You can try all you want to make it logical, but what can I say.

    Some complementarian theologians say that the modern day equivalent of covering your head is a wedding ring. But then they do not teach that a man cannot wear a ring too.

    So, does a wedding ring symbolize submission, but only for a woman and not for a man?

    I do know a man who believed that. He would not wear a wedding ring himself, and would not allow his wife to wear any other ring but her wedding ring. But he wore a ring from his professional association to show that he belonged to it. At least he was consistent.

  • Lydia

    “If it refers to personal liberty, why cannot men have it?”

    Culturally, for the most part, they did. But women did not in this culture. Women were property of their husbands. And headcoverings were a cultural dilemma for new converts. Women could be in big trouble with unbelieving husbands or relatives for uncovering. After all, prostitutes uncovered in public.

    I have a friend who was a missionary to Afghanistan a few years back. She was amazed at how many women still covered when they did not have to. They felt uncomfortable after so many years with people looking at them. And in some cases, their husbands, fathers or brothers forbid them to uncover so they could not.

  • Lydia

    “Craig Keener (egalitarian) would disagree with you:”

    He is allowed. :o)

    But Craig is forgetting Paul’s last word on this topic:

    “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”

  • Sue

    There were many different cultures addressed in the epistles and many different reasons to wear head coverings. There is no one reason. There is no one interpretation for this chapter.

    Sometimes you really cannot know what something means. But that is no reason to just impose a meaning that does not fit what the original languages say.

  • Ellen

    Sorry I lost you.

    It’s a question. Corrie seems pretty sure that it is power

    Sue says that it’s not a symbol.

    I’m not the one who brought it up; it was brought up as an example of how the ESV translates it wrong. So, how do you translate it “right”?

  • Ellen

    On sons of God vs. children of God…

    If Greek is like Spanish, the plural (linguistically) is in the male form.

    chico – boy child
    chica – girl child
    chicos – group of children (either all boys or mixed boys and girls.

    tio – uncle
    tia – aunt
    tios – aunts and uncles.

    Linguistically the ESV is probably more accurate.

    Politically the TNIV is more correct.

    When we refer to “mankind”, we refer to both males and females. Same thing.

    I’ve also seen the point made (and do not remember where) that in the time that Scripture was written it was the sons that inherited. It was sonship that made us heirs, not daughtership, not childship.

    Yes, all recognize that it refers to both sexes – but it is being sons of God that makes us heirs.

    It may not seem fair…may not have been fair, but if that’s the way that it was, that could be why it was written that way.

  • Corrie

    “It’s a question. Corrie seems pretty sure that it is power”

    No, Ellen, I am pretty sure that the BIBLE uses the word power. I asked questions because I am not “pretty sure” of exactly what that power is referring to. All I know is what the Bible says and it says that a woman should have power on her head because of the angels. I am also pretty sure that the Bible does NOT say that a woman needs a “sign, symbol of authority” on her head because those words are not even there. They are added to the text.

    The word exousia carries with it the meaning of “liberty of action or authority as delegated power or unrestrained arbitrary power”.

    It seems to fit, especially when we take into account the whole context and how Paul tells them to “judge for themselves”. Men and women will judge the angels and the world. And the men and women of Corinth are told to judge for themselves concerning the head covering. They have delegated power from God to judge the world and the angels and they can judge for themselves concerning this issue.

    Personal liberty and self-government are the hallmarks of the Gospel. Through the Holy Spirit, alone, both are possible for the believer.

    But to say that I am “pretty sure” about this passage is not accurate.

    What do you think the word is? What does exousia mean? If the word is not power and if exousia doesn’t mean power then what is the word and what does it mean?

  • Corrie

    “I’ve also seen the point made (and do not remember where) that in the time that Scripture was written it was the sons that inherited. It was sonship that made us heirs, not daughtership, not childship.”

    That is not exactly true.

    Job, a righteous man, gave his daughters an inheritance along with their brothers.

    It was not God’s idea that only sons inherited. It was man’s idea and it is the evidence of the curse in action, imho.

    We are called “children” of God. Male and female He created them. It was Christ who made us heirs, not our gender. There is no male or female in Christ.

    I am a daughter to my father. If I am his heir, it is not sonship that causes me to be an heir because I am a daughter. It is the fact that I am his child.

  • Corrie

    Sue,

    I don’t know if it was Sproul. I do know that the writer specifically stated that the Bible does NOT mention children, only sons. That the Bible teaches only “sonship” and that there are no daughters or children, only sons.

  • Ellen

    Corrie, so you’re saying that a woman wears power on her head – like a hat? Since it cannot be a symbol?

    I’m not the one asserting that the ESV (and NASB and all the rest) are wrong…you all are.

    What I do know is that exousia is also translated “authority” (see 1 Cor 15:24 – it’s the “authority”, not the “power”)

    The questions raised was whether or not “symbol of” should be there.

    What does “power” look like?

    But I don’t have a problem with a physical head covering being a symbol. For power?

  • Ellen

    It was not God’s idea that only sons inherited. It was man’s idea and it is the evidence of the curse in action, imho.

    I am a daughter to my father. If I am his heir, it is not sonship that causes me to be an heir because I am a daughter. It is the fact that I am his child.

    This being the 21st century and all…

    The first sentence that I quoted of you seems to indicate that you realize that a couple of centuries ago there was a disparity between male and female heirs?

  • Corrie

    “So what do you three agree that this “covering” is?”

    Ellen,

    Paul said that it is a woman’s hair that is given to her covering.

    But, we have been talking about the scripture that tells us that a woman should have power on her head because of the angels. I do not fully understand what that means. I do know that the word “symbol” is not even there and it was added to the text.

    Since Paul clearly stated that a woman’s hair is her covering, he is saying there is no need for another cloth covering. So, I don’t believe that the term “power” is referring to some extra cloth covering.

    Also, the statement about power on her head comes before Paul delivers home his winning argument.

    HOWEVER….BUT…..woman is not independent of man and man is not independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.

    Paul set up his argument by repeating the half-truths that the Corinthians believed about women and then he delivered the whole message that cleared up their misconceptions.

    I think it is significant that the power statement comes BEFORE Paul drives home his point that everything comes from God and that neither gender is independent of the other.

    I think Sue summed up my feeling on this issue when she said this:

    “Sometimes you really cannot know what something means. But that is no reason to just impose a meaning that does not fit what the original languages say.”

    I have been praying for years to have the wisdom to understand exactly what Paul is talking about. I will continue to pray but it looks like most scholars just do not understand this passage, so an amateur like me really has no hope. 🙂

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    Job lived in the 21st century? Job gave his daughters an inheritance along with their brothers. That means that giving an inheritance to daughters was NOT universally accepted nor practiced in Bible times.

    The 21st century has nothing to do with it at all.

    Also, the only way I receive an inheritance is through Christ as a child (son or daughter) of God.

    Again, gender has NOTHING to do with receiving an inheritance and it never has. Job is a good example of this fact.

  • Ellen

    But, we have been talking about the scripture that tells us that a woman should have power on her head because of the angels. I do not fully understand what that means. I do know that the word “symbol” is not even there and it was added to the text.

    I would remind you that the word “Trinity” is also not even there.

    I would again also point to Keener, who (as a scholar) has written about the physical head covering that was a cultural symbol. (see quote above)

  • Kathy

    ‘What is this power? Some say it is to be a sign of a husband’s authority over his wife. Does the text really say that?’

    It refers back to what Paul had previously said about judging the angels.

    1 Corinthians 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?

  • Ellen

    Job lived in the 21st century?
    I am so sorry!

    I thought that when you said, “I am a daughter to my father. If I am his heir, it is not sonship that causes me to be an heir because I am a daughter. It is the fact that I am his child. I assumed that you would realize that I was writing about well…you.

  • Ellen

    Again, gender has NOTHING to do with receiving an inheritance and it never has. Job is a good example of this fact.

    It was not God’s idea that only sons inherited. It was man’s idea and it is the evidence of the curse in action, imho.

    You are saying that evidence of the curse in action is that man decided that only males inherited, but that gender has nothing to do with inheritance and never has.

  • Kathy

    ‘What is this power? Some say it is to be a sign of a husband’s authority over his wife. Does the text really say that?’
    So, Paul’s saying that she has the power to decide for herself whether or not she should wear a head covering, as she’s going to be judging the angels.

    There could be bad consequences for her, depending on the individual wife, if she did or did not cover, so Paul gave power to the woman to decide.

  • Sue

    Hi Denny,

    We have been yakking about the imponderables for the last few hours. However, there are 11 blogs that have announced something along these lines.

    Southern Baptist Scholar Links Spouse Abuse to Wives’ Refusal to Submit to Their Husbands

    I think it has hit all the major feeds.

    It is time to pull out of all teaching that says there is an authority-submission relationship in creation. It is based on flimsy interpretation pf Gen. 1-3, and leads to the egregious error that the husbands abuse is a response to a wifes resistance to his authority.

  • Corrie

    No, that power is not a hat. A woman is not in need of another covering since Paul tells us she already has a covering- her hair.

    That power is something else. Not a symbol. Not a hat. Not a token. There is no need for that since she already has a covering.

    This passage is a blend of literal and figurative. I am thinking that this power is referring to something the woman already possesses because of who she is in Christ and since she is going to one day judge the world and judge the angels.

    As believers and children of God we do have authority and we are also given the freedom of liberty and freedom from the bondage of manmade doctrines being taught as the precepts of God.

    I just do not know what exactly this power is. I am more sure of what it is not than what it is based on the context, the place that it appears in Paul’s argument and taking in the whole context of the letter to the Corinthians.

    I need to read through the whole letter a few more times to get a better grasp of what Paul is talking about in that chapter.

  • Ellen

    That power is something else. Not a symbol. Not a hat. Not a token. There is no need for that since she already has a covering.

    You should probably let Keener know.

  • Corrie

    “Corrie: It was not God’s idea that only sons inherited. It was man’s idea and it is the evidence of the curse in action, imho.

    Ellen: You are saying that evidence of the curse in action is that man decided that only males inherited, but that gender has nothing to do with inheritance and never has.”

    Ellen,

    You lost me.

    Exploiting women and denying them their rightful inheritance because they are viewed as property and lesser than men is the curse in action.

    Gender has NOTHING to do with inheritance in God’s kingdom and it never has.

    I am a child of God and that gives me an inheritance. I am a woman. How does being male figure into this equation concerning my inheritance as a woman?

  • Ellen

    I am a child of God and that gives me an inheritance. I am a woman. How does being male figure into this equation concerning my inheritance as a woman?

    IN THAT TIME the people Paul was writing to would have understood. You are correct, male or female has nothing to do with inheritance…’

    I believe, though, that a first century congregation would have understood the differences in inheritances between most sons and daughters.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    I don’t understand your cryptic comments nor do I know who Keener is and I don’t know why Keener is important when it comes to my understanding of headcoverings.

    I take it he teaches that it is a literal piece of fabric that makes a woman acceptable to come into worship with God?

    I have been honest and I do believe, that after years of study, I have come to the conclusion that Paul stated that a woman’s hair is her covering and that if anyone wants to be contentious about it (a piece of cloth), there is no such custom.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    The entire reformation happened without anybody caring if the Bible said “sons” or “children.” It isn’t that important. Why do people make such a big deal out of these things?

  • Ellen

    I don’t understand your cryptic comments nor do I know who Keener is and I don’t know why Keener is important when it comes to my understanding of headcoverings.

    Craig Keener is an egalitarian, a New Testament scholar, I linked to his biography.

    Keener is especially known for his work as a New Testament scholar on Bible background (commentaries on the New Testament in its early Jewish and Greco-Roman settings). His popular-level IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament has sold over 400,000 copies.

    And I quoted him in comment #277, including “Because of what head coverings symbolized in that culture, Paul asked the more liberated women to cover their heads so they would not scandalize the others” – making them both a symbol and a physical head covering.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    “I believe, though, that a first century congregation would have understood the differences in inheritances between most sons and daughters.”

    Truly, I have no idea what you are saying. You seem to be arguing with me concerning things that I was not arguing.

    My original statement was concerning a theologian who claimed that God has no daughters, only sons. I understand why the various translations used the term “sons” to refer to male and female children but this was understood to be inclusive language. I am not arguing with the term “sons”. I am arguing with the assertion that God doesn’t have daughters and that He only has sons.

    I am not arguing about what a first century congregation believes about inheritance. I don’t even know what congregation you are referring to nor do I know what scripture you are referring to.

    The Bible uses “children” several times. This theologian claimed that the Bible never used the term “children” and it only used the term “sons”. He was wrong. It was the translation that used “sons” but the original language was not the word for son but for children.

    If I can remember where I posted about this elsewhere, I will let you know. I am pretty sure I posted about this on the True Womanhood blog a few months back.

  • Ellen

    A quote would be nice.

    I don’t doubt that (linguistically) the male plural is more accurate. And that (politically) a gender-neutral plural is more correct.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    Egalitarians do not all have to agree with each other. And complementarians don’t all agree on exegesis either. I will not pretend that there is any certainty about these things.

  • Ellen

    <Ellen,

    The entire reformation happened without anybody caring if the Bible said “sons” or “children.” It isn’t that important. Why do people make such a big deal out of these things?

    Because we insist on gender-neutral, politically correct language.

  • Sue

    I don’t doubt that (linguistically) the male plural is more accurate. And that (politically) a gender-neutral plural is more correct.

    Ellen,

    Are you really trying to tell me that we should say that Moses “fathers” decided to hide him in the bullrushes. Do you really think that it means “his two Dads,” or his Mom and Dad.

    If you want a Bible about Moses and his two Dads, a politically correct Bible like that – great.

  • Ellen

    Sue, you know languages better than I do…what is the answer.

    In Spanish, mixed gender plurals are most often in the masculine.

    How is it in Greek?

    You’re really stretching.

  • Ellen

    Are Donny and Marie “brothers” or “brother and sister?”

    In English? We have a gender-neutral term. “siblings”.

    In Spanish, yes, they would be “hermanos” – or if you wanted to get wordy, “hermanos y hermanas”.

    But you this well. Rabbit trail.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    In English we have “mother” “father” and “parents” but in Hebrew and Greek there was only “mother” and “father” and so the word for “father” was used as well to mean “parents.” So the parents of Moses would be called his “father” plural. But, of course, it really meant what we mean by “parents.” So to make some sense out of it, you have to translate “parents.”

    The same thing with “brother” and “sister” For example, a brother and sister would be called adelphoi. But, we can’t call a brother and sister “brothers” in English, can we?

    I think that if we retain the masculine form of the Greek or Hebrew, it gives the wrong meaning. It simply loses the meaning of the original.

  • Sue

    Yes, ultimately gender language is a rabbit trail. You have to stick with communicating meaning. You cannot call a Spanish family of brothers and sisters all “brothers” just because they call themselves hermanos can you?

    My only request is that CBMW take down the statement of concern and all the other nonsense against the TNIV.

  • Ellen

    As I said before,

    linguistically, the male plural is most likely more accurate (faithful to the language)…politically, the gender-neutral plural is more correct (and faithful to the intent). Both could be seen as “right”.

    For most of human history, “mankind” has been understood to mean both men and women. I see little difference here, except in our drive to be politically correct.

  • Bonnie

    Madame,

    [Why the assumption that if someone is submitting, someone else (the one to whom they are submitting) is leading?]

    In a sense, it’s obvious. But not in the way Complementarians teach it. I’ll keep saying,give me the place where God commands men to lead, rule, exercise authority over wives.

    I don’t believe it is always obvious. For example, in I Peter 3:1, wives are instructed to submit (hupotasso) even to husbands that “are not persuaded by” the Word (logos). I would think that such a husband would be less likely than a husband who was persuaded by the Word to lead well, or lead at all…yet his wife is still instructed to submit to him. Submission is an attitude of humility and service. If I serve someone a glass of water, I am not submitting to their lead, but to their need of either hospitality or refreshment (or both).

  • Ellen

    You cannot call a Spanish family of brothers and sisters all “brothers” just because they call themselves hermanos can you?

    I have a Spanish speaking student who refers to his rather large Mexican Catholic family has his “hermanos”.

  • Sue

    For most of human history, “mankind” has been understood to mean both men and women.

    That is just silly. English is a relatively modern language. For most of human history mankind was known as adam or anthropos.

    Did you know that there are 30,000 girls in the Hebrew Bible who are called adam all by themselves. Would we call young girls “men” in English.

    The Bible would be complete nonsense if you had to use the masculine form all the time.

  • Ellen

    So, you do think Moses had two Dads. Are you serious?

    You’ve already said, “Hebrew and Greek there was only “mother” and “father” and so the word for “father” was used as well to mean “parents.”

    Answer your own question.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    <i<I have a Spanish speaking student who refers to his rather large Mexican Catholic family has his “hermanos”.

    That is exactly my point. You could not possibly translate this into English as “brothers” could you, unless they were all male.

  • Ellen

    For most of human history, “mankind” has been understood to mean both men and women.

    That is just silly. English is a relatively modern language. For most of human history mankind was known as adam or anthropos.

    anthropos…male. Thank you.

    Are you finished with the rabbit trail?

    Goodnight.

  • Ellen

    Read the whole comment – including your question, which you had already answered. You already know the answer.

    I’m not huffy…I merely realize that you can answer the question as well as I can.

  • Sue

    Good night, Ellen. 🙂 I have lost track. It doesn’t matter.

    There should be room for gender accurate language so readers could know who is being referred to. There should be room for both the ESV and the TNIV, and the KJV, and Luther and so on.

  • Greg Anderson

    Don Johnson #185 – Good observation Don! Consider its analogue in plane geometry: For any straight line and any 2 points not on the line, a line drawn through the 2 points is parallel to the given line if and only if the 2 points are equidistant from, and on the same side of the given line. In the case of the 2 teshuqa(s) Gen. 3:16 & Gen. 4:7, parallelism fails for precisely the reason(s) you have shown. (in a Euclidean sense anyway)

    Sue #’s 238 & 239 – I checked the ESV alternate rendering of Gen. 3:16 and sho’nuff it says against, which would indeed make it a new and novel rendering. Not even Bullinger’s AV notes hint at against for a rendering. Sue, Denny, or anybody here with the expertise, was Isaiah 7:14 messed with at one time in order to negate the prophecy of Jesus’ virgin birth? I have heard that the Septuagint renders the Hebrew word almah as parthenos for virgin and that it got reworked later on to mean just “young woman” with no special appeal to virginity.

  • Don Johnson

    Ellen picked up on the point that a man is not allowed to cover his head while a woman has a choice (according to the literal Greek). She asked what this mean for equality, as the man is less free than the woman. All this is true, in the 1st century a man WAS less free than a woman in church in this area. The reason is cultural, as wearing a headcovering was speaking a language, but it meant different things for men and women.

    Jews wore headcoverings to show they were sinners in need of atonement. However, this contradicts Jesus once and for all atonement.

    Married women wore headcoverings in public to indicate they were married. A woman showing her long hair in public was considered a sexual come on and adultery was just assumed, no further evidence was needed AND the woman lost her dowry. In a private setting a married woman would often remove her head covering.

    The question is what is church, which is a semi-public, semi-private setting, after all you need to let people you do not know well if at all into church, set in a home. Paul addresses the conundrum brilliantly, he forbids men from wearing headcoverings and allows women to choose, in effect choosing which meaning she wants; if she goes without, she is denying the Jewish meaning and if she puts it on, she cannot be accused of impropriety if a strange man looks at her. But it is all done for the glory of God in both cases.

    P.S. On what angelos means, it might be angles which women are to judge, but it also might mean the Roman state spies (called messengers or angelos) that were sent into meetings to see if sedition or lawlessness was being fomented, so it could be nipped in the bud. This is simply too little context to be sure which is meant, as I see it.

  • Don Johnson

    In Greek and Hebrew, the masculine plural form is used when a group is all males and down to when the group includes 1 male with all the rest being females. This is just the way it is, so it is NOT the case that paternes always means fathers, it sometimes means parents and a translator is supposed to make a judgement call. But it is simply WRONG for the CBMW people to claim that TNIV is “changing brothers into children” etc., what they are doing is making a judgement call as to the original intent and in my opinion a very good call in most cases.

  • Paula

    Greg, for what it’s worth, there’s an article about the kind of tampering you mentioned Here. Basically, the same rabbis who would damage the living Word were not above also doing damage to the written Word, and those pesky Christians were actually proving Him to be the Messiah from their scriptures! This had to be stopped at all costs.

    Ironically, today it is Christians tampering with the Word by inserting their agendas. Some translations have a male bias, others a Calvinist bias, still others a Universalist bias. And of course we have the little known case of the UBS committees that did a 50-year “gender bender” on Junia: see Here. Excerpt:

    Moreover, in the 1998 Jubilee N-A and the 1998 printing of UBS, where Ἰουνίαν properly but inexplicably appeared in the text, the clearly masculine form Ὶουνιᾶν is not even in the apparatus, quite the contrary of what normally happens when a critical edition undergoes a change in its text: one reading moves up to the text as another moves down to the apparatus. In this case, however, suddenly the emperor has no clothes!

    Apparently this masculine form Ὶουνιᾶν, disappears altogether from the textual scene! Of course, it should disappear, even though, as we shall discover in a moment, the clearly masculine form had been a Nestle fixture for three-quarters of a century and a UBS constant since the first edition in 1966. Yet in a flash it is gone, and neither the Jubilee Edition nor the 1998 volumes of N-A and UBS contains a list of changes made in its text as it moved through several printings between the 1993 and the 1998 volumes of N-A and UBS, nor is the reason for the change otherwise transparent.

    One astounding fact (and disturbing, if one thinks about its implications) requires emphasis again about the UBS and the Nestle-Aland editions: to the best of my knowledge, never was the definitely masculine form of Ὶουνιαν (namely Ὶουνιᾶν), either when it was designated as the text or after it had been replaced in the text by the Ἰουνίαν reading, accompanied by any supporting manuscript or other evidence (except when UBS listed the support of eight early unaccented majuscules, which of course were impotent for determining accentuation.)

    In fact, for the greater part of four centuries, as far as I can determine, no apparatus in a Greek New Testament cited Ὶουνιᾶν as a variant reading to the Ἰουνίαν in the text – not until Weymouth in 1892 (who cites Alford’s text – though neither in Alford nor Weymouth is any munuscript attestation provided) – and never again after that. The reason is simple enough: no such accented form was to be found in any manuscript or anywhere else. Moreover, when Ὶουνιᾶν was interpolated into the New Testament text and became a regular feature of the post-1927 Nestle and Nestle-Aland editions and all of the UBS editions until 1998, no viable manuscript support could be garnered for there was none. (page 47)

    (see also This Article)

  • Ellen

    Let me ask a question. Does anybody here really and </honestly believe that the ESV means to exclude women from salvation?

    Or that Bruce Ward really and </honestly approves of abuse toward women?

  • madame

    Ellen,
    or any other Complementarian.

    Could you answer the question I made in comment 235?
    Thanks!

    Bonnie,
    Thanks for reply 325. I agree. Submission is not always to leadership.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    You write,

    Let me ask a question. Does anybody here really and </honestly believe that the ESV means to exclude women from salvation?

    Nobody has said that or implied that or gotten anywhere close.

    My appeal is that the CBMW would take down the statement of concern against the TNIV. It is shameful for Christians to be involved in something like that and it is not truthful.

    The TNIV represents a perfectly legitimate way to translate gender language. The ESV, when necessary does the same thing. The statement of concern is completely illogical.

    The ESV translates anthropos which means “human” or “person” (plural) as “men” in 2 Tim. 2:2. Other than a few things like that, done to keep women from “teaching” it is, more or less, one way to translate the Bible.

    Or that Bruce Ward really and </honestly approves of abuse toward women?

    Nobody has said that either. However, he has said

    women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them;

    and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged

    This is core, foundational teaching of the CBMW. It is wrong and it needs to be stopped.

  • Ellen

    Is the man given authority over his wife, directly from God, yes or no?

    (Turnabout’s fair play, right? I just asked a question…now I’m answering one that I missed earlier)

    Directly? No. (Just as we do not read the word “Trinity” directly, we believe the doctrine just the same)

    Indirectly? Absolutely.

    God tells us from the beginning that 1) is is not good for man to be alone SO God created a help.

    I know the argument that God is also described as a “help” – but…what is God “job description”? Why does God exist? Why does woman exist?

    The woman was created to be the man’s companion and helper. So, from the very beginning, we are told that 1) men and women are created differently and 2) men and women have different functions.

    We have the models given to us by God.

    The Kingdom of God: We have the “family” of believers, the leader of which is “our Father in heaven.

    We have the example of the Old Testament church: there were no priestesses.

    We have Christ’s ministry on earth: led by Christ, with His apostles (all male), with the vital support and help of women.

    We have the early church: again led by the apostles (the twelve – or 13) – again all male.

    We have the model given to us in Scripture: the elders of the church being husbands of one wife.

    Then we have the “little church”, as I’ve heard the home called. If the Father leads the family of God, if men led the people of Israel, if men led the ministry of Christ, if men led the apostolic church, if men led the early church…there’s a Scriptural pattern for men in the leadership of the church.

    If we can accept that there is a Scriptural pattern for men in the leadership of the church, then it follows…when Scripture talks about the qualifications of elder: HE must be the husband of one wife (and I don’t believe that lesbians with wives were appointed as elders) and He must manage his own household well…for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?

    I see that leading a household well is a qualification for leading a church well.

    Of course egalitarians will not see that.

  • Sue

    HE must be the husband of one wife

    I guess that would exclude Paul and all the leaders of the Catholic church.

    I see that leading a household well is a qualification for leading a church well.

    Women are clearly told to lead the household also, in 1 Tim. 5:14.

    Lydia lead her household, and Chloe and Nympha.

  • Molly

    For example, in I Peter 3:1, wives are instructed to submit (hupotasso) even to husbands that “are not persuaded by” the Word (logos). I would think that such a husband would be less likely than a husband who was persuaded by the Word to lead well, or lead at all…yet his wife is still instructed to submit to him.

    Bonnie, that interpretation assumes that Peter’s instructions to wives had only to do with spiritual-law matters (that wifely submission is a law of God) and not with practical matters.

    However, practically, Peter’s instructions make a good deal of sense.

    By law, women were to obey their husbands. Just as by law, slaves had to obey their masters.

    If we interpret Peter as giving “spiritual law” commands only, then we are negating the whole cultural backdrop. This is, I believe, a mistake. CBMW, the patriarchy camp, etc, get themselves into the interpretational mess they do because they often negate the cultural backdrop and attempt to make it seem as if the author of the text is writing “spiritual-law-for-all-time” commands out of what were simply God-breathed letters to people living 2,000 years ago who dealt with very real issues and very real concerns.

    Of particular concern to women would be those who were following Christ while having husbands (who were their masters in this culture) who thought that following Christ was a crime punishable by death. Hence we have Peter’s encouragement to those women in 1 Peter 3.

    (I Peter 3 was a huge foundational piece in my complementarian framework, and so when I realized the whole cultural backdrop behind it, it became quite a precious text to me, particularly 3:7’s admonishment to Christian men, which I wish the comps would pay more attention to-lol).

  • Ellen

    Molly, what other instructions to the early Christians were cultural and can be done away with today?

    There are a couple that I can think of that would make my next date a lot more interesting.

  • Molly

    Ellen,
    Actually, I’m just arguing for interpretational consistancy. If you say that dumping “literal-for-all-time” assumption is a slippery slope, then we need to get literal about a LOT of things. Like, say, the holy kiss (which believers are explicity commanded to practice 5-6 times in the NT). See, your date can get real interesting either way. 🙂

    I’m advocating sound scholarship, that’s all. Sound scholarship does not assume “eternal-for-all-time” command any more than it assumes “culturally-relevent-instructions, not-for-all-time.”

    Sound scholarship considers, thinks, weighs, and plays devil’s advocate on itself.

  • Sue

    It’s like realizing that authenteo actually does have a meaning and that meaning is not “to exercise proper church leadership.” It means to “dominate.”

    Scholarship is intended to be used.

  • Don Johnson

    We have the example of women prophets and even a woman judge. And in the new covenant, every believer is a priest. The reason for the male exclusivity in the Mosaic covenant is not given, but also priests could not be physically damaged, is this true today? Why try to make one exclusion carry over, this raises the possibility of being a Judaizer.

    God the Father is NEVER said to have male genitals, but is said to have a womb and breasts, so this is very different than any father on earth.

    All the 12 were male, they needed to map to the 12 tribes. But there were female disciples and later a female apostle and deacon.

    The term often translated as “husband of one wife” actually is an idiom which means “faithful spouse”. So the requirement is for IF one is a spouse to be faithful.

    The parents are to be partners in leading the home. This carries over to the church as leading your household well is a qualification, both men and women can do this. This is explicit for a woman in 1 Tim 5:14 but some translations obscure this, but the word is oikodespoteo, where oiko means home and despoteo is where we get the word despot, which means leader.

  • Ellen

    Or that Bruce Ward really and <honestly approves of abuse toward women?

    Nobody has said that either. However, he has said…

    So this entire thing is about shouting down complementarianism. Ware makes a handy target just now.

  • Sue

    Actually, if you look up oikodespoteo, the lexicon says “to be the head of the house.” it is used that way throughout the gospels for the householder or owner of a house.

    So, the wife is to have that role. It makes sense that if the wife stays home, she is the “head of the house.” I wish we really did have a literal Bible.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    Or that Bruce Ward really and <honestly approves of abuse toward women?

    Nobody has said that either. However, he has said…

    So this entire thing is about shouting down complementarianism. Ware makes a handy target just now.

    What Ware said is wrong and unbiblical. It is dangerous because it is used as justification by an abusive husband, and it causes women to think that by submitting they can reduce the abuse and change their husband’s behaviour. This is false. Submission reinforces abuse.

    Do you want to tell a woman to her face, who has suffered abuse, that she was not submissive enough. That she rebeled. Is that what you want.

    Do you want to say anything at all that would increase a woman’s exposure to criminal assault?

  • Ellen

    Do you want to tell a woman to her face, who has suffered abuse, that she was not submissive enough. That she rebeled. Is that what you want.

    Do you want to say anything at all that would increase a woman’s exposure to criminal assault?

    Straw man…because you know well that CBMW has an article on their website condemning abuse. Abuse is sin. Complementarianism is not sin.

  • Sue

    No, it is not a strawman. This is a dangerous teaching that entails a risk to some people of extending the suffering of criminal abuse. Did Ware say “oh, and by the way, read the fine print. This may be dangerous to your health?”

    In the interests of helping women escape abuse, I would like to see the end of this teaching which is not scriptural in the first place.

  • Ellen

    Strawman…making an argument against something that was not said.

    Nobody said that complementarians teach that abuse is acceptable.

    Arguing that the teaching should be done away with on the grounds of abuse is a straw man.

    In the interests of helping women escape abuse, I would like to see the end of this teaching which is not scriptural in the first place.</i.

    “…you would like to see a segment of Christianity silenced and see the end to a teaching that you do not agree with.

    There are those who disagree with you.

  • Ellen

    Sorry…disagree about the “teaching being Scriptural” part, not about the helping women escape abuse part.

    Abuse is sin and should be condemned as such. Complementarianism is not sin. (copy and paste as necessary)

  • Sue

    Ware has changed the words of scripture for Gen. 3:16. All arguments that women are subordinate in creation are simple interpretation and were not held by the church fathers, who taught that women were subordinated by the fall.

    I make the argument that Ware said,

    women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them;

    and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged,

    This is simply dangerous.

  • Don Johnson

    What is termed by some as complementarianism, by which they mean masculism or patriarchy but did not want to use these words and so picked a word ala Orwell’s doublespeak, is a form of sanctified sin, IMO. But this is next to impossible to see if you believe in it. It is similar to being a slaveholder, one cannot see that slavery itself is wrong.

  • Don Johnson

    By sin I mean missing the mark, that is, not aiming for God’s best. Instead they entrench and justify, when repentence is called for,

  • Sue

    Thank you, Don. Some women experience it as unsanctified sin.

    There is absolutely no connection between sexual complementarity and complementarianism, which is ALL about teaching that marriage is an authority-submission relationship.

  • Don Johnson

    Non-egals tend to infantilize the wife, she is not a fully functioning adult, she is a sub-male, somewhere between kids and males. Some women might even want this in order to duck full responsibility, but an adult is supposed to be fully responsible.

    But for a man to be domineering is a sin, a theory is not a sin, but actions based on that theory certainly can be. It comes to do when can a wife say NO and what can the husband do about it if she does? My claim is she can ALWAYS say NO and the husband must accept it.

  • Sue

    The problem is that an abusive husband escalates the demands. At first it is just, “get my breakfast” and then “have my breakfast ready before I enter the kitchen” and then “why did you buy this (less expensive brand of) orange juice?” and then he just knocks the juice on the floor and if the wife apologizes, because an apology on her part is her admission of her sin, he is now justified in punishing her by walking out and leaving the broken glass and orange juice all over the kitchen floor for her to clean up before the children need breakfast, 5 minutes later.

    Try living with that for 50 years!

  • Lydia

    “women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them;

    and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged”

    Another reason this teaching is so dangerous is because Ware is giving the husband the right to determine when and if the wife is unsubmissive. And since unsubmissivness by the wife is sin in Ware’s eyes…he is teaching, in effect, that the husband can determine what is sin when it comes to his wife.

  • Don Johnson

    The way I would word it is non-egals that are very mature in a Christian sense have an almost egalitarian marriage. The danger is that many believers are NOT mature for various reasons and given a non-egal message to these is reckless.

  • Sue

    abuse can be dangerous to your health. Complementarianism is not sin.

    NO, abuse IS dangerous to your health. Let’s get this straight. Being hit, being deprived of any need, being restricted in your access and egress of your own home is by definition, dangerous to your health.

    Anything that justifies, or can be used to justify abuse, is extremely dangerous.

  • Sue

    I agree, Don, that many complementarians have a somewhat egalitarian marriage relationship. They adjust and submit to each other for the sake of love and mutual happiness.

    This message is dangerous to others who do not treat each other with love and respect.

  • Lydia

    Don, our churches are full of the unregenerate. And when Ware teaches a man that he has the power and authority to determine when his wife is sinning, it becomes very dangerous indeed. Ware teaches this by saying that the wife is being unsubmissive. Who determines this? The husband, of course.

    The husband gets in the way of the Holy Spirit. I just pray that we stop all the comp conferences, books, seminars, etc. and focus on what it is to be saved. Truly saved. Focus on what happened on the Cross and to examine ourselves if we are in the faith. How about a conference on the Beatitudes! They are a far cry from wanting power and authority over another person.

  • Ellen

    What we have here is the same-old-same-old “does the Bible really say” complementarian vs. egalitarian debate.

    It’s not going to be solved here today.

  • Molly

    Ellen, Denny, and others,

    Do you believe what Ware said about the salvation of women?

    This, in my opinion, is HUGE, the sola fide for men but not for women. I don’t understand why Ware’s speech is being hailed as “biblical” when it denies women salvation by faith alone. Christ’s work on the cross was enough for men but not for women? I cannot understand why this is being accepted instead of denounced.

  • Sue

    Complementarianism is not sin.

    Tobacco is not sin either. I still don’t smoke it.

    How about a conference on the Beatitudes!

    Great idea.

  • Ellen

    I just pray that we stop all the comp conferences, books, seminars, etc. and focus on what it is to be saved.

    There you go…it’s all about silencing those who do not agree.

  • Ellen

    Complementarianism is not sin.

    Tobacco is not sin either. I still don’t smoke it.

    So don’t do complementarianism.

    Tobacco is legal (and I enjoy a cigar now and again)

  • Corrie

    “I just pray that we stop all the comp conferences, books, seminars, etc. and focus on what it is to be saved.

    There you go…it’s all about silencing those who do not agree.”

    Actually, it is about going back to basics and going back to the word of God instead of gobbling up what mere men say the word of God says. It is about being a Berean.

  • Sue

    Molly,

    This teaching of childbearing has also infiltrated the scriptures. For example, the NET Bible notes say,

    This verse is notoriously difficult to interpret, …….

    (5) “It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood” (Moo, 71). In this view τεκνογονία is seen as a synecdoche in which child-rearing and other activities of motherhood are involved. Thus, one evidence (though clearly not an essential evidence) of a woman’s salvation may be seen in her decision to function in this role. (

    6) The verse may point to some sort of proverbial expression now lost, in which “saved” means “delivered” and in which this deliverance was from some of the devastating effects of the role reversal that took place in Eden. The idea of childbearing, then, is a metonymy of part for the whole that encompasses the woman’s submission again to the leadership of the man, though it has no specific soteriological import (but it certainly would have to do with the outworking of redemption).

    This is nuanced a bit but the message is there. It is all about the submission to the male.

  • Lydia

    I just pray that we stop all the comp conferences, books, seminars, etc. and focus on what it is to be saved.

    There you go…it’s all about silencing those who do not agree.”

    Oh, I did not mean to communicate that at all! What I meant to communicate was the fact that this secondary doctrine is being put in a primary position and Ware, within the SBC, understands that our churches are filled with the unregenerate. (We just passed a resolution on this at our annual conference…it is a huge problem and everyone knows it)

    So, why not channel the time and energy these scholars/preachers have into a focus on the saving power of the primary Gospel?

  • Ellen

    Actually, it is about going back to basics and going back to the word of God instead of gobbling up what mere men say the word of God says. It is about being a Berean.

    And complementarians believe that they are.

    Lydia says, “I just pray that we stop all the comp conferences, books, seminars, etc. and focus on what it is to be saved.

    …I would like to see the end of this teaching…

    Corrie, if you think this is about studying Scripture and not about silencing complementarians, read the above quotes.

  • Ellen

    What I meant to communicate was the fact that this secondary doctrine is being put in a primary position and Ware, within the SBC, understands that our churches are filled with the unregenerate.

    I believe that if you take a look at sermon topics at any given complementarian church, sermons on gender-roles will be in the minority.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    So don’t do complementarianism.

    Tobacco is legal (and I enjoy a cigar now and again)

    Who would go to an abused woman married to an abusive man and taunt her with these words?

    “So don’t do complementarianism.”

    As if she has a choice! This is callous.

  • Ellen

    Who would go to an abused woman married to an abusive man and taunt her with these words?

    Please supply a quote from CBMW or any other complementarian taunting an abused woman so. I was speaking directly to you…you do have a choice and you chose.

    Please supply a quote.

  • Sue

    if you think this is about studying Scripture and not about silencing complementarians, read the above quotes.

    I seek to engage complementarians on the word of God, all the time. They censure the TNIV, they refuse to admit the plain reading of scripture, the only allowable readings.

    Why do they not engage?

  • Ellen

    You said, <I seek to engage complementarians on the word of God, all the time.

    you want to see them silenced:

    …I would like to see the end of this teaching…

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    Does anybody here really and </honestly believe…that Bruce Ward really and </honestly approves of abuse toward women?

    It depends on what kind of abuse you are talking about. I believe that Ward promotes male narcissism and exploitation of the wife, as I have said. This exploitation is a subtle form of abuse. He promotes a double standard between husband and wife and suggests that the husband-wife relationship is about a husband’s will having more credence than his wife’s. He claims that a wife who wishes her will to have credence as well is sinning, whereas a husband wishing his to have credence over hers isn’t. He erroneously equates a husband’s authority with his will.

    You have not engaged with any of this in your comments.

    What is the pattern in Scripture of leadership in the church?

    I would say it has to do with qualification and calling. Godly leaders in Scripture are those who are humble yet qualified, with abilities, spiritual gifting, and special anointing — things we would identify with “calling.” These are also qualifications of godly servants.

    Another note about leadership: I think the point of Jesus’ and Paul’s spiritual leadership wasn’t that they dictate what the rest of us are to follow as underlings, but that we do as they did. They set the example for us to copy and exhorted us (by extension, through Scripture) to a life of faith in the unity of the Holy Spirit, as in Romans 12.

  • Lydia

    Ellen, I hate censorship on doctrinal debate. What I said in response to you was this:

    Oh, I did not mean to communicate that at all! What I meant to communicate was the fact that this secondary doctrine is being put in a primary position and Ware, within the SBC, understands that our churches are filled with the unregenerate. (We just passed a resolution on this at our annual conference…it is a huge problem and everyone knows it)

    So, why not channel the time and energy these scholars/preachers have into a focus on the saving power of the primary Gospel?

  • Sue

    A few people have written to say that they have been moderated off.

    I really appreciate that he no longer moderates me. Maybe he just can’t decide what to do.

    If I were him I might close this thread and go back to the authenteo post and try to respond to that issue.

    However, now maybe all your comments will go through

  • Lydia

    I want to thank Denny for allowing this debate. I consider complementarians my brothers and sisters in Christ.

    Blessings to you all.

  • Bonnie

    Molly,

    Bonnie, that interpretation assumes that Peter’s instructions to wives had only to do with spiritual-law matters (that wifely submission is a law of God) and not with practical matters.

    I appreciate your point. Yet I don’t believe that spiritual-law matters are divorced from practical matters (I’m not a gnostic 😉 ), nor do I believe we should ignore cultural considerations to which Peter wrote.

    I think that, no matter what the cultural conditions, the human condition is that a husband’s “disobedience” (or lack of being persuaded, as some translations read) will always be dangerous in some way to his wife. But I see the point of that passage as being submission as Christ submitted under unjust treatment (ch. 2) so that the disobedient husband may be won over, i.e., by his wife’s pure (chaste) and respectful behavior.

  • Corrie

    “I agree, Don, that many complementarians have a somewhat egalitarian marriage relationship. They adjust and submit to each other for the sake of love and mutual happiness.”

    Sue,

    There are complementarians that teach that this would be a “same-sex marriage”. Was it Moore who said that just recently? And this is exactly what Moore and Ware and others are complaining about in their teachings. Compromise and adjusting one’s self and desires and will for the other is the stuff of egals. In a true comp marriage, it is the man who is served and it is his will that matters.

    Don,

    “Non-egals tend to infantilize the wife, she is not a fully functioning adult, she is a sub-male, somewhere between kids and males. Some women might even want this in order to duck full responsibility, but an adult is supposed to be fully responsible.”

    This is so true and this is what truly bothers me about complementarianism. They say that men and women are equal but it seems like lip service because when their teachings are fleshed out, women are infantilized and treated less than adult. Just look at every comp/egal discussion. It usually boils down to a comp givin an analogy about one’s child and obedience to the parent as if that is parallel to the marriage relationship.

  • Sue

    Michael,

    “If a husband abuses you, you do not submit to him.”

    I appreciate that contribution. But in reality how do you decide when the abuse begins?

    For example,

    The problem is that an abusive husband escalates the demands. At first it is just, “get my breakfast” and then “have my breakfast ready before I enter the kitchen” and then “why did you buy this (less expensive brand of) orange juice?” and then he just knocks the juice on the floor and if the wife apologizes, because an apology on her part is her admission of her sin, he is now justified in punishing her by walking out and leaving the broken glass and orange juice all over the kitchen floor for her to clean up before the children need breakfast, 5 minutes later.

    IMO the abuse starts with the narcissistic, self-serving me-first-ism of Ware’s sermon. Men should leave all mention of wives submitting to women’s meetings. Men should not be told that they are the authority. This is not scriptural.

  • Corrie

    Michael,

    ““If a husband abuses you, you do not submit to him.”

    Dr. Russell Moore”

    Thank you for posting this. I assume that this is from today since you dated it June 29th?

    I am glad to hear that a woman should not submit to abuse. But, what happens when she goes to the pastor/elders for counseling concerning the abuse? Will she be blamed for the abuse because she was not submissive enough or that she had challenged his authority because she didn’t agree with him on a certain point and told him so?

    I have heard from too many women who have gone to their pastors for help with physically violent men and they always get the talk about how they are causing the abuse because they are not submissive enough.

    I have heard many people teach that a man would not abuse a woman if she were truly submissive.

    It isn’t enough to say that a woman shouldn’t submit to abuse.

    He still needs to clarify his dangerous statements about wives causing their husbands to violently respond to them because of some so-called challenge to their authority. That statement gives abusers an excuse to look for rebellion in order to lessen their sin.

    Did he do that today, also? Did he mention the subject at hand?

  • madame

    “If a husband abuses you, you do not submit to him.”

    Dr. Russell Moore

    Denton Bible Church

    June 29th

    Michael,
    Who defines abuse? what counts as “proper” abuse that frees a woman from submission to her husband?

  • madame

    I agree, Lydia, teaching like Dr. Ware’s needs to be carefully assessed. He needs to bear in mind that not everyone listening is as spiritually mature as he is.

    A very well loved guest lecturer at the Bible college I went to taught counseling. He told a story of a woman being abused by her husband and how the pastor had sent her home, told her to pray for him every evening, and warned her that the beatings may become worse. (He may have been using Patterson’s story). Sure enough, she was beaten and went to church, very angry at the pastor. The husband went to church that day, answered to the altar call and received Jesus. The professor used the story as an example of how 1 Peter 3 can be put into practice today.

    The young wannabe-pastors in training were soaking this “wise counseling” in. Some of them had some objections, but most believed that was the “Biblical” way to counsel a woman who is being abused.

    These young men graduated a year later. Many went into ministry. Many went into foreign missions.
    One of them became the assistant pastor of a church in an underprivileged housing estate. He counseled a woman whose husband drank, beat her and owned loads of pornography, to go back to him. This woman had 5 children and was divorced.
    Thankfully, the senior pastor was a bit wiser and told the young assistant pastor to let him do the counseling.

    Basically, these preachers don’t know who is listening to their preachings and what will be retained. Ware’s words could easily be used to justify an abusing husband’s actions.

    He also forgot to mention that a man shouldn’t be trying to push his will through in the first place. That’s not love. That’s sin.

  • Lydia

    “If a husband abuses you, you do not submit to him.”

    Dr. Russell Moore

    Denton Bible Church

    June 29th”

    But this is confusing! Ware just taught that the unsubmissiveness of the wife is sin. The husband would be the one who would decide what is submissive or unsubmissive to him. So he is deciding what is sin.

    Does this mean that in the instance of abuse, her unsubmissiveness is NOT sin? Who decides this? The husband at that point can’t because HE is the abuser. Would verbal abuse qualify?

  • Bonnie

    Lydia,

    By the way, Is her husband still her ‘head’ when he is abusing her?

    A great question. I think the answer is “yes;” iow, I think that husbandly headship is an ontological reality. But because husbands are human, not possessed of deity like Christ, and do in fact err, headship cannot be equated with rule, or leadership, or authority. I think there is a kind of authority in headship, and sometimes leadership, or a kind of leadership, but the definition of husbandly headship must be greater than, or beyond, these things. (does that make any sense?!)

  • Sue

    Bonnie,

    In my former church where there was the teaching that the head was the authority, an abusive husband was declared “no longer head” and ostracized. The pastor did not know what else to do. I find this teaching very damaging for men and women both.

  • Lydia

    “I think there is a kind of authority in headship, and sometimes leadership, or a kind of leadership, but the definition of husbandly headship must be greater than, or beyond, these things. (does that make any sense?!)”

    Well…not to be unkind…but not really. :o) This is where I think comp doctrine gets in trouble. Does it mean authority or not? Does it mean ‘leading’ or not? Is it both? Is it rule? Where is the line drawn? What are the exceptions to the rule where she can be unsubmissive and not be in sin. Who decides what those exceptions are?

    Mutual submission is so much easier to understand and apply!

  • Don Johnson

    For me, the uses of kephale/head are metaphors and in each case one needs to discern what the metaphor is. They do not need to be all the same metaphor. In Eph 5, for example, it is a head/body metaphor with Christ and the church and with the husband and wife. This is a unity metaphor, not a leadership metaphor.

  • madame

    Lydia,

    ” This is where I think comp doctrine gets in trouble. Does it mean authority or not? Does it mean ‘leading’ or not? Is it both? Is it rule? Where is the line drawn? What are the exceptions to the rule where she can be unsubmissive and not be in sin. Who decides what those exceptions are?

    Mutual submission is so much easier to understand and apply!”

    Phew! Exactly. It is not easy.
    I think that well understood, the few texts that are directed straight at married couples are essentially describing mutual submission. This submission is expressed in different ways (I think). No spouse is given the right to have his/her way. No spouse is given the right to “rule” over the other one. God didn’t tell Adam to rule over Eve. He didn’t tell the men to exercise headship or authority. He told wives to submit because the husband is the head, but then he turned around to the heads and told them to love sacrificially.

    I think we can understand that a man has a responsibility to lead by example. But women also have it, especially if they are dealing with husbands that aren’t saved or who are “disobedient” (believers? I don’t know!)

    The message seems to be “go into marriage prepared to pursue unity by laying down your life and serving your spouse”.

    Of course, there are a lot more passages in the Bible that are good guidelines for any relationship, including marriage. Some teachers restrict themselves to a very small handful of verses and seem to miss the essence of them while they are at it.

  • Michael

    Dr. Russell Moore is just as talented and a spiritual speaker as Dr. Bruce Ware. My wife and I have been very blessed to attend Denton Bible these past two weeks to hear the both of them.

    I posted #400 so that those who have been distorting Dr. Ware’s excellent and easily understood message from last Sunday might see better the stance of Southern Baptist Seminary on the issue of abuse. They are colleagues and both quite clearly do not tolerate spousal abuse.

    It is very disheartening that such good men with wise words can be taken out of context.

    Dr. Moore made the matter more spiritual than Dr. Ware’s, if memory serves, and he does well to explain the spiritual warfare occurring in Ephesians and how chapter 5 pertains to that warfare.

    My comments are not expert enough to do justice to Dr. Moore or Ware or their expertise, but I encourage those who are interested in sound biblical wisdom and who hold to Biblical authority to hear his sermon whenever it is available.

  • Sue

    They are colleagues and both quite clearly do not tolerate spousal abuse.

    I understand this and I believe you that these men do not tolerate abuse. Unfortunately I listened to the entire sermon and I cannot agree that his words have been taken out of context. The comments about childbearing are almost without precedent.

  • Sue

    I understand that Bruce Ware wrote this,

    The Trinity, for example, models equality of essence with differentiation of roles, which equality and differentiation are mirrored in man as male and female.

    And the substitutionary atonement was carried out by one who submitted freely to the will of His Father, thus demonstrating the joy and beauty both of authority (the Father who sent) and submission (the Son who obeyed).

    Doesn’t this passage associate the female role with the Christ on the cross and the male role with the sending and punishing father?

  • Michael

    “The comments about childbearing are almost without precedent.”

    Dr. Schreiner tackles the matter head-on:

    “We must face the starkness of the text. Paul actually says that a woman will be saved through childbirth; and the word teknogonia refers to the birthing of children, not the rearing of them (cf. 1 Tim 5:10). We are thus back to the original question – why does Paul say a woman will be saved through childbirth? Probably because the bearing of children marks off the role of women in distinction from the role of men. (Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ, pg 286)

    I do hope we can treat his comments respectfully and that I am not just adding another reputable and good name to be tread on.

  • Corrie

    Michael,

    “I posted #400 so that those who have been distorting Dr. Ware’s excellent and easily understood message from last Sunday might see better the stance of Southern Baptist Seminary on the issue of abuse. They are colleagues and both quite clearly do not tolerate spousal abuse.

    It is very disheartening that such good men with wise words can be taken out of context.”

    Why is it that it seems that whenever someone quotes directly from one of these men, the “go to” response is that “you are twisting, you are misrepresenting”?

    Ware said that a man can respond in two different ways to a wife who “challenges his authority”.

    First, I have a whole problem with how he defines the role of “head” in that a head is served (his wife is not to expect him to serve her since that is HER role), a head’s will reigns and rules (his wife’s will is not important) and a head should get his own way.

    Second, Ware clearly states that a woman’s alleged “challenge” to her husband’s authority can cause him to respond to her in violence.

    That means, clearly and practically, that if a woman were not “overturn(ing)” her role and trying to take the part of the man’s privileged position of getting his way and being served, then he would not be abusive or passive.

    What is it that YOU see him saying about a man’s response of violence? You do not see that it is a dangerous thing to say that a woman’s “challenge to authority” is a reason why men are violent to their wives?

    I agree that his statement is very clear and I think we are understanding what he said just fine. No one said he was advocating abuse or that a woman should submit to abuse. That is a red herring. He has just handed abusers just one more reason to blame the victim instead of taking FULL and COMPLETE responsibility for their actions.

  • Kathy

    why does Paul say ‘a woman’ will be saved through (THE) childbirth?

    Where does Paul say ‘women’? Where does he talk about women in that passage? Paul talks about ‘a woman’, a particular woman through out but somehow ‘women’ is inserted into the text? How?

  • Sue

    You are right, Michael, Dr. Ware’s words are not without precedent. So complementarians as a rule believe that women are saved by remaining within their role? What about men that don’t fulfill their role? Are they still saved, or does the Bible not speak to that?

  • Sue

    Perhaps men are saved by not bearing children, since the bearing of children marks off the roles. Perhaps, as long as men stay on the side of the line of not bearing children, and women stay on the side of bearing children, everyone keeps to their roles?

  • Bonnie

    Lydia,

    (does that make any sense?!)”

    Well…not to be unkind…but not really. :o)

    I don’t want my lack of ability to explain to take away from the importance of the thing I am trying to explain 🙂 A lot has to do with the way we understand these terms.

    The thing is, the fact that man is the head of woman and woman was made from man for man and not vice-versa has to stand for something. I’m just having trouble articulating exactly what. Which is lame, I know. I have a sense of it but have not yet come up with a good way to explain it. 🙁

    What madame said, Some teachers restrict themselves to a very small handful of verses and seem to miss the essence of them while they are at it., is true. I’m trying to articulate the essence.

  • Michael

    Why is it that it seems that whenever someone quotes directly from one of these men, the “go to” response is that “you are twisting, you are misrepresenting”?

    I believe that is because sometimes wisdom is perceived through the vehicle of a statement, and not through legal and complex word scrutiny treatment.

    If scripture demonstrates that prostitutes enter the kingdom before Pharisees, surely we are careful in determining the meaning of this statement and do not conclude that an un-repentant and un-regenerate adulterer will enherit eternal life.

    We can arrive at this conclusion by taking into consideration all that scripture teaches.

    “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

    When we regard the full context of Dr. Ware’s teaching he clearly is not proposing spousal abuse as a means of dealing with spousal insubordination.

    Surely such a statement would demand some type of response from at least one other person in the audience – especially when considering the size of Denton Bible Church!

  • Sue

    When we regard the full context of Dr. Ware’s teaching he clearly is not proposing spousal abuse as a means of dealing with spousal insubordination.

    We absolutely and totally believe that he is not proposing spousal abuse for any reason.

    Could you please give an outline for “spousal subordination?” How is a bride to know her limits in marriage? Exactly how is this word defined so that a woman may know how to escape being insubordinate and thereby calling on her own head the response of spousal abuse. These are not trivial questions but lead to how a woman is to discern that she is being abused, and at what point she ceases to submit and seeks redress.

  • Michael

    Some Bible teachers still believe in the authority of scripture. We may not understand what it means exhaustively throughout, but it’s necessary that we not bend the text to fit culture, if we are to make any progress in theology.

  • Sue

    Yes, a complete rejection of the convents of godly women who became nursing sisters, single women missionaries who live in remote places and translate the scriptures, the baptist women medical doctors of the 18th century.

    You call this progress – teaching women that they are saved through bearing children?

  • Bonnie

    Michael,

    I’m curious to know whether you think I have distorted Ware’s words in my comments #s 79, 110, 133, 138, and 396, or understood them out of context.

    Know that I am not interested in either treading on or preserving anyone’s reputation or good name. I am interested in the doctrine that is being taught, and whether or not it is good and true.

  • Michael

    Sue, I’m not qualified to respond to numbers 424 and 425, but the first occurrence of physical abuse, and a woman should immediately contact her pastor and church and remove herself from the threat.

    Actually it should not get that far. Any signs of predatory behavior in any way should immediately be handled with solid Christian counseling, whether emotional or physical or any other manner, as well as arranging legal protection.

    If a woman feels threatened by her husband she needs to get away from him.

    The fact that such cowardly men are around kindles no mild indignation in me. Especially since I now have a daughter.

  • Michael

    Bonnie,

    The short answer is yes. Dr. Ware’s gracious presence in the room would melt your heart. He is an incredible and gifted teacher and deserves better treatment.

    I would feel very satisfied to become a fraction of the servant of Christ that Dr. Ware is.

  • Sue

    Actually it should not get that far. Any signs of predatory behavior in any way should immediately be handled with solid Christian counseling, whether emotional or physical or any other manner, as well as arranging legal protection.

    Thank you, Michael.

    And do you not think that the husband’s expectation that everything the wife does must be to fulfill his will might not perhaps be a sign of a narcissistic disorder that forshadows further abuse. Perhaps the wife should see her resistance to this narcissicism as a healthy sign of self preservation, instead of a sign that she is resisting her proper subordination to the male in creation.

  • Bonnie

    Michael,

    Regarding women being saved through childbearing, what does this mean for single or infertile women? And is this not a work, a requirement, in addition to faith in the saving work of Christ?

    You also said, Some Bible teachers still believe in the authority of scripture.

    Certainly they do. I do too, and it seems from the comments that most if not all of the rest of the commenters here do as well.

    We may not understand what it means exhaustively throughout, but it’s necessary that we not bend the text to fit culture, if we are to make any progress in theology.

    Absolutely. But how, would you say, will we know whether or not we, or anyone else, are bending the text to fit culture?

  • Sue

    Women deserve better treatment. I can guarantee that there were women in that room who are suffering from emotional or physical abuse. This is just plain irresponsible.

  • Corrie

    “When we regard the full context of Dr. Ware’s teaching he clearly is not proposing spousal abuse as a means of dealing with spousal insubordination.”

    Michael,

    This is exactly what I said was NOT the argument but then you go and repeat it as fact as if this was the argument. This is a prime example of turning the tables. You have changed the argument and have put it back on us as if we are arguing the above when we are not.

    The argument is that Ware’s statement that wives can cause their husbands to react to them with violence when their husband perceives (this is the operative word) that their authority is being challenged is wreckless and irresponsible and dangerous. This is the argument.

    No one has stated that Ware is teaching that a husband should hit his wife when she challenges his authority.

    The scripture clearly teaches personal responsibility and makes no excuses for individual sin as I have already demonstrated in Jesus’ statement about the man who lusts in his heart.

    The problem is what Ware teaches concerning the privileged position of the husband and the dutiful position of the wife and how the husband’s perception and will rules reality.

    Is a husband supposed to serve his wife? Is a husband supposed to be concerned about how he may please his wife? Why does it seem that Ware is teaching that the answer to these questions is “no” and that this is her job/role to serve him and please him and not the other way around? After all, he used the term “overturn” which gives the idea that what the sinful wife is doing only belongs to the husband.

    A person who hits another person 100% owns that sin and there should be no ifs, ands or buts about it. Anyone who has known or has lived with an abuser understands how an abusive person can so easily justify why they abuse and it takes little to no provocation for the abuse to take place. We do not make justify that person’s behavior by making excuses for it.

    It is also concerning that the complementarians seem to blame the bad behavior of some men on women for everything from violence to passivity to all the social, moral and ethical evils of our world instead of taking responsibility for their own bad behavior. ie., “Men are passive and the church is weak because of women.” “Men don’t want to go to church because there are too many women.” “Men hit their wives because their authority is challenged.” “Men don’t lead because their wives won’t let them.”

    This attitude causes a ripe atmosphere for abuse.

  • Paula

    The thing is, the fact that man is the head of woman and woman was made from man for man and not vice-versa has to stand for something.

    It certainly does– it means Adam lacked something and Eve was to provide it. Adam = needy, Eve = provider. The scripture is very clear that it was Adam who needed help, and only Adam that, in all God created, whose alone-ness was “not good”. Eve’s being made from Adam proved her absolute equality to him, seeing that she was made of exactly the same material.

  • Michael

    “But how, would you say, will we know whether or not we, or anyone else, are bending the text to fit culture?”

    Glad you asked!

    If we interpret the scriptures in a way that makes us comfortable, we’ve likely gotten it wrong. 🙂

  • Bonnie

    Michael,

    Thanks for your short answer, but a longer one would be more helpful. Your short one offers nothing in way of explanation; it merely defends Ware.

    As I said, I am not concerned with what kind of presence Ware has, or what kind of servant he is. This is nothing personal about Mr. Ware; I don’t even know him. I certainly am not mistreating him; I am discussing his claims. These have been made public; indeed, that was their purpose. Therefore it is certainly not out of line to respond to them. Couldn’t I turn that around and say that you are mistreating those who feel his words are in error? (which I am not doing, but that would be the equivalent of what you are doing.)

    Ware is accountable for his words, as we all are, and if he, or I, or anyone else are teaching falsehood, it is certainly not mistreating him, or me, or anyone else to point this out.

  • Corrie

    “The fact that such cowardly men are around kindles no mild indignation in me. Especially since I now have a daughter.”

    How would you feel if your son in law hit your daughter in response to her challenge to his authority when she disagreed with him and let her opinion (will) be known on an issue?

    How would you feel if your son in law hit your daughter because she had expectations that he would serve her when she was laid up with a c-section or a broken leg?

    Wouldn’t it be cowardly for your son in law or anyone else to suggest that he was violent because your daughter had challenged his authority and was trying to overturn the roles in the marriage where she expected him to serve her at times?

  • Michael

    Corrie number 434,

    I’ve not listened to Dr. Ware’s teaching in a couple of days, but I do not recall hearing him use the word “cause”. I think you confuse the matter when you adopt the position that his statement was purposed to demonstrate that husbands are caused to react violently by their un-submissive wives, as though the wife brings it upon herself.

    That is the distortion Ma’am.

  • Sue

    If we interpret the scriptures in a way that makes us comfortable, we’ve likely gotten it wrong

    Then one has to ask why men interpret scriptures to their own advantage. Since Ware forefronts the importance of the wife fulfilling the will of the husband, we have to assume that he has got it wrong.

  • Lydia

    “The thing is, the fact that man is the head of woman and woman was made from man for man and not vice-versa has to stand for something. I’m just having trouble articulating exactly what. Which is lame, I know. I have a sense of it but have not yet come up with a good way to explain it.”

    I do not really know what head means but I do know it does not mean authority over. In the context of the passage..’came before’ or source, fit.

    Woman was made from man… but so what? Paul talks about this in 1 Corin 11…after Eve ALL men come from women. But ALL things come from God. Messiah came through a woman.

  • Michael

    Ephesians 5 cannot be interpreted advantageously for men. It’s clear what men are to do for their wives.

    We are to imitate our crucified and risen Lord, giving himself for his Church.

  • Sue

    I am happy to supply Dr. Ware’s words. I do not want to take them out of context.

    The very wise and good plan of God, of male headship, is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them;

    and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged, or more commonly by becoming passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.

  • Corrie

    ““But how, would you say, will we know whether or not we, or anyone else, are bending the text to fit culture?”

    Glad you asked!

    If we interpret the scriptures in a way that makes us comfortable, we’ve likely gotten it wrong. ”

    Yikes! The patriarchalists are in trouble, then. 😉

    I mean, how much better could it get to have a doctrine where you are like God AND Christ in the roles of sovereign rule and glory (Christ’s example of submission and bondslave is left for the women) and where your will determines the fate of wife and you are not made by God to be challenged or told what to do, only listened to and where a whole gender was created just to serve you and acquiese to your needs and obey your edicts?

    If calling one’s self a “prophet, priest and king” does not make for comfort , then I don’t know what will.

    The patriarchal doctrine is the exaltation of the male and the subjugation and dominion over the female.

    Some might call that a comfortable arrangement.

  • Michael

    Sue, your number 443 does not lead to men being caused to behave violently toward their wives. There is no justification for this in this text. He simply does not say it.

  • Sue

    Michael,

    You said,

    Ephesians 5 cannot be interpreted advantageously for men. It’s clear what men are to do for their wives.

    We are to imitate our crucified and risen Lord, giving himself for his Church.

    So how do you explain this description of gender roles? (#415)

    The Trinity, for example, models equality of essence with differentiation of roles, which equality and differentiation are mirrored in man as male and female.

    And the substitutionary atonement was carried out by one who submitted freely to the will of His Father, thus demonstrating the joy and beauty both of authority (the Father who sent) and submission (the Son who obeyed).

    Hasn’t Ware made sure that women, and not men, represent the sacrificing Christ?

  • Lydia

    “If we interpret the scriptures in a way that makes us comfortable, we’ve likely gotten it wrong

    Then one has to ask why men interpret scriptures to their own advantage. Since Ware forefronts the importance of the wife fulfilling the will of the husband, we have to assume that he has got it wrong.”

    Sue, you beat me to it. That is the whole point and why being so paranoid of interpreting scripture through culture is so silly. We have been doing that for 2000 years! And it started with a cultural mis-interpretation of Gen 3:16.

    It has only been in the last 200 years that we have stopped interpreting scripture to condone or excuse slavery. Did we grow up? What changed? Or, did we stop interpreting it through the culture?

  • Michael

    Corrie, we are like Peter asking Jesus about the beloved disciple if we do not focus on our own path and expectations (and perceived disadvantages) and proceed to scrutinize the path of another.

    With each following the will of God, husband and wife fulfill their duties toward one-another and the Lord, and the marriage then demonstrates the mystery of Christ and the Church.

    Marriage is so closely connected with the Gospel of Christ in ways I had no idea of until hearing Dr. Moore’s excellent teaching today.

  • Michael

    Sue, that is the incorrect inference on your part. The husband is free to respond how he chooses. He is not confined to an abusive response because of the actions of the wife.

  • Lydia

    “Corrie, we are like Peter asking Jesus about the beloved disciple if we do not focus on our own path and expectations (and perceived disadvantages) and proceed to scrutinize the path of another.”

    Amen. But that is exactly what Ware and others are doing when it comes to women and their ‘role’. And that is EXACTLY what he is teaching husbands to do when he makes the point that the husband gets to decide what is unsubmissivness from the wife and what isn’t. Ware says unsubmissiveness is sin. So, the husband gets to decide what is sin for the wife.

    That is interpreting scripture to your own personal advantage.

  • Sue

    Michael,

    the husband is free to respond how he chooses. He is not confined to an abusive response because of the actions of the wife.

    No, the point is that for Ware, the wife sins first, and one of the possible ways that the husband responds is by abuse. There is no mention of maybe the husband abusing his wife in a vacuum. It is a response.

    You ask me a question and I respond. I would not have responded if you had not asked. There is cause and effect. This was not an appropriate description of abuse. But fro Dr. Ware he thinks that is what scripture says because the interpretation of Gen. 3:16 had been changed to provide for this teaching as the plain teaching of scripture. One person makes sure the Bible has this in it. Another puts it in the Systematic Theology and everyone else preaches it.

    What about #415,

    The Trinity, for example, models equality of essence with differentiation of roles, which equality and differentiation are mirrored in man as male and female.

    And the substitutionary atonement was carried out by one who submitted freely to the will of His Father, thus demonstrating the joy and beauty both of authority (the Father who sent) and submission (the Son who obeyed).

    Does that sound right?

  • Michael

    What advantage does it serve for a man to interpret the text, as supposedly in his favor, as:

    25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 5:26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 5:27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. 5:28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

    Men are responsible to God for a wife without blemish and are to give their lives to her as Christ has given himself to the Church.

    On the contrary, much will be expected of the man, and the model of his success is the crucified and risen Lord. I could not think of a higher-calling, or harder interpretation.

  • Corrie

    “That is the distortion Ma’am.”

    No, the only distortion is your claim that we are arguing something that we are not.

    Here are Ware’s words:

    “and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged, or more commonly by becoming passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.”

    Clearly we can see that his words state that a husband “now respond(s) to that threat [challenge to their authority] either by being abusive………..or more commonly by becoming passive”.

    This goes to cause and to say it is not is splitting hairs.

    What about a third response? Why are there only two responses, both negative and sinful being proposed as an either/or type of scenario?

    Are you going to tell me that he is not claiming a cause and effect or that the wife’s challenge to his authority did not cause him to responde in one of two ways?

    If I said to you:

    “When I challenged my mother’s authority by not cleaning my room, she responded to me by refusing to let me go to the dance.”

    Is this a cause and effect statement? Could it be logically deduced that my challenge to my mother’s authority was the cause of me not going to the dance?

    Cause=Reason
    Effect=Result

    Another way to determine if this is cause/effect is to see if there is any relationship between the two statements? Yes, there most definitely is a relationship.

    Are you saying that there is NO relationship between the first part of Ware’s comment and the last? Are you claiming that you do not see any cause for the husband’s “response” to the wife’s alleged insubordination?

    Here is my statement that you said was distorted:

    “The argument is that Ware’s statement that wives can cause their husbands to react to them with violence when their husband perceives (this is the operative word) that their authority is being challenged is wreckless and irresponsible and dangerous. This is the argument.”

    When Ware said that husbands NOW RESPOND TO THAT THREAT either by violence or passivity are you going to say that I am distorting what Ware said by saying “wives can cause their husbands to react”?

  • Michael

    Sue, by your responding to my questions, am I responsible for how you respond? Or, have I merely elicited a response by instigating a scenario.

  • Sue

    Michael,

    Obviously translators cannot insert words into all the texts of the Bible wholesale. They can only get in one or two extra. I am talking about the “against” which has been inserted into Gen. 3:16.

    Look at #255 carefully and tell me what you think.

  • Sue

    Michael,

    The point is that the woman sins first. She is the instigator of the incident. This is a huge problem in abusive relationships. And she is the instigator, not by being abusive, but by not seeking the will of the husband ALL the time. If there is no handout to define subordination and insubordination at the wedding then it is open season on the wife.

    And does only the husband ever get to have any choice, any goals, any will. Could the wife have something that she wants to do. Not unless she is allowed.

  • Lydia

    “Men are responsible to God for a wife without blemish and are to give their lives to her as Christ has given himself to the Church.”

    Wow! You believe a husband sanctifies his wife?

  • Paula

    It is a case of cherry-picking which attributes of Christ men wish to have, and which they prescribe for women– as if women are not capable of reading God’s Word for themselves and seeing that ALL Christ’s disciples are to emulate his SERVANTHOOD. Men cannot say “We are like Christ in every way, except of course salvation, but we are our wives’ sanctifiers, priests, kings, and representatives. But women are only like Christ as servants. We are like God the Father to them.”

  • Don Johnson

    ESV 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

    There is a sense that the husband or wife can sanctify the unbelieving spouse. But a husband is not a savior and simply should not even try.

  • Ellen

    OR, in the TNIV

    “14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

  • Bonnie

    Lydia,

    Woman was made from man… but so what?

    I think it means a lot. I also agree with you that “head” does not mean “authority over.” See comment #195, or #240, where I responded to Ellen re: headship and leadership.

  • Don Johnson

    But this is Paul mainly addressing concerns of Jews who had been told in the Mosaic covenant not to intermarry with the 7 Canaanite nations, on pain of exclusion.

    P.S. Bruce Ware might be a very humble man and I agree that this is one test to see if someone is worth listening to, but this does not mean he cannot be wrong on something, yet be a believer. In other words, we need to see if his words line up with Scripture and see where they do and do not.

  • Molly

    Agreed, Ellen (#461). The sanctification is *MUTUAL.*

    The Ware-like complementarianism I spent 8 years in, however, taught unequivocally (based on how they interpreted Eph. 5) that a Christian husband would stand before God and answer for how “pure” he had made his Christian wife. The husband was to be her holy spirit, if you will.

    We were taught, though usually in much more flowery “Biblical” words, that my husband was my priest, the one who heard from God for me, the one who’s words were God’s words to me, who’s directives and commands were God’s commands to me (because my husband was the authority through whom God led me).

    None of these things are actually in the Bible, of course. They all require a heavy amount of interpretational license. And, very sadly, they were very very very harmful to our relationship. I was crushed under the weight of having a well-intentioned human playing holy spirit to me. And my husband was broken under the weight of trying to be the holy spirit. All around, it was an incredibly negative experience that I am daily shocked we managed to survive.

  • Bonnie

    Michael,

    Ephesians 5 cannot be interpreted advantageously for men. It’s clear what men are to do for their wives.

    We are to imitate our crucified and risen Lord, giving himself for his Church.

    This is not how Ware has interpreted it in the quote Sue provided (at about the 9:12 minute mark in the podcast).

    I’ve not listened to Dr. Ware’s teaching in a couple of days, but I do not recall hearing him use the word “cause”. I think you confuse the matter when you adopt the position that his statement was purposed to demonstrate that husbands are caused to react violently by their un-submissive wives, as though the wife brings it upon herself.

    Then what is the cause of the husband’s reaction? And if it doesn’t have something to do with the wife’s actions, then why did Dr. Ware link the two in his statement?

  • Sue

    Don,

    In my view the teaching that the wife does something first, that teshuqa means to “usurp authority” to be “against” to “resist authority” or “manipulate and control” is common to most complementarian teaching. It is not a small part that can be excised. It is in Grudems’s Systematic Theology and almost every complementarian theologian I can think of agrees.

  • Corrie

    “25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 5:26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 5:27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. 5:28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

    Men are responsible to God for a wife without blemish and are to give their lives to her as Christ has given himself to the Church.”

    Michael,

    It says that Christ is the One who does the washing and sanctifying of His Bride (the church) not the husband.

    It says that men so ought to love their wives in the way that Christ gave up his life for His Church. It then goes on to tell us what that giving up of His life did for us. It does not go on to give a job description for the husband since all of that was already done for us by our Lord and Savior (we only have ONE of those, btw). The only thing in that passage the husband is told to do is give up his life for his wife. Maybe the comps should focus more on what that means than focusing on things the Bible never tells them to do or to be?

    “On the contrary, much will be expected of the man, and the model of his success is the crucified and risen Lord. I could not think of a higher-calling, or harder interpretation.”

    What do you mean by “higher-calling” or “harder interpretation”?

    Also, how do you fit Ware’s words about the privilege of the “head” into this “hard interpretation”.

    How hard is it to expect to have their way, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their wives fulfill their will, rather than serving them?

    How is that expecting more out of the man and how is expecting to be served modeled after Jesus who did NOT come to be served but to SERVE?

    Does that mean you disagree with Ware’s description of the rights of the husband?

  • Don Johnson

    Sue,

    Yes, the first is a dangerous teaching, that the wife is the first sinner when she says No.

    Teshuqa simply means wanting or desiring, derived from a stream wanting/desired to go downhill, nothing negative or even positive about it, that is determined by context.

    In a way what the non-egals need to do to the Hebrew or Greek text to get their interpretation out of something is good news for the egals, when people see what they do.

  • Bonnie

    Michael,

    Men are responsible to God for a wife without blemish and are to give their lives to her as Christ has given himself to the Church.

    No, the passage does not say this! Where is the word “responsible”? Paul is saying that Christ gave the ultimate sacrifice, the greatest that He could, which would result in a church sanctified and without blemish. Michael, a man is part of the church, he is not Christ, not is he a substitute for Christ to his wife. He is to love her as his own body, affording her every concern and care that he gives his own.

    He is not responsible for her, he is responsible to God for the way he treats her!

  • Don Johnson

    In 1st century cultural context, it would be very surprising to see that Paul did NOT say for wives to obey their husbands, as that is what Aristotle taught was a part of law and order. In this case the silence SHOUTS, but many do not know the cultural context.

  • Bonnie

    addendum to #470 — yet his actions toward her, if wrong, will surely sully her, and if good, will nourish her. But she is responsible for herself before God.

  • Corrie

    “How can humility and “I have the final say by virtue of my flesh” live together in the same heart?”

    That is a rhetorical question, right Paula? 🙂

    My answer is that it can’t.

    Until I see the comps/pats teaching men to desire and become the lowest of all slaves after the pattern of Christ’s example, I will not believe that they really mean “servant leadership”. Right now, it looks like they are teaching how to lead the servant. They are too focused on the very thing Jesus told His disciples NOT to focus upon. They are like the pagans who hunger for authority and places of importance at the table.

  • Sue

    Don,

    What I was also trying to say 🙂 is that this is not an isolated and peculiar belief that Ware has. It is part of the program. It is a core teaching and in all the books.

    I heard Bruce Waltke blame the incidence of divorce on women resisting their role. I talked to him afterward and he backed down pretty fast. But in public he blamed women for the high rate of divorce. It is a very bad and pervasive trend.

  • Don Johnson

    An adult guardian of a child is responsible for that child. To treat an functioning adult in that way is to treat them like a child.

    Doing this can be harmful to both the husband and wife, the husband can remain immature as he gets his way, the wife can remain immature as she ducks responsibility.

  • Corrie

    Bonnie,

    “He is not responsible for her, he is responsible to God for the way he treats her!”

    Well and succinctly put. Here is another example of how comps/pats add to the word of God by putting in the word “responsible for” where that is not even inferred in that passage much less present in the original language.

  • Ellen

    Then what is the cause of the husband’s reaction? And if it doesn’t have something to do with the wife’s actions, then why did Dr. Ware link the two in his statement?

    What was the cause of Abel’s murder? Cain’s own sin? Cain’s sacrifice? Abel’s sacrifice?

  • Paula

    That is a rhetorical question, right Paula?
    Yep. And I agree, it can’t.

    God is still “not a respecter of persons”; he still “looks on the heart” and not the flesh; Jesus still tells his disciples “not so among you”, and he still expects all believers– male and female– to emulate his example per Phil. 2:5-11.

  • Don Johnson

    I do not think non-egals are monolithic, they come in a range of beliefs. For a teaching that is supposed to be “clear” there is quite a lot of differences of opinion as to exactly what leadership ministies in the church are forbidden to women and exactly when does abuse occur in marriage that a wife is justified in saying No to.

  • Corrie

    “In a way what the non-egals need to do to the Hebrew or Greek text to get their interpretation out of something is good news for the egals, when people see what they do.”

    Don,

    Yes, it is. This is exactly what is opening my eyes to the problem with the complementarian doctrine. I am actually quite shocked by how they play footloose and fancy-free with the scriptures when it suits them but remain steadfastly and rigidly literal and unmoving on the scriptures that pertain to women.

    I also have a real problem with the negative bent towards women in their doctrine. They cause suspicion to fall on a woman and all that she does by saying that women desire to usurp their husband’s authority. This, alone, will cause them to suspect a woman of sin whenever she has a dangerous opinion, idea, or thought of her own.

  • Sue

    Don

    I agree as far as the person in the pew is concerned. But I think that the teaching about the wife doing something negative first is in all the major writers.

    I compile some quotes.

  • Ellen

    This, alone, will cause them to suspect a woman of sin whenever she has a dangerous opinion, idea, or thought of her own.

    I’m guessing that you will be supplying a quote on that, right?

  • Bonnie

    “14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

    Ellen, Paul is saying that if a husband or wife comes to Christ and their spouse doesn’t, the two need not separate. The saved one sanctifies the other — doesn’t save them, but sanctifies them so that their children will be holy. Yet if the unbelieving one wishes to leave, Paul says, let him or her leave, because, v. 16, “how do you know…that you will save your husband (or wife)?”

    I am not sure whether this relates to Ephesians 5 because Eph. 5 is addressed to believers, husbands and wives alike. I am not sure whether a believing wife would need to be sanctified, as in I Cor. 7:14, by her believing husband, or vice-versa.

  • Corrie

    “What was the cause of Abel’s murder? Cain’s own sin? Cain’s sacrifice? Abel’s sacrifice?”

    Ellen,

    Cain perceived that Abel was challenging his authority (he is the older brother) when Abel offered his sacrifice that pleased God and showed Cain up with his spiritual leadership. Older brothers, on their part, because they are sinners, now can respond to this threat in two ways- violence or he could become passive as Esau did.

    I don’t understand what your question has to do with the issue we are discussing?

    Has some expert bible scholar claimed that it was anyone’s fault other than Cain’s why he murdered his brother?

    We are discussing Ware’s statement about the wife’s sin causing her husband to respond in one of two ways.

    Help me understand what I am missing.

  • Bonnie

    What was the cause of Abel’s murder? Cain’s own sin? Cain’s sacrifice? Abel’s sacrifice?

    Ellen, how does this question relate to mine?

  • Don Johnson

    I think Ware was saying there were 2 WRONG ways (in his opinion) a husband could respond, but he neglected to discuss what he sees as the right way in the same breath. But I do think his statement could easily be misunderstood.

    Here are my quick comments on his 10 points.1. The order of creation, with the man created first, indicates God’s design of male headship in the male/female relationship (Gen 2; 1 Tim 2:13).

    Not headship, which implies an ongoing role and so assumes the non-egal argument, but head, let’s be more Biblical in our terms.
    Yes, the man was the head/source of the woman in the garden.

    By referencing 1 Tim 2:13 he assumes he knows what “For” means, but it might in contrast mean that this was part of the teaching that is being repudiated by what Paul says. We simply do not know enough to know what “For” means in this case. Timothy knew, the word of God went forth and succeeded in its immediate goal and we are left not sure what it was. There was a large shared context between Paul and Timothy, Paul’s spiritual son, so in communicating with him Paul would know that Timothy would understand, but we are not Timothy, we are in the place of looking over Timothy’s shoulder but not sharing the large shared context. Humbleness is called for.

    2. The means of the woman’s creation as “out of” or “from” the man bears testimony also to the headship of the male in the relationship (Gen 2:23; 1 Cor 11:8 ).
    Again, man was the head/source of the woman, as all men today are born from women, as Paul points out, and all come from God.

    3. While both man and woman are fully the image of God (Gen 1:26-28), yet the woman’s humanity as “image of God” is established as she comes from the man. Adam names her “isha” (woman) because she was “taken out of ish (man)” (Gen 2:23; cf. 5:3).

    Whew on the first sentence, both the man and the woman are in the image of God, to reduce the woman in any way leads to error.
    Both man and women are in the image of God and when saved each can reveal the glory of God.

    The man did not name her when he called her woman, both of their God-given names were Adam Gen 5:2 which is often ignored.
    Calling someone woman is saying that she is a member of the group of female humans. Isha is the feminine form of ish, she is a female man, it is a simple wordplay.
    He later did name her Eve, but this was a result of the fall and indicates his rule over her.

    4. The woman was created for the man’s sake or to be Adam’s helper (Gen 2:18, 20).
    True. Or the man’s help. The man needed help, it was NOT GOOD that he was alone, after the woman was formed it was VERY GOOD.
    Someone being a helper or help implies that the other needs help and the help is willing to help.

    5. Man (not woman) was given God’s moral commandment in the garden; and woman learned God’s moral command from the man (Gen 2:16-17).
    Both were given the commandments about what they could eat in Gen 1. In Gen 2 the man hears ANOTHER way of stating it, as both commands need to be consistent. It is possible that the woman learned from the man, but there are other possibilities, including God told her directly what she reports.

    6. Man named the woman both before and after the entrance of sin (Gen 2:19-20, 23; 3:20).
    This is false. God uses the term woman in the previous verse and in any case woman is not a name nor is the term shem/name used.

    7. Satan approached the woman (not the man) in the temptation, usurping God’s design of male-headship (Gen 3; 1 Tim 2:14).
    The serpent approached the woman, but the man was right there with her and did the first sin by NOT protecting/guarding the garden and contents.
    Nowhere is there any rebuke of the man, the woman or even the serpent for usurping the man’s supposed role, this is just a man-made idea.

    8. Although the woman sinned first, God comes to the man first, holding him (not her) primarily responsible for their sin (Gen 3:8-9; Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:22).
    Again false, the man sinned first by not protecting the garden, many miss this.

    9. The curses on the man and woman indicate the fundamental purposes for which each was created, respectively (Gen 3:16-19).
    False, there are no curses on the man nor on the woman and it is sloppy to say so. There is a curse on the serpent as a result of the serpent’s sins and on the land as a result of the man’s sins. There is no curse as a result of the woman’s sins. It is important to see there is a ranking of the sinners from bad to worse of woman, man, serpent. The woman was deceived, the man did it deliberately and the serpent tempted others to sin.

    10. The Trinity’s equality and distinction of Persons is mirrored in male-female equality and distinction (1 Cor 11:3).
    This is the wrong interpretation of 1 Cor 11, IMO. I see this as discussing order of existance.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    “This, alone, will cause them to suspect a woman of sin whenever she has a dangerous opinion, idea, or thought of her own.

    I’m guessing that you will be supplying a quote on that, right?”

    I am assuming you have requested the same thing of Ware? What was the quote he gave to you regarding wives’ insubordination leading to their husbands responding to them either in a violent or a passive fashion?

    I call the teaching that a woman’s desire is to rule over her husband “poisoning the well” (information presented in order to produce a biased result). It is setting up people to be suspicious of a woman and her motives. It isn’t even in the Bible, for Pete’s sake, but you are demanding a quote from me? Shouldn’t teachers of the Word be held to a stricter standard?

    If I started telling people that you, Ellen, have a desire to manipulate and control them in order to get your own way and then provide “facts” to back up my assertion, do you think that may set up some people to be suspicious of you and to hold your actions in an unfair light?

    Going back to your request for a quote…..

    This is my opinion based on 42 years worth of living, bearing 10 children, being a wife for 17 years and dealing with all sorts of individuals and being an amateur student of people.

    Take it for what it is worth. If you do not think that my statement holds any weight, you are certainly welcome to tell me why. I don’t think anyone who knows about the way humans operate is going to say that I am all wet.

  • Sue

    One thing that is never brought up is that in Greek family organization, the husband or slave owner is the “security” or “preservation” of the household. He is responsible. This is the same word soter in Greek, so a wordplay I think in Eph. 5, that the husband is the soter of the wife, just a natural use of the word in Greek and relates to making sure the family business brings in enough money.

  • Sue

    I made a mistake, he is the soteria, the same word as salvation, but always translated from Aristotle as preservation or security or health.

  • Ellen

    Then what is the cause of the husband’s reaction? And if it doesn’t have something to do with the wife’s actions, then why did Dr. Ware link the two in his statement?

    I’ll try again.

    Then what is the cause of Cain’s reaction? And if it doesn’t have to do with Abel’s action, why does God put them in the same story?

  • Lydia

    Woman was made from man… but so what?

    I think it means a lot.”

    Sorry Bonnie! That was way more flippant than it should have been. Paula spoke to this in one of the comments. And I agree with her. They are to be of ONE FLESH. We cannot ignore Genesis 1 in all of this discussion, either.

  • Ellen

    Has some expert bible scholar claimed that it was anyone’s fault other than Cain’s why he murdered his brother?

    We are discussing Ware’s statement about the wife’s sin causing her husband to respond in one of two ways.

    No. You twist words.

    We are discussing Ware’s statement to a husbands possible sinful reaction to his wife’s action.

    Just as Cain’s sinful action were a response to Abel’s (and Abel’s actions were far from sinful), so a husband (or any human) respond to another human in sinful way (and be responsible for his or her own sin).

    I know that you will not understand, though.

    Here’s another.

    A woman used a couple of words toward me – “trite” was one of them. I responded in frustration and turned those same words back at her. Then I was called rude.

    Was my rudeness a reaction to the words? yes. Was the rudeness my own to claim? Yes.

    Just so. A husband can react to a wife. Is his reaction his to claim? Yes – whether the reaction is good or bad (although a complementarian man behaving well toward his wife would certainly not garner as much vitriol as these few words have been.)

  • Corrie

    “Sue, that is the incorrect inference on your part. The husband is free to respond how he chooses. He is not confined to an abusive response because of the actions of the wife.”

    Michael,

    That is NOT what Ware said. Ware stated that there are 2 ways a husband will “now” respond. A husband will either be violent or passive.

    You are right that a husband is free to respond how he chooses but Ware tells us that a husband will respond in one of two ways. Ware is not presenting what you have presented. He tells us what will happen when a husband perceives that his wife is a “threat” to his authority.

    And do people even bother to study what Jesus says about this whole exercising authority UPON and OVER others?

    He tells us that whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant. The very opposite of what Ware is teaching. Also, Jesus links His giving up of His life in with the whole thought on authority.

    The natural, unregenerate man will protect his position by violence or passivity or both. The regenerate man won’t even care or notice if his authority is threatened because he is too busy serving like the word of God commands him.

    This is what we are having a problem with. Can you understand our position?

    I will quote Ware’s words again:

    ““and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged, or more commonly by becoming passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.””

  • Sue

    I really want a response to #446. What do people think of that?

    And this is from another blog,

    What a silly thing to say – and dangerous. Husbands abuse their wives because they are sick. He seems to be ignorant of what abuse is all about…

    That is from a complementarian.

    I realize that Bruce Ware also says this is wrong, but it never should have been said. Women are never abused because they are trying to usurp authority. Women are abused because they are married to a man who wants to control, debase, and humiliate them. It’s much like the tactics used on Prisoners of War. If anything, the woman is trying desperately to please the man, and is never good enough according to the man.

    This is by Debbie.

    These are just some common sense reactions.

  • Sue

    Here is Mary Kassian. The rest is on my blog.

    The consequences of the fall affect us today. Women experience pain and sorrow n childbearing. Historically, they have sought to usurp male authority and leadership, only to be crushed and oppressed. Men in turn, have abused their God-given role and have been oppressive, domineering, unfair, and unloving. They have often wrongly pronounced women inferior.

    Often wrongly???

  • Corrie

    I am thinking that there are some major problems in the SBC.

    http://sbcoutpost.com/2008/02/25/defendant-paige-patterson-to-be-deposed-today/

    You can go to this link and listen to a lecture from Paige Patterson on wives submitting to abuse.

    I need to pick my jaw up off of my desk after listening to this.

    Black eyes for Jesus!!!! This ministry is for ladies only. After all, the weaker sex is the perfect sex to be receiving abusive treatment and patiently bearing up under it by someone who is much stronger.

    This is about on the same par as Gothard teaching that wives should bend over and take abuse from their husbands in the place of their husbands abusing their children. After all, a wife can’t tell her husband to not abuse their children but she can appeal to him and tell him that she will take the beating in that child’s place. In that way the child will learn something about Jesus and His sacrifice for our sins.

    Here is part of the transcript:

    “I had a woman who was in a church that I served, and she was being subject to some abuse, and I told her, I said, “All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.” And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.” And sure enough, he did. She came to church one morning with both eyes black. And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter. And she said, “I hope you’re happy.” And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.” And I said, “I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy.”

    And what she didn’t know when we sat down in church that morning was that her husband had come in and was standing at the back, first time he ever came. And when I gave the invitation that morning, he was the first one down to the front. And his heart was broken, he said, “My wife’s praying for me, and I can’t believe what I did to her.” And he said, “Do you think God can forgive somebody like me?” And he’s a great husband today. And it all came about because she sought God on a regular basis. And remember, when nobody else can help, God can.

    And in the meantime, you have to do what you can at home to be submissive in every way that you can and to elevate him. Obviously, if he’s doing that kind of thing he’s got some very deep spiritual problems in his life and you have to pray that God brings into the intersection of his life those people and those events that need to come into his life to arrest him and bring him to his knees.”

  • Bonnie

    Lydia, no problem.

    Ellen,

    Then what is the cause of Cain’s reaction? And if it doesn’t have to do with Abel’s action, why does God put them in the same story?

    I don’t understand what your point is, or what parallel you are trying to draw. At issue is Ware’s calling a wife’s desire to have her will served sin, which then provokes her husband. Abel’s action was not sin. Ware says that, because the wife is a sinner, her wish to have her will provokes the husband because he perceives it as a threat to his authority. The wife threatening his so-called authority is sin. This situation is not analogous to Cain and Abel.

    As I’ve said, and you have not engaged with, it is not a “threat to the husband’s authority” for a wife to want her will to be served as well as her husband’s. It is not sin.

    Why will you not engage directly with these things I am saying about Ware’s statement?

  • Sue

    Here is Ware’s official statement on this passage, from the CBMW website,

    3. Gen. 3:16 – Sin brought about, not the beginning of a male/female relational hierarchy, but a disruption of the God-intended role of male-headship and female submission in the male-female relationship. Most complementarians understand the curse of the woman in 3:16 to mean that sin would bring about in Eve a wrongful desire to rule over her husband (contrary to God’s created design), and that in response, Adam would have to assert his rule over her.

    This understanding comes from comparing the sentence structure and terms of Gen. 3:16 with Gen. 4:7. In 4:7, God tells Cain that sin is seeking to destroy him, and so He says “its [sin’s] desire is for you, but you must master it.” This means, of course, sin desires to rule over you, but you in response must rule over it. Now, the exact sentence structure is found in 3:16, where Eve is told “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

    This means, in light of 4:7, Eve’s desire will be to rule illegitimately over Adam (note: certainly sin could not be credited with giving Eve a loving or caring desire for Adam, could it?), and in response Adam will have to assert his rightful rulership over her.

    Most complementarians hold, then, that sin produced a disruption in God’s order of male headship and female submission, in which a) the woman would be inclined now to usurp the man’s rightful place of authority over her, and man may be required, in response, to reestablish his God-given rulership over the woman, and b) the man would be inclined to misuse his rights of rulership, either by sinful abdication of his God-given authority, acquiescing to the woman’s desire to rule over him (and so fail to lead as he should), or by abusing his rights to rule through harsh, cruel and exploitative domination of the woman.

    Notice that he says that the man would “have to assert his rule over her.”

    This is what Ware really means.

  • Ellen

    What we all have to deal with is that the belief that the husband’s loving leadership of the home is right and good is what some call “another valid reading of Scripture”.

    In that case, an unsubmissive wife is in sin. I believe that I said that somewhere near the top of the page.

    In fact, even in an egalitarian marriage, if egalitarians are serious in identical submission and co-leadership, if a wife is to “submit to one another” and refuses to submit, she is still in sin. And even an egalitarian husband, who believes in co-leadership could be tempted to one of the two options given in the face of a wife who is acting like a dog who just had pups.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    I am finding that I am just wasting your time by engaging in discussion with you. You seem to just want to toy around with people instead of actually engaging in any sort of meaningful and reasonable discussion.

    I have tried to answer your questions and I have painfully re-explained myself over and over again just to get a snippy and immature answer that makes no sense.

    You say I twist words but you refuse to back up that accusation with an exact quote? I do not find that to be consistent with honest debate. I have twisting nothing and I have continually requoted from the source.

    “Question: Why are all the egalitarian women not praising the hypothetical wimp?”

    This is exactly what I am talking about.

    God’s word is opposed to wimpiness and He commands His people to be strong and courageous.

    Other than that, your question makes no sense. I have to wonder what that kind of question is doing in a discussion concerning statements made up wives and abusive husbands?

  • Sue

    Here this is clearer,

    As most complementarians understand it, Gen. 3:15-16 informs us that the male/female relationship would now, because of sin, be affected by mutual enmity. In particular, the woman would have a desire to usurp the authority given to man in creation, leading to man, for his part, ruling over woman in what can be either rightfully-corrective or wrongfully-abusive ways

  • Michael

    Then what is the cause of the husband’s reaction? And if it doesn’t have something to do with the wife’s actions, then why did Dr. Ware link the two in his statement?

    You are right that a husband is free to respond how he chooses but Ware tells us that a husband will respond in one of two ways. Ware is not presenting what you have presented. He tells us what will happen when a husband perceives that his wife is a “threat” to his authority.

    He speaks those very sentences with such an air of disdain and condescension one must find it remarkable that not a single audience member of DBC made any audible disapproval should this interpretation in fact be legitimate. It is a form of rhetoric to speak in this manner.

    Dr. Ware is a grand servant of Christ and I would like to make the suggestion that anyone who is struggling to understand his statements here simply ask him about it before defaming his character. It would be prudent to uncover the misunderstanding rather than defame a good name and a good man.

    I believe the Bible teaches us to confront those we have issue with.

  • Ellen

    Notice that he says that the man would “have to assert his rule over her.”

    A re-wording of the curse.

    Complementarians believe that loving and caring leadership and submission are from creation. But you know that.

    Complementarians also believe that at the fall, this loving relationship was warped. But you know that.

    Complementarians also believe that since the fall, men are tempted to rule over their wives in domineering ways. But you know that.

    As I said, this whole thing has become a post of shouting down complementarianism in general…and less of dealing with Ware specifically.

  • Bonnie

    What we all have to deal with is that the belief that the husband’s loving leadership of the home is right and good is what some call “another valid reading of Scripture”.

    Ellen, that is what we’re dealing with. There is no Scriptural support for “the husband’s loving leadership of the home.” You disagree. And around and around we go. Many of us here are addressing the nitty-gritty of this assertion, which you have not engaged with, other than to repeat the assertion.

    In that case, an unsubmissive wife is in sin. I believe that I said that somewhere near the top of the page.

    A truly unsubmissive wife is in sin. A wife wanting her will to be served as well as her husband’s is not an unsubmissive wife.

  • Corrie

    “and that in response, Adam would have to assert his rule over her.”

    Why? Where does the Bible teach that a husband should assert his rule over his wife?

    My version says that a husband should love his wife by laying down his life for her.

  • Ellen

    You say I twist words but you refuse to back up that accusation with an exact quote?

    I did.

    You said (and I put in italics just as I am here) We are discussing Ware’s statement about the wife’s sin causing her husband to respond in one of two ways.

    Please show me where Ware said that the wife caused the sin.

    The husband reacted (just as I illustrated that Cain reacted to Abel’s sacrifice) in a sinful way. She did not cause the reaction. The reaction is sinful. The husband is responsible for his own sin. We have said that over and over and over and over and over.

    I could easily react to your name-calling (immature, snippy)…I would hold only myself to blame if I responded in kind. Would I be reacting? Yes. Would you be the cause? No.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    Ware wrote,

    the woman would have a desire to usurp the authority given to man in creation, leading to man, for his part, ruling over woman in what can be either rightfully-corrective or wrongfully-abusive ways

  • Ellen

    That’s fine, Sue…does it come as a surprise to you that complementarians believe in male leadership?

    If it does come as a surprise, please google “complementarianism vs. egalitarianism”

  • Corrie

    Michael,

    “He speaks those very sentences with such an air of disdain and condescension one must find it remarkable that not a single audience member of DBC made any audible disapproval should this interpretation in fact be legitimate. It is a form of rhetoric to speak in this manner.”

    Are you saying that he stated what he did sarcastically?

    I don’t understand what you mean when you say it is a form of rhetoric? Was he using sarcasm?

    It sounded like he was stating a fact about how men respond to threats to their authority.

  • Bonnie

    Michael,

    Dr. Ware is a grand servant of Christ and I would like to make the suggestion that anyone who is struggling to understand his statements here simply ask him about it before defaming his character. It would be prudent to uncover the misunderstanding rather than defame a good name and a good man.

    Dr. Ware has made himself very clear in many, many statements, documented in this thread. Why do you sanctimoniously insist on implying that, because we point out his errors, he is being defamed? We are discussing his words, his claims.

    You are saying that we are in error. Does that mean that we are being defamed?

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    This is about the fact that the woman’s sin LEADS TO the man’s sin. The woman causes it. That is what I think he is saying.

    the woman would have a desire to usurp the authority given to man in creation, leading to man, for his part, ruling over woman in what can be either rightfully-corrective or wrongfully-abusive ways

    I wonder how many women thought that marriage was about being ruled in rightfully corrective ways. Is the husband a school master??

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    Actually, Bonnie, I responded a long, long time ago…

    when comps were asked if we found this directly in Scripture.

    Around comment…#343.

    You have not addressed my specific points about Ware’s statements, in comment 343 or anywhere else.

    It is clear that our discussion at this point is pointless, and I suppose we both have better things to do.

  • Molly

    Michael and Ellen and Denny (and any other comps participating):

    Will someone respond to Ware’s teaching that women are saved by Christ *and* by accepting their role as female subordinates?

    Please?

    Sola fide for men,
    Sola fide plus submissive female gender roles for women.

    Is this truly what you believe, Ellen, Michael, and Denny?

  • Corrie

    “Corrie, this blog post links to the mp3 of the sermon. I’ve listened to it.”

    I know. I have listened to it and I am listening to it again.

    I still don’t see how he was employing a form of rhetoric.

    I am going back to hear the “disdain” in his voice.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    Do you understand cause/effect statements?

    I would suggest you study those sorts of statements. It is an unmistakeable FACT that Ware’s statement is a cause/effect statement. Any grammarian would see it for what it is.

    Only comps who seem to put person above substance are will to break grammatical facts in order to split hairs and get around the fact that his statement fits all the criteria for a cause/effect statement.

  • Ellen

    Actually, I’m going to try the same condescension that you are attempting.

    <i<Do you understand cause/effect statements?

    Do you understand that responses are sometimes not the fault of the person being responded to?

  • Ellen

    Bonnie, again, sorry for not addressing what it is that you want me to address.

    I guess in the 500+ comments (Bruce Ware is bad and says that women cause abuse!!!) I missed the whole “let’s rehash the gender debate”.

  • Lydia

    “Dr. Ware is a grand servant of Christ and I would like to make the suggestion that anyone who is struggling to understand his statements here simply ask him about it before defaming his character. It would be prudent to uncover the misunderstanding rather than defame a good name and a good man.

    I believe the Bible teaches us to confront those we have issue with.”

    I totally agree with this last statement. That is what we are doing.

    Michael, Do you as a husband decide when your wife is being unsubmissive (if she ever is)? Ware is teaching that unsubmissivenes by a wife is a sin. Who else but the husband could decide when she might be unsubmissive? Do you not see a problem with this? A husband, a depraved sinner saved by Grace, just like me, is given power to decide when another is in sin because they are not fulfilling a husbands will? Can you not see where teaching this leads us all?

    I have been reading Ware, Moore and others for quite a while now. You may not see it, but as a former comp for 20 years, I have seen, over time, a continual slide into Patriarchal teaching that is more in line with Mormonism.

    Moore wrote in a Henry Institute article that the comps in today’s churches are wimps and we need more Patriarchy. (paraphrase) Corrie put a link to this article in one of the comments.

    Friend, when you really believe this first part of your quote is a correct interpretation of that passage:

    “Men are responsible to God for a wife without blemish…”

    …you are more in line with Mormonism than you are with Christ. I say that with love, tears in my eyes and a very heavy heart.

  • Corrie

    Okay. Just got to the part where Ware makes the statement about a wife’s threat to her husband’s authority causing him to respond to her threat on his authority in two (either/or) different ways.

    There is NO “rhetoric” being employed unless Michael is referring the common, ordinary “speaking as a means of communication or persuasion”. Certainly, we do not see Ware employing rhetorical devices such as a rhetorical question, aliteration, personification, symbolism, etc. in that statement. It was a straight forward statement of fact (according to Ware).

    There is NO disdain in his voice. His inflection, intonation and way of speaking never changes from the first 9 minutes all the way through his statement we have been discussing. He might get a little “excited” sounding when he is talking about women as sinners wanting to get their own way (his voice pitch goes up a bit and he talks a bit faster) but then that excited tone dies down when he gets to the second half of his statement about men and their response to their wife’s threat and he returns to his normal state of speaking.

    The first time I detected any sort of something that even comes close to “disdain” is 16 minutes into the message when he is dramatizing the conversation between Eve and Satan and he might have a sort of “disdain” in his voice when he speaks Satan’s words.

    Michael, where is this so-called “disdain” you are talking about? I have reviewed the tape more than 5 times and have yet to hear anything close to disdain when he speaks about a man’s response to the threat on his authority. He speaks very matter-of-factly about the whole matter.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    “Actually, I’m going to try the same condescension that you are attempting.

    <i<Do you understand cause/effect statements?

    Do you understand that responses are sometimes not the fault of the person being responded to?”

    You are doing a great service for the egalitarian side of this debate.

    You have yet to answer my question concerning cause/effect statements and if you know about grammar you will recognize right away that Ware’s statement is a cause/effect statement.

    But, the fact that this is Ware we are talking about, may just cloud your ability to see a straight forward cause/effect statement for what it is.

    Do I understand that responses are not the fault of the one being responded to?

    This makes no sense. If my child stated that he hit his brother because his brother challenged his authority, I would view it as a ridiculous excuse to hit his brother. I would view it as blame-shifting and that he was trying to blame his violence on his brother for some alleged and nebulous crime against his authority.

    I am trying to think of a time where someone states that because of A, B or C will happen and that not be a causative relationship.

    It is illogical to insist that there is no causation between A and B,C when it is framed in a cause/effect statement.

    “Because my husband was unloving to me at dinner, now I could respond to that threat of unloving behavior in one of two ways- I burned his breakfast (passive agressive) or threw a pot at his head (anger & violence) the next morning.”

    Am I blaming my husband for my behavior? At least in part? When I say that I have only two ways to respond to my husband, am I not blaming him, in part, for causing the response?

    I don’t even understand what Ware’s statement about a husband’s response is even doing in a mature Christian man’s talk?

    I would hope that someone would slap me hard if I ever dared to slough off abusing my husband or children on what they did! I would hope someone would slap me again if I called that abuse a “response”. Gads! How politically correct! Calling abuse a “response” is about the most demeaning thing a victim of violence can hear. And they do hear it all the time.

    “Officer, I responded to my child’s whining with abuse. Usually I respond with passivity but today I responded with abuse.”

    “Judge, I am sorry that I responded to my wife’s questions about how I spend the money with blackening her eyes. I was told that a man will respond in one of two ways. Next time I will respond to my wife’s threat to my authority by being passive.”

    Abuse is NOT a response. What is a response? Well, the dictionary says it is a REACTION TO something.

    It is a cop-out and it is blame-shifting.

    Part of being slick at what you are wanting people to believe means that you master double-speak so that when people call you on what you say, you can wriggle out of it by splitting hairs and ad hominem.

    This is nothing more than splitting hairs and ignoring the obvious and it is quite juvenile. A person doesn’t have to have to be some master linguist to see that Ware stated that the cause of a woman’s insubordination results in either violence or passivity. To continue blowing smoke and readjusting the mirrors will do nothing to change the facts.

    I tell my children that part of being a mature, responsible person is taking responsibility and ownership for the things they do and say without trying to weasel out when the heat gets hot.

    This discussion is really eye-opening. I am still on the fence as far as my complementarian leanings and my last greatest hold-out is the issue of female elders/pastors and I still feel pretty firm on that but the way that comps/pats deal with the things they teach and use gross obfuscation to deal with those who call them on what they teach is so typical and it causes me to want to distance myself even further.

  • Ellen

    Do I understand that responses are not the fault of the one being responded to?

    So you are saying that responses are the fault of the one being responded to?

  • Corrie

    Btw, please don’t feel like I am blaming you for my reaction to your obsfucation and hair splitting. The above was a typical cause/effect statement but really, if I distance myself, you had nothing to do with it no matter what I said in the first part of the statement.

    🙂

  • Ellen

    You have yet to answer my question concerning cause/effect statements and if you know about grammar you will recognize right away that Ware’s statement is a cause/effect statement.

    Thank you for attempting the dig at my knowledge, by the way.

  • Ellen

    Btw, please don’t feel like I am blaming you for my reaction to your obsfucation and hair splitting.

    Thank you for making this personal, by the way.

  • Corrie

    “Do I understand that responses are not the fault of the one being responded to?

    So you are saying that responses are the fault of the one being responded to?”

    I give up. You win. Just ignore anything of substance that I had to say. Just respond like I never answered your question. That should keep the conversation inane.

    “Do you understand that responses are sometimes not the fault of the person being responded to?””

    Could you please add the “sometimes” when responses are not the fault of the person being responded to to your rulebook.

    Pretty soon your comp rulebook for exceptions and conditions will rival the Talmud.

    Here was part of my answer to Ellen’s question in case anyone is truly fooled by her smoke and mirrors act:

    “This makes no sense. If my child stated that he hit his brother because his brother challenged his authority, I would view it as a ridiculous excuse to hit his brother. I would view it as blame-shifting and that he was trying to blame his violence on his brother for some alleged and nebulous crime against his authority.”

    I am saying that Ware is claiming that a husband will respond in one of two ways to his wife’s alleged challenge to his authority.

    Ellen would like me to hop down her newest little bunny trail in hopes that she could once again derail the issue but this dumb bunny has had enough.

    At the rate that patriarchalists are shooting themselves in the foot, it shouldn’t be long before they are basically extinct. They are their own worst enemies.

  • Ellen

    Ellen would like me to hop down her newest little bunny trail in hopes that she could once again derail the issue but this dumb bunny has had enough.

    Again, thank you for making it personal.

  • Sue

    Molly,

    Here are the NET Bible notes.

    The idea of childbearing, then, is a metonymy of part for the whole that encompasses the woman’s submission again to the leadership of the man, though it has no specific soteriological import (but it certainly would have to do with the outworking of redemption).

    So, the woman works out her redemption by submission to the male, even if she doesn’t have kids. This is not the same as having soteriological import, but it sounds serious enough.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    I am quite sure you are an intelligent woman who knows a lot about grammar and that is what makes this whole conversation very sad. I was not digging at your intellectual ability at all. I do feel that I cannot continue this conversation with you any more because I do not see integrity in your responses.

    I do hope that someone with true authority holds these leaders accountable for their irresponsible and unbiblical teachings.

  • Ellen

    Let me attempt (one more time)

    That doesn’t mean the husband is not responsible for his own action. (#65)

    Ware still did not say that a sinful response is justified.(#98)

    There are many, many ways that the sin on the part of a person is “linked” to something else (living or inanimate or even a concept). That does not make the sinner any less responsible for his or her sin. (#130)

    Is the husband sinning in reacting badly? Yes. Is he responsible for his own sin? Yes.(#134)

    Cause: The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result.

  • Ellen

    Corrie, we do not agree on whether or not an unsubmissive wife is in sin (and since the situation is hypothetical, it is impossible to say anyway).

    So the premise of Ware’s statement hypothetical is in disagreement. I believe that the husband should be the leader of the home and that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ.

    That is not a lack of integrity, that is a disagreement in interpretation of Scripture.

    Either way, we DO agree that the reaction is sin.

  • Ellen

    Either way…when somebody goes off on a tangent, misses an entire piece of the comment thread, misunderstand a question (or misses it completely) I generally understand that in 550 comments, something is going to get missed.

    I’m very sorry for that piece of my humanity. If there are any questions that you all would like to repeat, please do.

  • Sue

    Cause: The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result.

    No, the cause is internal to the abuser. This is wrong teaching. It gives the impression that the victim, by not doing something unsubmissive one can change the outcome. I consider this kind of thinking to be criminally irresponsible.

  • Ellen

    Sue (sigh)….

    that’s the dictionary definition of “cause” when applied to a person.

    That’s what I’m saying…the victim is not the “cause” of the sinful behavior.

    For that (apparently), Corrie questions my intelligence (or my integrity, take your pick)

  • Ellen

    No, the cause is internal to the abuser. This is wrong teaching.

    Abel gives a good sacrifice. Cain gets angry and kills Abel.

    Are they related? Yes. Are they linked? Yes. Was it Abel’s fault? No. Was the sin internal to Cain? Yes.

    Relating a hypothetical linking the actions of two people in no way places the “fault” on the person being acted upon. Nor does Ware. He calls the husband “sinful”, indicating that his action(response, reaction) was not justified. If it was justified, it would not be “sin”.

  • madame

    ” Complementarians believe that loving and caring leadership and submission are from creation. But you know that.”
    What is loving leadership? Does it have anything to do with “having my way”?

    ” Complementarians also believe that at the fall, this loving relationship was warped. But you know that.”

    Do they believe that they need to live out the warpedness? It seems to me that many take Genesis 3:16 as prescriptive, not descriptive. I believe that it can’t be taken as a prescription of how things should work. It’s not a direct command. It’s not good.

    ” Complementarians also believe that since the fall, men are tempted to rule over their wives in domineering ways. But you know that.”

    Yes, they are tempted. Wives are also tempted to be selfish and want their ways. We are selfish in nature. But we are ALL commanded to live by the Spirit, not the flesh, to walk the extra mile, offer the other cheek…. NO MAN SHOULD BE ASSERTING HIS “GOD-GIVEN RULE”, he should be having the same attitude Jesus had. He should be living with his wife with understanding.

    Bruce Ware fails to see the man’s desire to have his way as the first sin, that causes the woman to react insubmissively, which causes the man in turn to react abusively or like a wimp. The chain of sin begins with the man, not the woman.

  • Paula

    Around and around it goes, where it stops, nobody knows…

    I’ve seen this dance a hundred times with comps. The comp will ask a question, get a response, ignore its points and change the question, then accuse the egal of the very things the comp is doing. Back to the original question, and around we go.

    That’s why these issues are never resolved– comps refuse to face them; they refuse to admit what they teach, even when we quote them extensively. And I can almost guarantee that these observations will be thrown back at me, like a child saying “No, YOU said that! YOU’RE the one!”

    It’s interesting to note that the Greek word translated “hypocrite” encompasses hair-splitting and hyper-legalism, the very things I see in typical comp behavior in any given blog or board. In fact, the defining characteristic of comp theology is hair-splitting. They make detailed lists of what a woman can and cannot do, as if she is a child and he is her parent. And the list changes almost daily, and varies from one comp to another. The Pharisees would be proud!

    Contrast with egal teaching. A woman is a free adult under Christ, just as a man is. Let them work together as equal body parts, neither telling the other they must get permission from them before talking to the brain. Christians cooperating as equals— what a concept! The only rule is Golden; the only guideline is service; the only requirement is love. Very simple, very Biblical.

    I too have had it with trying to get comps to answer simple, direct, and well-documented questions. Comp thinking is Orwellian double-speak honed to a fine art: domination is submission, ruling is serving, selfishness is self-sacrifice… You can’t reason with that, you can only expose it.

    Let’s see if the comps respond as expected.

  • Don Johnson

    For many, it takes a paradigm shift to become egal, which usually means exposure to more than one thing that causes doubts about the previously taught paradigm. It also takes courage to be willing to change and repentence of some past actions is likely needed. And change is the job of the Holy Spirit.

  • Corrie

    “Why do pastors need to listen? Because most of the people in the churches are feminists and most of the people in our churches are in same sex marriages right now, they just don’t realize it. Because you have people who have marriages that in which you do not have male headship.”

    This is a quote by Russell Moore.

    Here is more from that same interview with Devers with Moore:

    Question from Devers: So then, why is it that you don’t like word “complementarian”? noted at time mark 38:25

    Moore: Because complimentarianism doesn’t say much more than the fact that you have different roles. Everyone agrees that you have different roles, it’s just on what basis do you have those different roles? So an egalitarian would say “Yeah, I am a complementarian, too. It’s just on the basis of depths (or gifts? I cannot tell from the recording. — It sounds as if he said “GEPTHS.” )

    I think that 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 have to then define what headship looks like.

    That there’s no distinction of roles and instead there is this false equality.”

    If you want to listen to the whole recording:

    http://www.resources.christianity.com/details/mrki/20070501/d2de20cd-e931-4593-9ba8-71907cc50ce0.aspx

  • Corrie

    How could you be in a same-sex marriage and not even know it?

    I am sure he is probably referring to women who are not in their place but I have observed many patriocentric marriages where the man seems quite effeminate in speech and mannerisms. Is he going by observations or ??? when he makes this statement? Because, if we are going by observations concerning the mannerisms, habits and speech, then I would say that even patriocentric marriages are guilty of the “same sex” put down.

    As a friend of mine said, “Nothing quite screams “I am unsure of my masculinity” to me like a man who has to continually place all aspects of life into the pink or blue column.”

    It gets really hard to be falsely accused of being a lesbian (I have been accused of this in the most raunchiest of terms) and not being a proper biblical woman when it is a man with a very feminine sounding voice doing the accusing.

    We are all in same sex marriages unless we don’t do marriage they way they think we should be doing it?

    Right.

  • Corrie

    p.s. I am not referring to Russell Moore’s voice when I make the above statement. I am talking about other patriocentric leaders who have aimed their criticisms at me and other women who are still complementarian but do not agree with their extrabiblical teachings.

  • Corrie

    “Abel gives a good sacrifice. Cain gets angry and kills Abel.

    Are they related? Yes. Are they linked? Yes. Was it Abel’s fault? No. Was the sin internal to Cain? Yes.”

    Ellen,

    Apples and oranges.

    Now, if Ware came along and stated that Cain had one of two ways to respond to Abel’s challenge to his authority, either by violence or passivity, you would have an analogy.

    Who is claiming that it is Abel’s fault? We already know that it is NOT his fault just like we KNOW that it is NOT the woman’s fault if her husband hits her.

    You now need to tell that to Ware so he can apologize and retract his statement.

  • Corrie

    “Corrie, we do not agree on whether or not an unsubmissive wife is in sin (and since the situation is hypothetical, it is impossible to say anyway).”

    Really? You are putting words in my mouth.

    If a wife is truly unsubmissive, she is in sin. Having a will and desires of her own is not unsubmissive. There are not pink and blue lists of sins.

  • Corrie

    So, the concensus is that because Ware said that it was sinful for a man to hit his wife, he was not putting any responsibility on the woman for initiating the chain reaction?

    I think I need to go back to school because it seems I am having problems reading plain English.

    Next time one of my children pulls the “he did this so I decked him” excuse, I will remember that he really isn’t blaming his sinful reaction on his sibling as long as he says that what he did was wrong, too.

  • madame

    Corrie,

    I fail to see the analogy between Cain and Abel and an abused wife and her husband. It would only become an analogy if the husband were trying to put on a godly act, the wife were a godly woman, and that made the husband angry.

    A wife’s lack of submission can provoke anger in a man who believes he has the right to her submission. He doesn’t. He is sinning in expecting it instead of being ready to yield too.

    I think Ellen’s analogy is rather faulty because she’s trying to explain one situation by using a totally different one.
    I don’t think she is justifying the husband’s actions, though. She is clear in explaining that a cause and a reaction doesn’t make the one reacting any less responsible for his reaction.

    I do think that Bruce Ware is indirectly justifying the man’s abuse because he doesn’t consider a man wanting to have his way sin.
    What you have there is basically a vicious cycle that you can expect in a marriage of unregenerate people, not Christians that are living by the Spirit.

  • Ellen

    Fine, Corrie.

    You know what? Ware said, “…instead of submitting to their husbands…”

    The hypothetical wives are not submitting. Does that put them in sin? You say yes. So we do agree that a truly unsubmissive wife is in sin.

    So here’s another question: Does sin on the part of the wife justify abuse on the part of the husband? I say no, it does not.

    Nor does the lack of sin make abuse justifiable.

    Abuse is always sin and Ware says that abuse is a ainful reaction.

    And (for one who is complaining about putting words in mouths) what Ware said was, Corrie said, “Having a will and desires of her own is not unsubmissive…”

    Ware did not say that having a will and having desires of her own are sin. Forcing them into the marriage in an unsubmissive way (at least in my opinion) is.

    Does it say that

  • Ellen

    I think Ellen’s analogy is rather faulty because she’s trying to explain one situation by using a totally different one.

    Madame, all I’m trying to illustrate is that the sin of the abuser (the person reacting) does not belong to the abused. It is the fault entirely of the abuser, regardless of whether the person being acted upon is sinning or not.

    And Ware specifically said that the response of the part of the husband was “sinful”. He didn’t excuse it, he didn’t blame it on the wife. The abuse is “sin”.

  • Ellen

    I do notice that in Ware’s official statement (that Sue posted at #505) that he says that the “inclination would be” – is it possible that (speaking from notes in a sermon), he left out a word or two?

  • Don Johnson

    I have a question for non-egals. Daniel submitted to his king but did not always obey him, as he could not do so in faith. If a wife says she cannot do something in faith that is asked of the husband, what is the response of the mature believing husband?

  • madame

    Ellen,
    the problem I have with your analogy is that you are comparing a sinful reaction, triggered by jealousy, to a sinful reaction triggered by a false belief of entitlement. Can you see the problem I have?

    Anyway, I CAN see the similarity, as in one action causing a reaction, but that’s as far as the analogy is valid.

  • Ellen

    Here’s the thing…complementarians belief that male leadership is a good and Godly thing. If you want to continue to say that a woman injecting her own desires into a marriage in an unsubmissive way is not sin then we need to rehash the entire complementarian vs. egalitarian debate.

  • Ellen

    I have a question for non-egals. Daniel submitted to his king but did not always obey him, as he could not do so in faith. If a wife says she cannot do something in faith that is asked of the husband, what is the response of the mature believing husband?

    Do you want quotes from CBMW or is personal experience okay?

  • Kathy

    ‘If you want to continue to say that a woman injecting her own desires into a marriage in an unsubmissive way’

    K, this sounds like anything, everything she does, must be done in a submissive way.

    Is this step ford material or am I’m grossly misunderstanding here?

    Someone, any one please tell me that what’s advocated is not this. Because if it’s not then the wife CAN have a WILL (OF all things!) and desires (whodda thunk?) without being in sin, should she tell them, speak them, communicate them, in an ‘non submissive’ way.

    Wow. A wife cannot have will and desire without putting them on the table in a non submissive way?

    WHAT?

    If I am confused, then help me here, please.

  • Kathy

    Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough.

    I’m just not getting it. This sounds soo strange. Human will and desire must be communicated in a marriage in a ‘submissive’ way by the wife? Huh? This has the strangest sound to it.

  • Ellen

    A wife cannot have will and desire without putting them on the table in a non submissive way?

    John Piper (The Beautiful Faith of Fearless Submission, to appear on CBMW August 1, 2008) says,

    1. Submission does not mean agreeing with everything your husband says.
    2. Submission does not mean leaving your brain or your will at the wedding altar.
    3. Submission does not mean avoiding every effort to change a husband.
    4. Submission does not mean putting the will of the husband before the will of Christ
    5. Submission does not mean that a wife gets her personal, spiritual strength primarily through her husband.
    6. Finally submission does not mean that a wife is to act out of fear.

    (now for the “yeahbutstills)

  • Ellen

    I’m just not getting it. This sounds soo strange. Human will and desire must be communicated in a marriage in a ’submissive’ way by the wife? Huh? This has the strangest sound to it.

    I would say that it would be the difference between:

    1) “I would really like to go to that seminar on Saturday. I know that you have plans also so can we work something out?

    and

    2) “I’m going to the seminar on Saturday. You figure out what to do with the kids.

    OR

    1) I really want to lead the quiz team. I’m willing to give up something else but I really feel that God is leading me in this

    and

    2) I’m going to lead the quiz team. Yes, I know it will be a hardship for the family but I want to so I’m going to.

  • Kathy

    Ellen,

    So what would be an example of a submissive way for a wife to express her will and desire to her authority? And an unsubmissive way?

  • Kathy

    ‘Submission does not mean agreeing with everything your husband says.’

    So what’s wrong with the wife just simply saying what her will and desires are? Why do you have to attach submission to simple communication? How else do you get you will and desires known without simple communication?

  • Ellen

    So what’s wrong with the wife just simply saying what her will and desires are? Why do you have to attach submission to simple communication? How else do you get you will and desires known without simple communication?

    See example #1 (and #2)

    Submission is NOT mean agreeing…how does this rule out communication?

  • madame

    Ellen,
    I’ll ask one more question.

    What happens if there’s no “nice” or “submissive” way to say it?
    What if a wife just has to tell her husband “I won’t continue to support that destructive behavior” or “I can’t go with that decision because it goes against my conscience and I’m supporting something that goes against God’s (clearly written) will for our life”.

    I can only think of sitting down with him, telling him that his behavior/decision grieve me, that I know God doesn’t want him to do it, and that as his helper, I can’t sit back and watch him destroy himself. I won’t have a part in it.

    Is that submissive?

  • Ellen

    So what’s wrong with the wife just simply saying what her will and desires are? Why do you have to attach submission to simple communication? How else do you get you will and desires known without simple communication?

    “Submit to one another as the church submits to Christ (unless you are saying what your will and desires are, then you don’t have to worry about submission)” No, that’s not what is says.

    Why do you think that an attitude of submission should be discarded when talking about your desires?

  • Ellen

    What happens if there’s no “nice” or “submissive” way to say it?
    What if a wife just has to tell her husband “I won’t continue to support that destructive behavior” or “I can’t go with that decision because it goes against my conscience and I’m supporting something that goes against God’s (clearly written) will for our life”.

    Yes…what if she does?

    Piper puts it so (in the same article): “But submission does not follow a husband into sin. What then does submission say in such a situation? It says, “It grieves me when you venture into sinful acts and want to take me with you. You know I can’t do that. I have no desire to resist you. On the contrary, I flourish most when I can respond joyfully to your lead; but I can’t follow you into sin, as much as I love to honor your leadership in our marriage. Christ is my King.”

    Piper and Grudem say, “Nevertheless, even when she may have to stand with Christ against the sinful will of her husband (e.g., 1 Peter 3:1, where she does not yield to her husband’s unbelief), she can still have a spirit of submission – a disposition to yield. She can show by her attitude and behavior that she does not like resisting his will and that she longs for him to forsake sin and lead in righteousness so that her disposition to honor him as head can again produce harmony.”

  • Ellen

    I can only think of sitting down with him, telling him that his behavior/decision grieve me, that I know God doesn’t want him to do it, and that as his helper, I can’t sit back and watch him destroy himself. I won’t have a part in it.

    Going further, I would say that yes, this is a submissive attitude.

    With my own husband, years ago, I put it, “I love you and living without you scares the living daylights out of me. I want your leadership and love but I cannot live with this sinful behavior. I am leaving for now, but agree now to return after our pastor calls me and assures me that there will be counseling and accountability.”

  • Ellen

    Actually, that was the second time I talked to him…the first time was after he said, “if there’s a problem, it’s your problem, not “our” problem.”

    So I packed up as much as I could put in the Cavalier and called him from halfway to my dad’s house. “I’ve left and I’m halfway to my dad’s house. NOW is it OUR problem?

    There is a difference in the delivery, I think you’ll agree. The second coversation was the one after I talked to the pastor’s wife about standing firm with a submissive attitude.

  • Kathy

    1) “I would really like to go to that seminar on Saturday. I know that you have plans also so can we work something out?

    1) I really want to lead the quiz team. I’m willing to give up something else but I really feel that God is leading me in this

    I see the above as being considerate. The husband cannot do this too? Where’s the submission to authority here, anyway?

    2) “I’m going to the seminar on Saturday. You figure out what to do with the kids.’

    2) I’m going to lead the quiz team. Yes, I know it will be a hardship for the family but I want to so I’m going to.

    Incondiderate, selfish and demanding, irresponsible… So the husband has the right to act this way? If not then why are these examples of a wife’s unsubmissiveness?

  • Molly

    1) “I would really like to go to that seminar on Saturday. I know that you have plans also so can we work something out?

    and

    2) “I’m going to the seminar on Saturday. You figure out what to do with the kids.

    OR

    1) I really want to lead the quiz team. I’m willing to give up something else but I really feel that God is leading me in this

    and

    2) I’m going to lead the quiz team. Yes, I know it will be a hardship for the family but I want to so I’m going to.

    Ellen,
    Great statements for helping to clarify. One is rude and challenging, the other is respectful and caring.

    The respectful way is not the way a woman should talk to a man, it’s the way *Christians* should talk to eachother. A husband would be just as wrong for saying, “I’m going to the seminar on Saturday. You figure out what to do with the kids,” as a wife would be.

    When we are married, we work as a team. We don’t treat the other person as if they are an appendage, or as if they are there to serve us and don’t deserve to be honored. Your statements are a great example of not how wives should talk to husbands, but how Christians should talk to eachother. (No need for the pink and blue high-lighters here—common decency and respect is for everybody). 🙂

  • Ellen

    I was re-reading the comments and saw Corrie’s comment that I missed the first time:

    How would you feel if your son in law hit your daughter in response to her challenge to his authority when she disagreed with him and let her opinion (will) be known on an issue?

    How would you feel if your son in law hit your daughter because she had expectations that he would serve her when she was laid up with a c-section or a broken leg?

    Wouldn’t it be cowardly for your son in law or anyone else to suggest that he was violent because your daughter had challenged his authority and was trying to overturn the roles in the marriage where she expected him to serve her at times?

    I would counsel my daughter to leave an abusive marriage and I would call the abusive response “sinful” (just as Bruce Ware does)

  • Ellen

    When we are married, we work as a team. We don’t treat the other person as if they are an appendage, or as if they are there to serve us and don’t deserve to be honored.

    Nor does CBMW teach that the other person is an appendage, or if they are there to serve (other than we should all serve the other, but within different roles) and that they don’t deserve to be honored.

  • Ellen

    Molly, would you then say that a wife (or husband) who wants to have their own way, seeks to do what they want to do, wants the other to fulfill their will and not serve the other…is right or wrong?

    And would an abusive response be sinful?

  • Quixote

    I have a comment. Please don’t stone me.

    Michael in #400 (I think) supplied this quote: **“If a husband abuses you, you do not submit to him.”Dr. Russell Moore Denton Bible Church June 29th**

    TO ME, it would be clearer if Dr. Moore said, “If a husband abuses you, you SHOULD NOT submit to him.” (Or OUGHT NOT)

    But the way it’s worded leaves the possible impression…which is the understanding I got on my first reading and had to do a triple take…, “If a husband abuses you, (it’s because)you do not submit to him.”

    I thought Moore was backing up Ware. Anyone else see what I’m talking about?

  • Kathy

    ‘What happens if there’s no “nice” or “submissive” way to say it?
    What if a wife just has to tell her husband “I won’t continue to support that destructive behavior” or “I can’t go with that decision because it goes against my conscience and I’m supporting something that goes against God’s (clearly written) will for our life”.’

    You think that if a wife says ‘no’ to something she thinks is sin, or ‘I won’t do it’ that she is not being nice and she is being unsubmissive? Where’s the authority being submitted to here in this case?

    ‘I can only think of sitting down with him, telling him that his behavior/decision grieve me, that I know God doesn’t want him to do it, and that as his helper, I can’t sit back and watch him destroy himself. I won’t have a part in it.

    Is that submissive?’

    I think that’s being kind, thoughtful loving, and healthy. I don’t see submission in this response.

  • Kathy

    ‘Why do you think that an attitude of submission should be discarded when talking about your desires?’

    I think that when talking about your human desires (the assumption is that selfishness is out of the equation)that one doesn’t have to communicate them through words of ‘submission’. Why? Because they are just your human desires.

    I realize that the points I’ve recently responded to ASSUME a selfish, demanding (or what have) attitude on the wife’s part. Could it be projection since the defense is for the husband’s will, for the husband to have his way, for the wife to submit to him?

  • Ellen

    You think that if a wife says ‘no’ to something she thinks is sin, or ‘I won’t do it’ that she is not being nice and she is being unsubmissive? Where’s the authority being submitted to here in this case?

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    See comment #584

    “But submission does not follow a husband into sin. What then does submission say in such a situation? It says, “It grieves me when you venture into sinful acts and want to take me with you. You know I can’t do that. I have no desire to resist you. On the contrary, I flourish most when I can respond joyfully to your lead; but I can’t follow you into sin, as much as I love to honor your leadership in our marriage. Christ is my King.”

    Piper and Grudem say, “Nevertheless, even when she may have to stand with Christ against the sinful will of her husband (e.g., 1 Peter 3:1, where she does not yield to her husband’s unbelief), she can still have a spirit of submission – a disposition to yield. She can show by her attitude and behavior that she does not like resisting his will and that she longs for him to forsake sin and lead in righteousness so that her disposition to honor him as head can again produce harmony.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~

    See especially the parts that I’ve bolded.

    CBMW (again) does not define submission as obedience into sin.

    I think that’s being kind, thoughtful loving, and healthy. I don’t see submission in this response.

    I also see it as kind, thoughtful, loving and healthy. And a wife who is committed to submission can respond in exactly that way.

  • Don Johnson

    On my question of a wife acting in faith and saying NO to any specific request, you can answer from CBMW or personal experience.

    The reason I ask is, for all I can see, this requires a believing husband to accept the No. He cannot force her to violate her faith, even if it might be wrong.

    if you agree that she can say No if she cannot act in faith, why does this not become egal in practise? That is, each can request and each can say NO or Yes, depending, but always in mutual respect.

  • Kathy

    ‘I thought Moore was backing up Ware. Anyone else see what I’m talking about?’

    I see it.

    Peek a boo?

    Worded very strange indeed.

  • Ellen

    ‘I thought Moore was backing up Ware. Anyone else see what I’m talking about?’

    I see it.

    If you need to see it that way in order to demonize both of them now, then you will.

    “YOU DO NOT…” sounds like an imperative.

    If you drink, YOU DO NOT DRIVE.

  • madame

    ” have a comment. Please don’t stone me.”
    Stone.. stone…stone

    Michael in #400 (I think) supplied this quote: **“If a husband abuses you, you do not submit to him.”Dr. Russell Moore Denton Bible Church June 29th**

    TO ME, it would be clearer if Dr. Moore said, “If a husband abuses you, you SHOULD NOT submit to him.” (Or OUGHT NOT)

    But the way it’s worded leaves the possible impression…which is the understanding I got on my first reading and had to do a triple take…, “If a husband abuses you, (it’s because)you do not submit to him.”

    I understood it to mean the imperative you do not!
    I’d expect “you do not” to be in the present continuous or progressive form “you are not submitting” if he meant to blame the wife.

    If a husband abuses you, you are not submitting to him (he blames the wife)

    If a husband abuses you, you do not submit to him. Imperative. Don’t submit to it.

  • Corrie

    Maybe they need to hold a conference in order to teach women how to properly word their requests and statements so that it falls under their own guidelines of sounding submissive enough in order not to trigger the one of two reactions a man will now have when his will and way….errr….I mean his authority are threatened? A complementary gift of a Thesaurus (it helps to find flowery adjectives and adverbs) and how to “Win Friends and Influence People” (teaches you how to butter people up by telling them things that stroke their ego) would be given out to each attender.

    “Piper puts it so (in the same article): “But submission does not follow a husband into sin. What then does submission say in such a situation? It says, “It grieves me when you venture into sinful acts and want to take me with you. You know I can’t do that. I have no desire to resist you. On the contrary, I flourish most when I can respond joyfully to your lead; but I can’t follow you into sin, as much as I love to honor your leadership in our marriage. Christ is my King.””

    The Christian life has become very complicated. I am not sure I could use “flourish” in a sentence and still keep a straight face.

    How about “love your neighbor as yourself”? Or esteem the other person as better than your own self? Or be kind and compassionate and tender-hearted toward one another?

    All the emphasis is on man’s authority and this seems to be opposite of what scripture teaches.

    Where is Christ in all of this? Does anyone preach about Him anymore or are the bulk of comp sermons focusing on the supremacy and authority of man and the problem of women not knowing their place?

  • Corrie

    Madame,

    “I understood it to mean the imperative you do not!
    I’d expect “you do not” to be in the present continuous or progressive form “you are not submitting” if he meant to blame the wife.

    If a husband abuses you, you are not submitting to him (he blames the wife)

    If a husband abuses you, you do not submit to him. Imperative. Don’t submit to it.”

    Good point.

    Maybe Michael can give us the context of this sermon and why that even came up? Was he clarifying something he had previously stated? It is funny that we even have to make statements like this in this day and age. It seems like a no-brainer to me. Why would a woman ever need to be told that she does not have to submit to abuse? Isn’t that obvious?

  • Ellen

    Does anyone preach about Him anymore or are the bulk of comp sermons focusing on the supremacy and authority of man and the problem of women not knowing their place?

    If you are considering making such an accusation, you may also wish to consider taking a look at the websites of any typical comp church and comparing the sermon titles.

    Here are the previous 10 titles from John Piper (from the earliest to the most recent)

    – You Are God’s Midwife for the New Birth of Others
    – I’m Sending You to Open Their Eye
    – How the Supremacy of Christ Creates Radical Christian Sacrifice
    – Let No One Despise You for Your Youth
    – Songs That Shape the Heart and Mind
    – Spiritual Depression in the Psalms
    – A Broken And Contrite Heart God Will Not Despise
    – Bless the Lord, O My Soul
    – The Echo and the Insufficiency of Hell
    – Pour Out Your Indignation Upon Them

    Here are the most recent 10 from Denton Bible Church (note: the 3 most recent are the ones that were advertised as being about gender)

    – The Preaching of the King
    – The Heart of the People of God
    – All The Kings Men: Salt and Light
    – The Preaching of the King
    – The Depth of Purity
    – Divorce as Jesus Sees It
    – People of Fidelity
    – Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
    – Complementarian Vision of Creation
    – Manhood, Womanhood And The Mystery Of Christ

    How many of these sound as if they are focusing on the supremacy of man and the problem of women not knowing their place?

  • Ellen

    hy would a woman ever need to be told that she does not have to submit to abuse? Isn’t that obvious?

    Perhaps it’s because there are folks out here on blogs who say things like Bruce Ware is justifying abuse (when he is calling it a sinful reaction.)

  • Ellen

    Maybe Michael can give us the context of this sermon and why that even came up?

    Denton Bible Church podcasts are available on iTunes, if you have it. I subscribe and the sermon being quoted is already in my playlist.

  • Don Johnson

    On sin, of course one does not follow another, I am surprised this is even thought needed to be stated. A key question is what if the wife thinks it is sin and the husband does not, what happens then? Who gets to decide what is sin or not for the wife?

  • madame

    Corrie,
    Answering comment 603.

    I see what you mean, and I don’t see that much emphasis placed on the right way to communicate with a wife who is being hard headed and selfish (we do that too)
    The message, as you said, seems to be: man you have authority, woman you’ve got to submit to it.
    I believe in being a helper to my husband. I’m not so sure about the authority business because I don’t find any command to a man to exercise authority over his wife. At least not by having the last word or the 51% vote.

    There’s nothing wrong with knowing how to word things so that your spouse is more likely to listen. If my husband kept banging on and on about something and did it in an inconsiderate way, I’d probably burst at some point and resent him. If he talked with me kindly, but still making clear that something I’m doing is not acceptable, I’ll probably be very silent and want to change that behavior asap. Just because I don’t want to hurt someone I love.

    I couldn’t use the word flourish like that either. Probably my husband would think I’d memorized something from a book or off the internet.

  • Ellen

    A key question is what if the wife thinks it is sin and the husband does not, what happens then? Who gets to decide what is sin or not for the wife?

    Proverbs 11:14
    Where there is no guidance, a people falls,but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.

    If there is a disagreement, there is nothing wrong with asking an outside counsel (pastor, small group leader, elder).

    The same can be asked of an egalitarian marriage – what if one partner thinks the other is being selfish? Who gets to decide if the other is in sin?

  • Ellen

    I couldn’t use the word flourish like that either. Probably my husband would think I’d memorized something from a book or off the internet.

    (this has nothing to do with the conversation, just differences in people.)

    I use the word quite a bit. I believe I used it in a parent conference: (Student name) has absolutely flourished this year!

    I also use the word “obsequious” once in a while… 😉

  • Don Johnson

    I can agree with asking an outside counselor, but then the question is who gets to pick the counselor? Not all counselors would give the same answer.

    My take is it is the woman’s take if something is sin for her. Others might try to explain how it is not, but if she believes it is, then for her it is. In other words, it is up to the woman to decide whether she should do something or not, which is what egals say in the first place in an easier way to follow.

  • Ellen

    I can agree with asking an outside counselor, but then the question is who gets to pick the counselor? Not all counselors would give the same answer.

    I would suggest that if a couple cannot even agree on a counselor, their problems run deeper than one thing being a sin or not (if it is not clear in Scripture)

    My take is it is the woman’s take if something is sin for her.

    I know a woman who refuses to have marital relations with her husband because she doesn’t want to be his slut.

    “sin” for her?

  • Don Johnson

    That would need counseling, it may be that he degrades her, it may be her problem (for example, if she thinks all sex is wrong) or it may be both contribute to the problem.

    There are counselors that are egals and counselors that are not. Who gets to pick the counselor? This can become a regress and that is the point, trying to violate a wife’s will is futile, as is trying to violate a husband’s. Neither should try to do this. That is, what is sin is trying to control another and this is true whether one is a wife or husband.

  • Ellen

    That would need counseling, it may be that he degrades her, it may be her problem (for example, if she thinks all sex is wrong) or it may be both contribute to the problem.

    Why? In this egalitarian marriage, the wife’s take is that it is sin for her.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    Thanks for sharing. I do want to ask if it made any difference to your husband’s behaviour that you left him with a submissive attitude the second time. Did he respond positively to that?

  • Ellen

    There are counselors that are egals and counselors that are not. Who gets to pick the counselor?

    I would again make a guess that if a couple cannot even agree on a counselor, their problems run deeper than the situation you describe.

  • Ellen

    Thanks for sharing. I do want to ask if it made any difference to your husband’s behaviour that you left him with a submissive attitude the second time. Did he respond positively to that?

    Yes. It was still rocky for a while, but yes.

  • Lydia

    “Maybe they need to hold a conference in order to teach women how to properly word their requests and statements so that it falls under their own guidelines of sounding submissive enough in order not to trigger the one of two reactions a man will now have when his will and way….errr….I mean his authority are threatened? ”

    They do. All the time. Christendom is full of ‘how to’ formula seminars, books and sermons and they are big sellers. How to raise kids, How to have a happy marriage, How to deal with money. Seekers have them and so does Reformed. The Reformed camp focuses on human authority. “Do as I say because I am the anointed authority”. Most want a ‘formula’ religion. It is so much easier to follow mere human beings (the teachings of CBMW) and the ‘rules’ than it is to Abide in and follow Christ deeply seeking the truths of the Word and being taught by the Holy Spirit.

  • madame

    Ellen,
    What if your friend’s husband is addicted to p**n and is trying out his fantasies on her?
    That puts it in a different light. She is entitled to feel a bit less than clean in that case.

  • Ellen

    Lydia, would you do me a favor and get a list of the top 10 Christian “self-help” books and tell me how many are Reformed and how many are Seekers?

  • madame

    Kathy,
    Re. 595,
    I think that response is humble, loving, concerned and shows a desire to help.
    Submissive? I don’t know…

    I think that submission is more of an attitude or disposition.

    I believe both spouses do well if they use humility with each other. I like the “mutual submission” banner of Egals because it reminds both spouses to be humble with each other, not try to impose one’s will and esteem each other as above oneself.

  • Ellen

    No, even the wife says that p**n is not the issue. She simply doesn’t like the act and believes that enjoying her husband in that way is “being his slut”.

  • Corrie

    “How many of these sound as if they are focusing on the supremacy of man and the problem of women not knowing their place?”

    I can’t tell by the title. I have been surprised before to think I am going to hear something and patriarchy is brought up all throughout the sermon as examples.

    I asked a question. I didn’t make an accusation. It seems that the hard comps are obsessed with the topic of the authority and suremacy of man and the problem of women who are not in their places. Really, it is surprising how many times I have heard “evil feminists are the root of all of our social ills” worked into a sermon that has nothing to do with feminism or “biblical roles”.

    I know Piper preaches about other things besides male authority and the problem with women. But, I can honestly tell you that it appears that there are many men who can talk about nothing else.

    I was also not naming any names of anyone in particular. I hardly know who Ware, Moore or Patterson is but I do know what they are most popular for- talking about male authority and the problem of women who don’t know their place in God’s kingdom.

    “Why would a woman ever need to be told that she does not have to submit to abuse? Isn’t that obvious?

    Perhaps it’s because there are folks out here on blogs who say things like Bruce Ware is justifying abuse (when he is calling it a sinful reaction.)”

    Nice. What I mean by “justify” is to show that a response is right or reasonable. That is exactly what Ware did.

    Calling abuse a “response” to the person being abused is justification for why that person abused in the first place. It is an excuse. I have repeatedly stated over and over again that if my children tried that with me, it would not fly. It is a subtle blame-shifting taking place and I don’t care if he calls the response “sin”, it still does NOT change the fact at all. You stop that sort of excuse-making in its tracks. It should not belong in a mature person’s vocabulary.

    He said that a wife’s alleged sin of challenging the authority of her husband leads to a husband’s sinful response which could happen in one of two ways. He said that “now a husband” would respond as if it is a given that he will either respond abusively or passively to his wife’s alleged sin.

    Did he not?

    I am not twisting the plain meaning of what he said. You are twisting the plain meaning.

    If he misspoke, then he can retract and clarify. If he truly means that a husband will respond in one of two ways to a wife’s “threat” (what a joke) to his authority, then he needs to own it. He also needs to explain just what this challenge to authority really is and he needs to clarify whether or not it is a husband’s role to expect to be served and to have his will fulfilled.

    How can there be a threat to something that a godly person is not supposed to be holding dear, anyways?

    I will tell you that the language used is loaded and I have found that patriarchalists bank on that very thing. And they will keep a person tied up in endless circular reasoning by saying they didn’t mean what they really said instead of just restating it in terms that will leave no room for misunderstanding.

    As Paul so eloquently stated, this is Orwellian double-speak.

  • Corrie

    “Thanks for sharing. I do want to ask if it made any difference to your husband’s behaviour that you left him with a submissive attitude the second time. Did he respond positively to that?

    Yes. It was still rocky for a while, but yes.”

    Ellen,

    Are you still married to him?

  • Ellen

    Corrie, what you have to deal with is the fact that complementarians believe that male leadership is a good and godly thing. Whether or not you disagree, that is still the believe of complementarians.

    The statement by Ware is not a justification of abuse, Ware is stating his sincerely held religious belief about what happened at the fall. Both sides sin.

  • Lydia

    “Lydia, would you do me a favor and get a list of the top 10 Christian “self-help” books and tell me how many are Reformed and how many are Seekers?”

    Sorry Ellen, I would prefer you do it. But I am not sure what it would prove since Reformed ‘books’ are not big mass sellers anyway in terms of numbers. Reformed is really a ‘niche’ market. And one can make some serious money in niche markets so I am not dismissing it at all in terms of influence.

    Within the Reformed movement, conferences, sermons, etc are very much focused on hierarchies whether they are in the Body, the Trinity or in marriage.

    It has become an idol. And it is very sad.

  • Ellen

    Lydia, that’s sort of a judgment call, is it not? After all, I could just as easily call the “me-too-ism” of egalitarianism an idol, but I recognize it as a sincerely held religious belief and (even though I believe it is mistaken) would not call it an “idol”.

  • madame

    Ellen,
    I’d like a good definition of male leadership that includes Paul’s and Peter’s very clear instructions to husbands. So far, I get stuck with “leadership”, “authority” and “headship” and It’s not uncommon for men to believe they are entitled to honor, respect and obedience from their wives. Paul and Peter don’t teach men to know their position of authority, but to love, respect and honor.

  • Ellen

    From CBMW

    David Kotter: Husbands should serve the Lord as is written in Joshua 24:15: “But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” We should lay down our own comforts, preferences, even our lives (Ephesians 5). Love your wife like Christ loved the church. Observe and lead in your wife’s relationship with the church. Lead in the way that Christ leads and cares for the church. Do you know what your wife likes? When giving advice, tell her how much you love her. Resolve to grow in humility, be more sensitive, be a better communicator, and to love better.

    Bruce Ware: Third, the full essential and human equality of male and female in the image of God means there can never rightly be a disparaging of women by men or men by women. Concepts of inferiority or superiority have no place in the God-ordained nature of male and female in the image of God. As mentioned earlier, 1 Peter 3:7 makes this point in relation to the believing husband’s attitude toward his believing wife. He is to grant her honor as a fellow-heir of the grace of life. And, as the verse concludes, God feels so strongly about a husband’s honoring of his wife as fully equal and fellow inheritor of Christ’s riches that he warns that any husband who violates this principle will not be heard by God in prayer. Nowhere in Scripture is the differentiation between male and female a basis for the male’s supposed superiority in value or importance, or for female exploitation. All such attitudes and actions are sinful violations of the very nature of our common humanity as males and females fully and equally created in the image of God.

    Dennis Rainey : (I linked to the article since all three points would be very long) The main points are 1) be a leader 2) love your wife unconditionally 3) be a servant.

    There is much more.

  • madame

    The Dennis Rainey article is pretty good. But to points of concern, that usually rise, are there too.

    ” 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.”

    And

    ” William Hendriksen points out that God “…placed ultimate responsibility with respect to the household on the shoulders of the husband . . . The Lord has assigned the wife the duty of obeying her husband yet . . . this obedience must be a voluntary submission on her part”

    I don’t see any command for a man to impose his leadership in the Bible.

    I also don’t see where it says that women have been assigned the duty of obeying.

    Sorry I’m pulling out what I don’t agree with, I just wish some complementarians would see the misplaced emphasis and the underlying message.

  • Ellen

    Madame, I understand that egalitarians have a different understanding of Scripture, of the history, the pattern and the structure of the home and church.

  • Paula

    ” 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.”

    What a psy-ops job! This is nothing short of brainwashing. (examples on other church issues can be found Here)

    To say “You are not demanding this position; on the contrary, God placed you there” is to convince the man that he isn’t really being proud and self-serving at all, and in fact it is his divine right! Is this any different than saying “You are the chosen race”?? Wow.

    And then this: “but you must care for you wife and family by serving”. Yes, doublspeak: to boss is to serve.

    This stuff is so far from anything Jesus taught as to be indistinguishable from Mormon or Islamic teachings.

  • Jeff

    640 comments! Gross! 🙂 I wonder who is manning the phones this week? Maybe this post is the reason I was on hold with Verizon for over an hour!

  • Don Johnson

    1 Pet 3:7 is about believing husbands deal with UNBELIEVING wives. This is because the likewise chains to the previous section which discusses how believing wives are to deal with UNBELIEVING husbands, as the conditional (if) in the Greek assumes the condition.

    Nowhere is a believing wife told to obey her husband in the Bible. Kids and slaves, yes, wife, no.

  • Don Johnson

    Beware those that would change the text of Scripture by adding, subtracting or denying the implications of words. Anyone can check to see that the “if” in 1 Pet 3:7 assumes the conditional.

  • madame

    Ellen,
    I still consider myself mainly complementarian. In my marriage, I consider myself my husband’s helper. I have set aside my career. I try my best to support my husband, even when he has lead us to a church I didn’t like (or agree with!), he was elected an elder, and took on extra jobs in the church. I say what I think, but I’ve let him decide.
    I have a problem when this leadership is imposed, the husband believes he is entitled to have the last word, etc… There is a reason why a woman will spurn her husband’s leadership and not just because she is rebellious!

    The tone of that quote is very condescending and extremely disturbing.

  • Ellen

    Madame, there’s been condescending tones here as well…it is hard to judge the tone of print.

    I guess, for me, what it boils down to is how can I best submit to a husband the way that the church submits to Christ?

    Can I do that by getting in the last word myself, or by voluntarily following his leadership?

  • Don Johnson

    Did Daniel always follow the leadership of his king? He always submitted but did not always obey.

    Every believer should be submissive.

  • Greg Anderson

    Paula #556 – Ain’t religion grand !!! And by the way, thanks for the resources on the Septuagint vs. The Masoretic Text.

    Lydia #619 – It takes work to crack open an interlinear, and do the homework on both ancient and modern scholarship. Most folks just aren’t up to it and are more than happy to let their pastors and elders do their thinking for them. In a macabre sort of way, it’s almost like the world of the eloi and the morlocks in H.G. Wells’ “The Time Machine”.

  • Don Johnson

    NET Eph 5:24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

    One needs to see that Paul did NOT write obey, this is crucial to understanding this verse. Yet obey would have been expected, due to Aristotle. So Paul’s silence shouts.

  • madame

    Ellen,
    Yes, that is true. And if you read my reply you will see that that’s my main aim too.

    But I object to men being taught that they should impose their leadership. A wife’s submission is a gift. A husband’s love is a gift. He can’t demand it any more than I can, but those articles are teaching men to enforce their position as leaders and ignore their wife’s protests or resistance. That is not Biblical. A council that calls itself Biblical should be sticking to Bible, don’t you think?

  • Ellen

    but those articles are teaching men
    to enforce their position as leaders and ignore their wife’s protests or
    resistance.

    Madame, I read them as teaching men to lead, but to listen, love, listen, seek their wife’s counsel, understand…

    One needs to see that Paul did NOT write obey, this is crucial to understanding this verse. Yet obey would have been expected, due to Aristotle. So Paul’s silence shouts.

    Don, I understand that complementarians and egalitarians have a different understanding of Scripture.

    Did Daniel always follow the leadership of his king? He always submitted but did not always obey.

    Sounds like complementarian teaching to me.

  • Don Johnson

    On different understandings of Scripture, my take is context is king, including immediate context, what the Bible says about the subject and cultural context of the time a specific book was written. If you take a verse out of context, it can become a pretext for just about anything. We always need to try our best to understand the context.

  • Ellen

    On different understandings of Scripture, my take is context is king, including immediate context, what the Bible says about the subject and cultural context of the time a specific book was written.

    As I said, Don, it is hardly surprising that complementarians have a different understanding of the text than egalitarians. I would be stunned if there is somebody contributing on this thread who does not know the arguments in both directions.

    That is why I believe that it is less about Ware’s actual sermon linked to at the top of this post and more about shouting down complementarianism.

  • Don Johnson

    I gave my responses to Ware’s 10 points. I saw no direct response.

    I have given statements about Greek, which can be checked and verified (or possibly shown to be false). I have seen no direct response.

    Others have pointed out places where the ESV adds to the text, this is something that the Bible itself says not to do. If you accept someone doing that, you can get the Bible to say anything you want.

  • Ellen

    As I said, complementarians have a different understanding of the text than egalitarians. I would be stunned if there is somebody contributing on this thread who does not know the arguments in both directions.

  • Don Johnson

    I do not know the non-egal justifications for what they do as I am not one of them.

    If a Greek word assumes the conditional, then the translation should show this. This is basic translation theory. To teach AWAY from what the Greek text says is not a good thing.

  • Lydia

    “Lydia #619 – It takes work to crack open an interlinear, and do the homework on both ancient and modern scholarship.”

    There is a learning curve but it has been glorious! :o)

  • Ellen

    I do not know the non-egal justifications for what they do as I am not one of them.

    Ah…but do you know the points that they make?

    As I said, I believe this thread has become a means of attempting to shout down complementarian teaching.

    I pray that you all will fail. I believe that there should be room for grace on both sides of the issue.

  • Don Johnson

    If someone wants to teach it, they should be willing to be challenged.

    I am not trying to shout down anyone, but I am trying to understand what I see as their mistakes, perhaps I am wrong because I missed something. Iron sharpens iron. I have studied both sides, sometimes non-egals make a good point.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    That is why I believe that it is less about Ware’s actual sermon linked to at the top of this post and more about shouting down complementarianism.

    My comments had only to do with Ware’s sermon, or comments pertaining to it, mostly yours. Yet you did not respond to my specific concerns at all; many of your responses took the discussion away from my points.

    Why is this?

  • Ellen

    Bonnie, I’ve repeatedly said, if I’ve missed something, please bring my attention to it again.

    Instead of merely stating that I’ve ignored something (and most likely have just missed it, or missed the point), it would be really helpful if you were to restate the point so that I know what you’re talking about?

  • Ellen

    Don, I understand that not everybody here is about that.

    There are those who have called complementarians blasphemers, idolaters, compared them to Muslims and Mormons. Some have described complementarian quotes as “disgusting”.

    I do not believe that these are the folks who are trying to understand.

  • Paula

    We understand all too well what these teachings are and cause. And it’s disgusting and indistinguishable from any other religion that oppresses women– all of whom will insist that they aren’t oppressed. Yes, we understand comp teachings.

    These teachings don’t need more understanding, they need to be opposed strongly.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    How would you describe this quote,

    “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.”

  • Ellen

    Sue, me personally?

    I find most (not all) truly egalitarian men to be disturbing wimps.

    I refuse to be with a man who will not lead and have turned down dates with egalitarian men for that reason.

    I believe that a wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ and if her marriage resembles the idolatrous and rebellious Israel than it resembles a submissive church following Christ…it says more about her than it says about him.

    No, that does not mean that reacting in an abusive way is allowed, condone, encourages or tolerated. Abuse is sin. Period.

  • Don Johnson

    That quote sounds as if a wife is someone “who can’t say no” which I would want to ask of the writer if that is what he meant.

  • Sue

    “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.”

    I find these quotes incredibly disturbing. The woman who is a victim of violent assault in marriage reads this as a personal attack on her physical well-being. It is like being violated all over again every time one reads something like this.

    This kind of writing is so physically and psychologically damaging it should be made illegal.

  • Don Johnson

    One thing that is nice about egals is you get to choose how to structure your marriage, if you want to be in a “traditional” marriage with a take change guy that makes all the decisions and a wife who follows, that is a free choice to make by the parties involved. But you are not forced into fitting into some supposed pattern, the two of you can decide what works best for the two of you. And you never have to worry about crossing some magic line and doing something that you should not do that the other can do.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    If you want to continue to say that a woman injecting her own desires into a marriage in an unsubmissive way is not sin then we need to rehash the entire complementarian vs. egalitarian debate.

    Ware is saying that a woman injecting her own desires into a marriage is sin — a direct result of her being a sinner. And that the result of the husband’s being a sinner is abuse or passivity. So the woman’s having a will that she would like served is sinful just as the husband’s abuse or passivity is, yet the husband’s having a will that he would like served is not sinful. This is not headship or even good leadership; it’s a “legitimatized” double standard.

    Dr. Ware sets up the wife’s wanting to have her way as a threat to her husband’s authority. Certainly, a wife wanting to have her way and have her will served at the expense of her husband is sinful. But so is a husband wanting the same thing. Ware does not say this, though; he calls a husband’s expectation that his will be served by his wife his authority.

    What would it look like, in your estimation, for a wife to inject her own desires into her marriage in a submissive way? Would it mean something like leaving the final “yea” or “nay” up to her husband, or injecting her desires in a subordinate way; her will always taking 2nd place to her husband’s? If so, this is quite demeaning to her, no matter how anyone tries to spin it as righteous. It does not enable good leadership on the part of her husband; it just makes it easier for him to have his way.

    Christ does not demean; he lifts up.

  • Lydia

    “I do not believe that these are the folks who are trying to understand.”

    Some of us were comps for years until we started studying scripture in depth and could no longer ignore the obvious contradictions. It was my husband who pointed out the obvious contradictions to me!

  • Bonnie

    Ellen, in response to comment #666, how many times must I repeat what I’ve already repeated? I would say that, at this point, if you truly are interested in responding to my points, please look back through the thread and find my comments.

  • Molly

    That is why I believe that it is less about Ware’s actual sermon linked to at the top of this post and more about shouting down complementarianism.

    Ellen,
    I have yet to see or read an egalitarian tell women that unless they adopt egalitarian ideals, they will not be saved. However Bruce Ware just said that he interprets the Bible to mean that embracing hard-complementarian gender roles is PART of how women will be saved.

    We’re not the ones saying that your salvation is at stake. I know you to be a person who is dedicated to the Scripture. Tell me, do you truly agree with Ware’s words on the salvation of women?

  • Ellen

    Per comment #675 Bonnie said, What would it look like, in your estimation, for a wife to inject her own desires into her marriage in a submissive way? Would it mean something like leaving the final “yea” or “nay” up to her husband, or injecting her desires in a subordinate way; her will always taking 2nd place to her husband’s?

    It would look like, “honey, I’d really like to eat Mexican tonight.” Or Honey, will you please watch the kids so that I can go out for coffee with a friend?” Or “Sweetie, I’d love a little Starbucks.

    Why would a woman expressing herself to a husband who loves her have a problem expressing her desires?

    Here’s the way it happened to me a year or so ago. I was saying that I really wanted to get my photos on line so my mom could look at them, but the free account with flickr had a limit that I had just run into. The next morning there was an e-mail in my box telling me I had a 2-year subscription to flickr (unlimited)

    Last week I was saying that I was running out of space on my hard drive (due to too many photos). What appeared? An exterior hard drive.

    The messages seems to be that complementarian men are (by default) oafs with no consideration for those around them. In the complementarian churches that I have been in, when the women submit, there is more pressure on the men to love as Christ loves the church.

    Let’s take apart Ware’s description of the woman that “is not in sin”.

    want instead to have their way

    Does that not sound a little selfish?

    , instead of submitting to their husbands

    Hardly the fine example of “submit to one another

    to do what they would like to do

    ME FIRST! ME, ME, ME

    , and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them;

    Even in an egalitarian marriage, are you all supposed to serve each other, instead of wanting to be served?

    Do you think that the example of behavior that Ware gives here is the example of Christian you would want your children to follow?

  • Ellen

    I have yet to see or read an egalitarian tell women that unless they adopt egalitarian ideals, they will not be saved.

    Molly, (per comment #679), I have yet to hear a “comp” woman tell another comp that either…I have however, seen egalitarians call complementarians heretics, idolaters and blasphemers.

    However Bruce Ware just said that he interprets the Bible to mean that embracing hard-complementarian gender roles is PART of how women will be saved.

    Since I’m not sure of the exact quote, I’m hard pressed to imagine Ware using the phrase “hard-complementarian”. Are you referring to “saved through childbirth”?

  • Ellen

    Bonnie (per comment #79)

    Although not directly addressed to me, I’ll answer…

    Then why make the statement as Ware has? perhaps 1 of 2 reasons I can think of

    1) he believes that an unsubmissive wife is in sin and that a husband can sinfully react.

    2) he gave a shortened version (perhaps from being in a public venue and having abbreviated notes) – I would not doubt this, given that the “official” version on CBMW says that since the fall men and women have the inclination to act in these sinful ways.

    Yet is the husband in the situation Ware outlines not selfish as well as sinful?

    It is not surprising that egalitarians disagree with complementarians on whether or not male leadership is good and godly. If complementarians are right (and I believe that Ware believes that complementarians are right), it is the husband’s will that sets the direction for the family.

    Is his desire to have his wife subordinate her will to his, as he expects her to do to him, not exceedingly selfish?

    Why? Do we have any evidence of what the man’s “will” is? Why assume that it is selfish? If complementarians are correct and the husband’s will sets the direction for the family, and if the husband is leading in a godly way (and CBMW does teach men that leading in godly ways is vital), then his will is the best for his family.

    Would a loving husband not care about his wife’s wants and wishes, seeking to fulfill her too rather than have her just be a servant to his wants?

    Ware certainly did not say that a man should not care about his wife’s wants and wishes. He said nothing of the sort.

    Is the latter attitude not narcissistic and exploitative?

    Is a pastor necessarily being narcissistic and exploitative when leading a church? Is the board of elders narcissistic when setting the direction for their flock? No. Nor is a husband (simply by virtue of being a leader) being exploitative and narcissistic.

  • Ellen

    Bonnie wrote comment #110, but there are no question marks in it.

    per comment #133 He has a will, she has a will. Why did God give her one if its only purpose is to be subordinated to his?

    If complementarians are correct, a marriage is to reflect Christ and the church. Why give the church a will, is she is to be subordinate to Christ? In her submission to her husband, a wife has the opportunity to model to the world the church’s submission to Christ.

    Why do any of us have wills, if we are supposed to submit to one another?

  • Ellen

    Bonnie, per comment #138: Are you saying that a wife is sinning by wanting her will to be served as well as her husband’s? That is what Ware is saying, and I do not believe it is what Ephesians 5 is saying.

    I believe that Ware is describing a woman who is behaving selfishly. (see comment #680 where I took the description line by line.

    A wife can want her will met in a sinful way or a way that is not sinful. (again, see comment #680 – does this sound selfish or not selfish?)

  • Ellen

    Bonnie wrote comment #174, with no ?.

    #187 Is the parallel, then, between Christ and man, or between the type of submission (or devotion, or respect, or reverence) given to each?

    I believe that when Scripture says, “A wife should submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ”, that would seem to be a type of submission.

    It is one that I believe wives should model. And joyfully.

  • Ellen

    Bonnie wrote #195, no ?

    Most people realize? (comment #240) I think this was a rhetorical question, since you answered it yourself…

    You also asked about the definition of hupotasso. It would be much easier to use blueletterbible, search for “submit” and look at all the other places that the word is used. If you really want me to list them all, I will. Please let me know.

    The New Commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves — does this not also include spouses of both sexes?

    Complementarians teach that a husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church. I think this means that yes…this includes spouses of both sexes. Elsewhere in Scripture, older women are told to teach younger women how to love their husbands, giving the impression that love for one’s husband is a requirement.

    We are also to give preference to one another in honor (Romans 12:10) — does this not also apply to spouses?

    Yes. Please tell me how the woman in Ware’s example (that you say is not sinning) is giving preference to her husband?

    In fact, the husband’s preference is to run deeper – if he does not give honor to his wife as the weaker vessel, his prayers will be hindered. That should be a warning to any man.

    Why the assumption that if someone is submitting, someone else (the one to whom they are submitting) is leading?

    Madame answered in #242. But here’s my answer (to make sure that I hit every one of your “?”.)

    Any organization (family, church, school) without a leader falls into anarchy. Even in most egalitarian marriages, people will say that one partner leads in one area, the other in another area. Leadership is shared, but there is a leader. Complementarians believe that the husband should set the course for the family. Egalitarians disagree.

    And with that, I’m expecting a phone call, so I’m logging off for the evening (or until much later).

    Bonnie, unless you can give me a little more direction as to what you are looking for, I’ll continue later.

    thanks!

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    A wife can want her will met in a sinful way or a way that is not sinful.

    I can guarantee you that an abusive husband is not in the slightest bit interested in the difference between these two. My understanding of this teaching is that a woman wanting to have a will of her own at all is sinful. Any resistance to the will of her husband is sinful.

  • Ellen

    # John Says:
    June 30th, 2008 at 8:58 pm

    STOP POSTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    John, I told Bonnie I’d address what she wanted me to address, and she told me to look at the comments. I have very little direction from Bonnie what it is that she would like me to answer. You are right, this is very tedious.

    Sue, I think I said that sometimes an man is just an abusive jerk. I could use stronger language, but the censor would catch it. I think there is a difference between an abuser (that abusive jerk who is a chronic abuser) and a man who reacts (one time) in an abusive way. Either way, it is sin.

  • Sue

    Sue, I think I said that sometimes an man is just an abusive jerk. I could use stronger language, but the censor would catch it. I think there is a difference between an abuser (that abusive jerk who is a chronic abuser) and a man who reacts (one time) in an abusive way. Either way, it is sin.

    Then that is what Ware should have said. I personally think that Ware was talking about abusive jerks, they become that way because their wives are submissive enough. It makes me feel ill.

    Hi Denny,

    The CBMW site needs to be revamped in consideration for abused women.

  • Corrie

    ” After all, I could just as easily call the “me-too-ism” of egalitarianism an idol,”

    So, egalitarianism is “me-too-ism” and complementarianism is just plain old “male-ism”.

    “Corrie, what you have to deal with is the fact that complementarians believe that male leadership is a good and godly thing. Whether or not you disagree, that is still the believe of complementarians.”

    My argument isn’t with proper male authority. My argument is with how comps/pats define this authority and I believe it is exactly opposite of how the Bible defines authority.

    The emphasis on a husband’s role in marriage is loving, serving, sacrificing, understanding, and honoring.

    I am quite sure that these topics will keep men quite busy.

    But, the comp/pat position is to talk about their place of entitlement and privilege and how they are to “lead”, “guide”, “sanctify”, etc when the Bible does not charge men with these things.

    Men should start really learning how to love their wives and the definition of love is found in 1 Cor. 13. That should keep them busy for years.

    Also, men should be loving their wives as they love their own selves. They don’t like to be bossed around and micro-managed and told what to do and treated like a child when they are a fully functioning adult, why do they think that their wives will love this sort of treatment? All these pat/comp teachers have to do is expound on the fact that a husband should treat his wife in the same way he wants to be treated- with respect, humility, honor, patience, kindness, gentleness, compassion, etc.

    So, from my studies in scripture, the comps/pats are barking up the wrong tree. They need to start focusing on the things God told them to do and not on the things that they wish God told them to do.

    If they mastered loving their wives and treating them as they want to be treated, just think of how this could revolutionize marriages.

    As Moore said, headship is not “Woman, get me some chips!” but what is it? I think it is “Woman, can I get you some chips and some lemonade, too?”

    Each spouse is said to want to be concerned about pleasing the other one (1 Cor. 7). It is mutual. This concern does not only go one way as some would have us think it does.

  • Paula

    4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs

    You said it, Corrie!

  • Bonnie

    Ellen, I appreciate your attempts to answer my points, although honestly, I have to wonder whether you are truly trying to do so or just making a show of it, because you say that I’ve given you very little direction as to what I’d like you to answer. I honestly don’t know what direction you’d like, because I’ve said repeatedly that I’d like you to directly address my exact and specific points rather than responding obliquely or taking them in new directions. It’s nothing complicated, I just would like you to stop ignoring my points and actually engage with the very points themselves rather than repeat complementarian doctrine.

    I didn’t merely ask you to respond to my direct questions or responses to you, either, but to the points of my comments.

    I will respond to some of your recent responses to my request:

    he [Ware] believes that an unsubmissive wife is in sin and that a husband can sinfully react.

    My issue is not whether or not an unsubmissive wife with what he calls an unsubmissive wife. I can assume that he is merely speaking of a wife who wishes to have her way to the exclusion of serving her husband until he says that such behavior is a threat to her husband’s authority. No, it is not! Her lack of submission is not a threat to his authority, it is disrespectful to him and disobedient to God. It is sinful, and unsubmissive.

    Wrongly calling a wife’s submission a threat to a husband’s authority is one of my points.

    Yet Ware’s statement goes even farther than that. He also implies, in the preceding sentences, that a wife is sinning merely by wanting to have her way rather than submitting to her husband, lack of which he describes as “seeking to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them.” It seems that he is suggesting that the tables are turned from what they should be, i.e., the wife working to fulfill the husband’s will.

    I do not believe that a wife’s submission or serving her husband equals working to fulfil her husband’s will. Nor, as I said, should a husband feel threatened if his wife wishes to have her way and works to have her husband fulfill her will. Hence it appears that Ware is suggesting a double-standard, which I brought up in comment 79.

    So, another point would be that a wife’s submission does not equal working to fulfill her husband’s will.

    Another point would be that a husband’s will is not his authority. A husband’s will is not an authority over his wife’s will, yet Ware says that it is.

  • Ellen

    Bonnie, the points that you are making are either points of disagreement (not needing explaining, but rather understanding the other and not agreeing)

    and/or

    points of disagreement between complementarians and egalitarians. That is why I referred to rehashing the whole debate.

  • Bonnie

    Rats. The sentence(s) that begins my response to Ellen’s responses should read:

    My issue is not with whether or not an unsubmissive wife is sinful, of course she is. My issue is with what Ware calls an unsubmissive wife.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    Bonnie, the points that you are making are either points of disagreement (not needing explaining, but rather understanding the other and not agreeing)

    and/or

    points of disagreement between complementarians and egalitarians. That is why I referred to rehashing the whole debate.

    No, they’re not.

    And I must go to bed. Goodnight, all.

  • Bonnie

    Okay, one more.

    Ellen,

    (I said:) Is his desire to have his wife subordinate her will to his, as he expects her to do to him, not exceedingly selfish?

    (You said:) Why? Do we have any evidence of what the man’s “will” is? Why assume that it is selfish?

    Why assume that the wife’s is? Besides, both husband and wife, being sinners, will still be selfish at times, perhaps many times.

    If complementarians are correct and the husband’s will sets the direction for the family,

    Okay, this is a major point: Why should the husband’s will set the direction for the family? Christ’s will should set the direction for the family. I am certain that Christ’s will and the husband’s will will not always be in line.

    and if the husband is leading in a godly way (and CBMW does teach men that leading in godly ways is vital), then his will is the best for his family.

    And what if he isn’t? He won’t always. And how can we tell? Who decides? Nor should he have to in every situation. You see, it is too much to expect a husband to be Christ to his own family, which is essentially what the comp. teaching you are espousing is suggesting. Husbands are human. God gave husbands wives so that the burden could be shared. So that he could have a helper — and a helper sometimes leads! So he would not be alone. So he would have someone with whom to produce children. So he would have a companion equal to his needs for help.

  • Ellen

    Another point would be that a husband’s will is not his authority.

    I guess I don’t really see them as separable.

    A husband’s will is not an authority over his wife’s will, yet Ware says that it is.

    If complementarians are correct, the husband is authority over his wife. If this is true, then the husband’s authority will follow this “will”(only in quotes because there are too many “wills”). If he is leading in a godly way, the husband’s “will” will be the right path. If he is leading in an evil way, the leading will be in a wrong way and the wife should confront him. That has been covered here already.

    If egalitarians are correct, then you are correct, the husband’s will is very separate from his authority, because he has no authority.

    Wrongly calling a wife’s submission a threat to a husband’s authority is one of my points.

    I know you meant “lack of submission”…so here goes.

    IF you are the leader of a company and you have an employee who want to do things their own way, who wants you to work for them in order to get their own way and generally doesn’t want to do things your way…I think that (personally) I would not see that as a very stable way to run a company. (Being a sinner) my inclination can be to act in anger or to simply throw up my hands and let that person do what they want.

    I can see a husband with an unsubmissive wife perceiving that as a threat. That doesn’t mean that he’s right in the way he deals with it.

    Yet Ware’s statement goes even farther than that. He also implies, in the preceding sentences, that a wife is sinning merely by wanting to have her way rather than submitting to her husband, lack of which he describes as “seeking to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them.” It seems that he is suggesting that the tables are turned from what they should be, i.e., the wife working to fulfill the husband’s will.

    Again, if complementarians are right, the husband’s “will” will set the course for the family.

    If egalitarians are right, there is no table to turn.

    (Am I seeing your concern correctly or am I missing the point again? I can believe I am missing the point, as it is getting late)

  • Ellen

    Why assume that the wife’s is? Besides, both husband and wife, being sinners, will still be selfish at times, perhaps many times.

    Did you notice in comment #680 where I took the description of the wife line by line?

    Yes, they will both be selfish from time to time. Complementarian teaching tells us that the husband should be seeking his wife’s counsel.

    CBMW also says,

    “By incorporating these concepts into the
    Ephesians passage, we gain additional insight into a husband’s role in marriage. He is to be a servant to his wife; he is to be sensitive to her needs, trying to anticipate them even before she does. He is to attend to those needs before his own, even if it costs him dearly. Obviously, this leaves no room for exerting his marital authority for his own pleasure or convenience. This is what it means to love your wife as Christ loved the church.”

    Okay, this is a major point: Why should the husband’s will set the direction for the family?

    How is this not an egalitarian question.

    Complementarians believe that Biblically, there is a pattern for male leadership in the church and home. The husband will set the course for the family (using, I’d assume, his will to figure out what direction to point them in)

    And what if he isn’t? He won’t always. And how can we tell? Who decides? Nor should he have to in every situation. You see, it is too much to expect a husband to be Christ to his own family, which is essentially what the comp. teaching you are espousing is suggesting.

    Since you just said that the comp teaching is too much to expect, I think that you might see why I could come to understand how this is a comp/egal question.

    CBMW also says, A wise husband will also value his wife’s opinions and actively seek her counsel and insights (see Prov. 12:15; 20:18). He will seek to form a consensus with her on all decisions (cf. Matt. 12:25); if she has serious reservations about a particular decision, a wise husband will carefully reconsider the issue before proceeding. The basis for his evaluation must never be, “What will be pleasing or convenient for me?” Rather, he must ask, “What will please and glorify God, and what will be best for my wife (and children)?” If he and his wife cannot agree on the answer to that question, he is the one whom God has authorized to break the tie, and he is the one whom God will hold responsible for the results.

    Did I hit the main points? Seriously, not a show. I truly want to not appear to ignore (mostly I get stuck on one thing)

  • Ellen

    Bonnie is it possible that we are struggling with communication because of a difference in definition?

    I’m not equating will = desire.

    will = The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action…

    Diligent purposefulness

    Using these definitions, a wife who is running at cross-purposes with her husband (deliberately choosing a different course of action) is a much different “feel” than a wife who simply has different desires.

  • madame

    ” A wise husband will also value his wife’s opinions and actively seek her counsel and insights (see Prov. 12:15; 20:18). He will seek to form a consensus with her on all decisions (cf. Matt. 12:25); if she has serious reservations about a particular decision, a wise husband will carefully reconsider the issue before proceeding. The basis for his evaluation must never be, “What will be pleasing or convenient for me?” Rather, he must ask, “What will please and glorify God, and what will be best for my wife (and children)?”

    Up to that point, it sounds good. But he has to consider his wife’s input as equally valuable.
    I think you get leadership wrong, Ellen, it’s not about a man leading his family to do HIS will, a man is leading his family to do GOD’S will. He will have to do a LOT of Bible studying, a lot of praying and a lot of humbling himself and listening to his family. God didn’t give a man the free card to do his own thing with his family.

    ” If he and his wife cannot agree on the answer to that question, he is the one whom God has authorized to break the tie, and he is the one whom God will hold responsible for the results.”

    Where did God authorize a man to break the tie?

  • madame

    I think the issue that a lot of people have with CBMW is that it claims to be Biblical, but many of us believe they are adapting the Bible to fit a certain paradigm. Leader-submissive follower.

    Many people (I include myself) go to that site seeking for godly advice because we are in a difficult situation. Many of us don’t have very wise pastors, or pastors that are interested in counseling a married couple, to turn to. Many of us are not getting any proper support. Many of us can’t persuade our spouses to go to counseling. Many of us may be married to ministers or elders who should be (and maybe even are!) counseling others.

    We need advice from people who have more experience than we do and we turn to people who are esteemed in the Christian world. But we find that they are teaching things that aren’t really Biblical.
    Husbands are being taught to impose their leadership. Some husbands will understand that leading means setting the example in godliness, leading the family to God, becoming a servant… I doubt any wife will spurn that type of leadership!
    Others will understand leadership to mean they have the last word. The family has to follow.

    Wives (and I assume husbands) that believe God has given different responsibilities to wives and husbands, go to that site to look for guidelines. That site sent me back to my Bible, good for the site! But not because it’s so godly, but because some writers (not all!) are publishing advice that is NOT Biblical.

    Sure, some articles are very good. I sat reading MacArthur’s sermons to wives and husbands, and some of it had me crying. It was so beautiful! But if he then adds the “husband has the authority to break the tie” and “wives are commanded to obey”, well….
    He doesn’t know what the reader is going to take with himself (or herself).

    Is it any wonder that Christians want leaders to stick to the Bible? Is it any wonder that Christians want leaders to be leading in humility, seeking the spirit of the Word, not just the letter?

  • Sue

    Madame,

    I really feel for you. I was told things by my pastor about 1 Tim. 2:12 and about headship that are off that website or their materials.

    At first, I didn’t want to read the study on kephale “head” because I was afraid that it would support the notion that the husband was the authority, and that was not working out too well for me.

    But, I actually took each example in the study, about 40 and looked them up in online books. I found that the examples do not support the conclusions at all.

  • Kathy

    I just don’t think it’s right to build doctrine on things that are never explicitly said, being only on what’s claimed to be an ‘indication’, something ‘intended’, something ‘implied’. It seems to me that these are the true foundations of the comp/patri doctrine.

    It is never said that the husband is the leader of the family, that he has authority, that because Adam was created first he had dominion over woman, that God gave authority or domion over the woman to the man, (only to humans over the animals), that he is to assert his rule over his wife, (have Gen 3, in mind here) or that he is to exercise his leadership over his wife, that he has headSHIP, that he is the head of the Family, that woman cannot be pastors, or elders, or teachers. It’s all made up! I don’t even see systematic theology at work, I see systematic building on presuppositions. It cannot get anymore annoying than that, I don’t think. For me, it is all too obvious, because such things just don’t exist in the texts.

    End of rant. 😉

  • Don Johnson

    Kathy,

    I think this shows the importance of checking your teachers, as Paul commended the Bereans for doing.

  • Kathy

    1. The order of creation, with the man created first, INDICATES God’s design of male headship in the male/female relationship (Gen 2; 1 Tim 2:13).

    ?

  • Don Johnson

    I could just as easily say the order of design with the man created first but being declared “not good to be alone” indicates God’s design that woman is the culminating apex of God’s creation, as after she was formed, it was all declared “very good”. (Here is where I speculate like the non-egals): As the culminating apex of creation, she should be acknowledged as leader, after all Scripture does not say she will need help but that man does.

    Both attempts at making one gender OVER the other are deeply flawed.

  • Ellen

    I think you get leadership wrong, Ellen, it’s not about a man leading his family to do HIS will, a man is leading his family to do GOD’S will. He will have to do a LOT of Bible studying, a lot of praying and a lot of humbling himself and listening to his family. God didn’t give a man the free card to do his own thing with his family.

    You are correct…that is the ideal. Being human requires grace from one’s spouse, whether you are a man or a woman.

    Where did God authorize a man to break the tie?

    Complementarians believe that Scripture shows an overall pattern of male leadership in the church and home. A woman is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. (As I have mentioned several times)

  • Corrie

    Don,

    #712 is just as plausible as point #1 on Ware’s outline.

    Wasn’t it Ware who proclaimed that the thing he liked best about the Trinity was its heirarchy???????

    Adam was created first BUT since then every man has come from a woman.

  • Corrie

    Don,

    #712 is just as plausible as point #1 on Ware’s outline.

    Wasn’t it Ware who proclaimed that the thing he liked best about the Trinity was its heirarchy???????

    Adam was created first BUT since then every man has come from a woman.

  • Ellen

    It’s all made up! (Kathy)

    Both attempts at making one gender OVER the other are deeply flawed. (Don)

    disgusting (Sue)

    These teachings don’t need more understanding, they need to be opposed strongly. (Paula)

    This really does not indicates a desire to have a “conversation”, does it Don? Are you still maintaining that this is not about shouting down the comp camp?

    Some are interested in hearing from the other side.

    There is a group that is here for the purpose of silencing the other side.

    T

  • madame

    Ellen,
    ” Where did God authorize a man to break the tie?

    Complementarians believe that Scripture shows an overall pattern of male leadership in the church and home. A woman is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. (As I have mentioned several times)”

    I would like to see scriptural evidence of this. (the tie breaking authority, not submission, I know that one already)
    I don’t mean to exasperate you. I KNOW what complementarians believe. I’ve spent hours on CBMW nodding in agreement and just barely controlling my violent desire to attack the computer screen with my cup of tea, screaming WHAAAAAAAAT?

    I think it’s sad when people defend a position against another one for the sake of keeping a paradigm in place. That’s why I find myself with one foot in each camp these days. I can’t do away with certain Scriptures, but I can’t embrace teaching that is not from the Bible.

  • Ellen

    As the culminating apex of creation, she should be acknowledged as leader, after all Scripture does not say she will need help but that man does.

    Don, did God put women in leadership positions in His temple? Did God anoint men or women as the first kings of Israel? Did Christ choose men or women as His apostles?

    What pattern does Scripture give us?

  • Don Johnson

    Did God put women in positions of leadership over Israel? (Yes, even though it was a patriarchal culture, examples are Miriam, Deborah, one of 3 judge prophets, Huldah, etc.)

    Did God explain why only male descendents of Aaron with no blemishes could be priests? (No, it is just a requirement, but trying to carry over ANY of these requirements to being a priest in the new covenant would be a form of Judaizing, which we are not to do. All believers are royal priests in the new covenant.

    Every leadership ministry is a gift from God, so Junia was chosen by God to be an apostle. The 12 had special requirements to map to the 12 patriarchs/tribes of Israel.

    The pattern of Scripture is that leaderhship is based on being gifted by the Spirit and not gender.

  • Kathy

    Ellen,

    ‘It’s all made up’ is another way of saying it is never said. (in scripture)

    ‘It’s not said’ is another way of saying, it’s not written.

    I want to hear about what the scriptures ‘show’, ‘infer’, ‘implicate’, ‘intend’ and ‘indicate’. Believe me, I do. So I do want to see the other side here. And I am the other side also, so I can share too.

    If something is not written, that’s the way it is.

    I don’t see ANY of what the comp doctrine says, said in scripture. It writes one thing, the bible has written in it other things.

    Clear as mud?

  • madame

    Kathy,
    In comment 707 you said
    ” I just don’t think it’s right to build doctrine on things that are never explicitly said, being only on what’s claimed to be an ‘indication’, something ‘intended’, something ‘implied’ ”

    I couldn’t agree more. Especially if these indications, intentions and implications usurp the authority of the clearly written Word.

  • Corrie

    Below are my notes, mostly word for word, up until just after the quote about abuse.

    We really need to go back to the “why” of Ware’s sermon. Why did he make the statement about the “response” of abuse/passivity? Well, up until that point, the whole 10 minutes were spent comparing the egal view to the comp view. The egal view is one that “assualts” and “defects” from sound biblical teaching. Egals do not recognize any distinction between men and women nor do they honor male authority in the home or church.

    When women get out of their place and do not keep to the “role” they are to play according to the complementarian script, abuse or passivity in the male is the result. This is what is being said. We know it and we have heard it ad nauseum. If I had a nickel for every time I have heard one of the big name comp/pats talk about how the church is wimpy and weak because of the egal/feminists taking over and getting out of their place, I would be rich.

    He asserts that in Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, women submit, men lead and we recognize proper male authority in the Churches and the home and this is what happens under the comp banner NOT the egal banner.

    When women do not recognize proper male authority in the home, the man feels threatened and he responds in one of two ways- to be abusive (and that can be domineering, verbal, physical, etc) or to be passive.

    This is exactly what Ware was saying. It is only when men are in authority and women are submitting do we escape the effects of the curse/sin in the home and church. After reading these notes and the context from where that quote came from, just what do you think Ware was getting at? It is quite clear what he is saying and it is NOTHING new at all.

    Notes:

    “Bruce Ware- Denton Bible Church

    Want to follow the Bible, want to be faithful to God’s word and what it teaches even though it is countercultural, even though the culture despises what the Bible teaches on this (biblical roles of men and women- original design that God had when He created men and women)

    He is delighted to be there to assist in this reinforcement of what the Bible teaches and embracing as Christian people the plan of God for men and women

    Foundational truths are being undermined by fellow evangelical scholars and Christian leaders, it is just really hard to believe it is happening but it is

    What is behind these defections?

    In order to minimize and/or eliminate the offense, changes have been made to the Bible’s teaching in order to accommodate the culture

    Our culture finds this idea of Biblical manhood and womanhood offensive so they change what the Bible says about this issue- for the past 30 years because of the force of the feminist movement felt in our churches, gender and role relationships, challenges to accepted biblical views and God-ordained roles, even in our evangelical circles this is being assaulted, which has resulted in two primary views and they reflect opposite views, opposite visions for God’s design for men and women- egalitarian view and complementarian view.

    Egalitarians teach that men and women are equal in essessence, humanity and role/function and there is no God-ordained/created authority relationship between the man and the woman. Egals teach that authority comes from when sin enters the world, men become sinful and seek to authority over their wives and wives acquiese to this authority; relationships of mutual submission; no distinction between men and women; banner vers is Gal. 3:28, no male or female- co-heirs of all the benefits of the Christ but that is not to say that there are no role distinctions in how they carry out their callings according to their genders; egals wipe away any sense of male headship, that is the authority of the man in the home and the church.

    He represents the complEmentarian view with an “e” not an “i”. Woman completed God’s purposes in the male/female relatiionships. Equal in essense, fully human, equally the image of God, but God designed that there would be an authority/submission relationship in that male/female structure and this was His design in Creation that there would be male headship and Adam had authority and ultimate responsibility.

    What happens in sin is that that very wise and good plan of God of male headship is sought to be overturned as women, now as sinners want INSTEAD to have their way instead of submitting to their husbands and do what they would like to do and really seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will rather than serving them and the husbands on their part because they are sinners now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged or more commonly to become passive, acquiesing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in THEIR HOMES AND CHURCHES.

    What happens in Christ according to the complementarian view is that we are enabled by the Spirit once again to recover the created design of God where men are able to love their wives as Christ loved the church and wives submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ. This in the power of the Spirit. And in Churches we recognize God’s design of proper male authority in the Churches.

    So we have these two very different visions of how God designed male/female relationships in how God designed us.

    We should affirm male headship because of the points he went on to make that are outlined in this post.”

  • Ellen

    It is very clear that there is more than one agenda.

    Those who want to explain their side (instead of tell the other side they’re all wrong), please raise a virtual hand.

  • Corrie

    Madame,

    “Up to that point, it sounds good. But he has to consider his wife’s input as equally valuable.”

    This is it exactly. Her input is as valuable as her husband’s since she is a fully functioning adult who as the same measure of the Holy Spirit. The whole thought on the comp side is that women are more “easily deceived”. That is another ADDITION to the scripture. It never says this at all nor does it intimate it. It says that Eve was deceived and Adam was not. But, that doesn’t stop people from teachings things that are not in the Bible and that they ought not.

    We can all give lip service by saying “listen to your wife and ask her for her opinion” but when we turn around and say that the man gets to decide in all cases for all times regardless of what his wife’s opinion is on the matter, then are we really regarding the wife’s input as equally valuable? No.

    There are some areas where a wife will know more than her husband and vice versa. It is different for EVERY couple.

    Wouldn’t it be wise for the one with the most knowledge and expertise in that particular area to be the one whose opinion is put at the forefront?

  • Egal-eye

    Don, you have a gift for tact and giving solid, courteous comments and questions without getting caught up in retort or other snipe-like volleys. We are exhorted to speak the truth in love and to give a reason for our faith in gentleness as you continue to exemplify. As often as this is done, by either side, it goes a long way towards minimizing defensiveness which can become a stumbling block to the hearers and observers. We must not forget that there are many who read these blogs who may never interact but who listen and learn, nonetheless, and who can be influenced by tone and attitude as much as by content sometimes. We ought always to remember that we are ambassadors for Christ-on blogs, in church, at the coffee shop, wherever and always, and to take that calling seriously so as not to cause others to stumble. I have personally witnessed the damage done to persons new to this type of debate (both comps and egals) and topic because of the careless retorts of both egals and comps. I am learning, too, to carefully consider not only what I say but how I say it, and whether I say it.

  • Corrie

    “Can you all show me where “Trinity” is clearly defined?”

    Ellen,

    What excites you most about what you know about the Trinity?

    Its “hierarchy”?

    All I know it is a mystery but when I think of the Trinity, I don’t think “hierarchy” as being the most glorious aspect of the triune God.

    I think of unity and being one mind and one spirit and one purpose. There is no need for submission because they are all equally God and therefore are completely and totally unified in purpose. All glory and honor and praise belong to Jesus and God has exalted Him above all and Jesus points everyone to His Father.
    That is a mutual and reciprocal relationship. God has given all judgment to Christ.

    Not a one-sided relationship at all, where one member of the Trinity has all the power and the other two members do as They are told.

    They may have different functions but when all is laid out on the table, I see no member of the Trinity having veto power over the other. Do you?

  • Corrie

    And I will tell that I do not like the assault on Christ’s deity that is being propogated by those who would like to shore up their own personal pet doctrine.

    Anything that lessens my Lord and makes Him less than God is NOT okay in my book.

    Talk about a defection from centuries of sound Biblical teaching.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    “Those who want to explain their side (instead of tell the other side they’re all wrong), please raise a virtual hand.”

    I am more than happy to dialogue about what I do believe and the things that I am sure of and the things I am not so sure of.

    It is more than I can say for the people are actually TEACHING these doctrines. There is NO dialogue whatsoever.

  • Ellen

    Corrie, If you are not pleased with beliefs that are only inferred from Scripture, please show me where the “Trinity” is clearly defined.

  • Corrie

    “Corrie, If you are not pleased with beliefs that are only inferred from Scripture, please show me where the “Trinity” is clearly defined.”

    Ellen,

    Huh? Pleased with beliefs? Inferred from Scripture?

    I have noticed that whenever I do give an answer, you ignore it and act like I never have explained anything.

    It is like you have a language all your own and your are speaking in some code only known to yourself.

    I really cannot even begin to understand why you brought up the Trinity in the first place, and then how your latest response even follows what I stated about the Trinity.

    What are you getting at in plain English? I would like to be edified by what you have to say but I do not understand what you are saying.

    I am not pleased with anyone making Jesus less than God because they want to shore up their eroding doctrine and secure their own positions of supremacy.

    To say that both God and Jesus are equal but then to say God is more “supreme” just is not consistent but this is exactly what Ware and others say.

  • Ellen

    It is more than I can say for the people are actually TEACHING these doctrines. There is NO dialogue whatsoever.

    Do you have any idea what you just said?

    Corrie, the owner of the website that you made that accusation on is an editor for the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (a complementarian publication).

    If this entire thread is not “dialogue”, what do you think it is?

    Denny Burk has allowed 732 comments on his blog (that is a paid-for blog, not a free service) and you make the accusation that there is no dialogue?

    Unreal.

  • Ellen

    I really cannot even begin to understand why you brought up the Trinity in the first place, and then how your latest response even follows what I stated about the Trinity.

    In English.

    complementarianism is ïnferred and you cannot find male leadership directly commanded in Scripture.

    If inferred beliefs are bad, please show me a verse that defines the Trinity as three persons, all defined as One God.

    The Trinity is an example of a very real, very valid doctrine that is taken from the whole of Scripture, defined while being “inferred”.

  • Ellen

    I am not pleased with anyone making Jesus less than God because they want to shore up their eroding doctrine and secure their own positions of supremacy.

    A hierarchy within the Trinity does not make Jesus less than God.

    It would be so nice to have a little grace, on this topic at least. I can name two prominent egalitarians who have written on hierarchy within the Trinity.

    Please show a little grace, at least on the Trinity issue, if you cannot find grace on the gender issue.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    Shock! Yes, I do know what I have said and I stand by it. You are overreacting.

    I am not saying that EVERYONE who believes these things and teaches them to others is refusing to dialogue. But there are very few who will actually discuss these teachings. Yes, there has been discussion on this blog but where are the people who actually teach these things and why aren’t they discussing them? All I see are a bunch of “amateurs” discussing what other people teach. Where are the teachers and leaders? Are they discussing these thing with us, Ellen? Or do they just talk at us and tell us what they want us to believe and then refuse to dialogue with others?

    I am talking about high profile teachers who are basically unaccountable and when their teachings are examined, the person examining them is silenced by them. Did I say that Denny was doing that? NO! So don’t start trouble where this is none.

    I am saying that those who are in the forefront of these things shut down dissent and they refuse to discuss these issues with those who disagree with them. There is no dialogue whatsoever with these certain people.

    I wish you would hold Ware to the standard you are holding me to.

  • Ellen

    If Ware were going to egalitarian sites with the purpose of telling them they are wrong and accusing them of refusing to dialogue, I’d call him downright silly.

    Can you show where he is doing that?

    The mp3 that was linked to was from a complementarian pastor in a complementarian church teaching complementarian teachings to a voluntary congregation.

    I don’t have an issue with egalitarian pastors in egalitarian churches teaching egalitarian teachings to voluntary congregations.

    I believe that the teaching is incorrect, but hardly a salvation issue. I would not call making the “me-too-ism” of the wife an “idol” (the word “idolatry” has been used on this thread and not by a comp).

    My favorite relatives are all egalitarians – it is hardly a primary issue in my life.

  • Don Johnson

    Egal-eye, I like your nom-de-plume.

    On the Trinity, my take is as one uses non-Biblical terminology, then this makes it easier to get away from Biblical ideas. Jews have a very hard time with some versions of the Trinity as they know God is one, and hierarchy sounds like tri-theism to them, which they KNOW is wrong.

  • Corrie

    “Please show a little grace, at least on the Trinity issue, if you cannot find grace on the gender issue.”

    Excuse me, Ellen?

    Stating what I believe is not showing grace? I am not showing grace on the gender issue but you and everyone else is?

    How have you modeled this grace? I guess I would like to know how this grace is to look because I am confused as to your own defintion of what grace really is?

    Is referring to marriages that don’t measure up to one person’s particular idea of male authority and female submision “same-sex marriages” showing grace?

    How about calling people who disagree with the hard comp/pat teachings “defectors”? Or that they are “assaulting” God’s word? Is that full of grace and showing grace?

    All I said is that it bothers me that certain teachings are lessening Christ and that is not showing grace?

    Which egalitarians teach hierarchy in the Trinity? Do they teach that the husband is like God in His supremacy and the wife is like Christ in her submission in marriage? Funny, God told husbands that they are to be like Christ in His submission even unto death but somehow comps have OVERTURNED their roles and now have foisted it on the wife.

    This is a read herring, Ellen. Can we just leave out all the emotions and stick to the issues?

  • Corrie

    “If Ware were going to egalitarian sites with the purpose of telling them they are wrong and accusing them of refusing to dialogue, I’d call him downright silly.”

    Huh? This makes no sense.

    I am not talking about me, Ellen. I am talking about others that I know who have been silenced and deleted because they dared to speak about what certain high profile teachers are teaching on gender issues.

    Just color me silly, Ellen, if it makes you feel better.

    How do you know why people have come here to dialogue? Maybe it is the same reason you are here? Shouldn’t you show others some grace instead of assuming that their motives are bad?

  • Ellen

    Are they discussing these thing with us, Ellen? Or do they just talk at us and tell us what they want us to believe and then refuse to dialogue with others?

    Pastors giving sermons usually dialogue.

    Given the vitriol of egals toward Ware, I (personally) would not want to subject myself to the abuse that he would receive.

  • Ellen

    How do you know why people have come here to dialogue? Maybe it is the same reason you are here? Shouldn’t you show others some grace instead of assuming that their motives are bad?

    Corrie, there are some here to dialogue and some who are here because they wish to see comps silenced.

    “illegal”, “disgusting”, “opposed strongly”, “more in line with Mormonism than you are with Christ”…

    do these sorts of phrases indicate a desire to dialogue?

  • madame

    Comment 729, Egal-eye, thanks for that reminder. I count my wrist slapped. Honestly.

    Ellen,

    ” Those who want to explain their side (instead of tell the other side they’re all wrong), please raise a virtual hand.”
    Virtual hand raised.

    But I don’t belong to a side. I’m planted in the middle.

    1.
    – God made man and woman in his image, to complement each other. Yes.
    – In the beginning there was hierarchy between the man and the woman: no.

    2.
    – The relationship between man and woman was messed up because of sin. Yes.
    – complementarian understanding of the mess: woman want to control, man respond with domination. No

    NT.

    1.
    – Wives ought to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ. Yes.

    _ husbands ought to love their wives as Christ loved the church. yes.

    2.
    – Mutual submission: yes. Jesus, as a very superior being, submitted to inferior beings for their salvation. He did it as an act of submission to the Father. He is our role model. Both husbands and wives can submit to each other.

    – Husband models only Jesus as head, wife models Jesus as submissive Son of the Father. No. ( Philippians 2 1-8)

    3.
    – Husband is the head of wife. Yes.
    – Husband should enforce his headship. No
    – Wife ought to honor her husband’s position as head: yes.

    4.
    – Head means have authority over: I’m not sure. It can’t be the only meaning. (1 Cor.11:3-12)

    5.
    – God instituted male leadership in home and church. Yes.
    – Complementarian understanding of leadership: man has the last word, 51% vote, imposition of leadership, man’s will be done, etc… Not exactly.
    – Does man lead by example, becoming a servant? Yes.
    – Does he have authority? I don’t know. In marriage there seems to be mutuality if you consider all the direct commands given to both wives and husbands.

    6.
    – Should women preach and teach men? I don’t know. I tend towards no.

    – Should women hold the office of overseer? No.

    – Can women pray and prophesy in church? Yes

    7.
    – Do pastors and elders have authority vested from God because of their position? No. I believe the authority resides in what they preach. They preach the Word, they have authority. They preach their own thing, they lose it.

    I think that covers my basics regarding gender. I tend to sway in one direction or another, especially when it comes to women’s positions in church. I haven’t studied that well enough.

  • Don Johnson

    This is an area where one should study both sides, ala Proverbs

    Pro 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

    I have learned a lot by doing so.

  • Ellen

    Don, I started out in a “traditional” church, spent my entire married life an an egal and when I became single studied the issue more deeply.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    Thanks for the names of the two egal scholars who wrote about the hierarchy in the Trinity.

    Stackhouse says this:

    “The problem I have with the complementarian reference to the Trinity is that it is a bad theological move to attempt—by anyone, on any side of this issue.”

    http://stackblog.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/does-the-trinity-prove-anything-about-gender-not-much/

    I tend to agree with what he wrote in this article. The relationship between man/woman is not related to the members of the Trinity. In fact, the husband is told to be like Christ in His *submission* (laying down His life for His Bride).

    Males are never said to be like God in His role as Father and as the sender of the Savior of the world.

    Unless they would like to say that women are the ones who lay down their lives and are the saviors of their families?

  • Lydia

    “Corrie, there are some here to dialogue and some who are here because they wish to see comps silenced.”

    Who would these people be?

  • Paula

    Yes, Corrie, I too would like to see where scripture tells men to play the part of the Father to women’s “Jesus”.

    And to have answers to the questions I asked back in posts 56 and 220.

    Then, when comps answer those questions, I can explain the huge difference in how scripture teaches the Trinity but has no support at all for male supremacism.

  • Lydia

    Oh, I wish I could delete #753. It would be silly and vain quarreling to engage in that conversation. Please forgive me for posting that and please ignore it!

  • Ellen

    Thank you Madame. I’ll try to hit these points also…

    1.
    – God made man and woman in his image, to complement each other. Yes.
    – In the beginning there was hierarchy between the man and the woman: no.

    Yes and (most likely) yes. Not because Adam named her, but because of the reason Eve was created.

    2.
    – The relationship between man and woman was messed up because of sin. Yes.
    – complementarian understanding of the mess: woman want to control, man respond with domination. No

    Sin is as good of an explanation as any for the messed up way that men and women try to control each other.

    NT.

    1.
    – Wives ought to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ. Yes.

    _ husbands ought to love their wives as Christ loved the church. yes.

    Agreed.

    2.
    – Mutual submission: yes. Jesus, as a very superior being, submitted to inferior beings for their salvation. He did it as an act of submission to the Father. He is our role model. Both husbands and wives can submit to each other.

    Yes…but (as with the church and Christ) that submission looks different depending on a person’s role.

    – Husband models only Jesus as head, wife models Jesus as submissive Son of the Father. No. ( Philippians 2 1-8)

    only? I think that there are a lot of ways that we can all model ourselves after Christ – but when the Bible speaks directly to marriage, it can be very specific.

    3.
    – Husband is the head of wife. Yes.
    – Husband should enforce his headship. No
    – Wife ought to honor her husband’s position as head: yes.

    Even CBMW recognizes that to “enforce” headship is problematic. I think I gave a quote earlier about the submission of the wife being voluntary (while being commanded by Scripture).

    4.
    – Head means have authority over: I’m not sure. It can’t be the only meaning. (1 Cor.11:3-12)

    No, it is not the only definition. It IS the reason that wives are told to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.

    5.
    – God instituted male leadership in home and church. Yes.
    – Complementarian understanding of leadership: man has the last word, 51% vote, imposition of leadership, man’s will be done, etc… Not exactly.

    There is an authority in leadership, even if it is only “ad hoc”, voluntarily given by the one submitting.

    Do you watch “LOST”? Jack steps up as “leader” and even though there was never a vote, he seemed to have it all together, people followed him and before long most of them looked to him as the authority.


    – Does man lead by example, becoming a servant? Yes.
    – Does he have authority? I don’t know. In marriage there seems to be mutuality if you consider all the direct commands given to both wives and husbands.

    Yes…and yes (even if it is based on the reasoning above.)

    6.
    – Should women preach and teach men? I don’t know. I tend towards no.

    I believe it’s okay for a woman to teach from a particular pulpit once in a while (traveling speakers, associate pastors, special events), but not as an authority over the flock.

    – Should women hold the office of overseer? No.

    I believe this also…and my favorite sister-in-law is an elder and my brother-in-law is an ordained pastor in a denomination that has both women pastors and elders…

    – Can women pray and prophesy in church? Yes

    yes.

    7.
    – Do pastors and elders have authority vested from God because of their position? No. I believe the authority resides in what they preach. They preach the Word, they have authority. They preach their own thing, they lose it.

    But they do have authority, otherwise Hebrews 13:17 would not tell us to “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

    I think that covers my basics regarding gender. I tend to sway in one direction or another, especially when it comes to women’s positions in church. I haven’t studied that well enough.

    I recently resigned from a denomination over (in part) the gender issue. I left the particular church over other things, but the final straw came only recently.

  • Don Johnson

    I have found that both CBE and CBMW are advocacy groups. This means that there is a temptation to “present the best argument” by being silent on some things. So sometimes the other group will fill in the “silence” gap of the other’s teaching.

    In other words, if you just study one group’s teachings, you might wonder how anyone could think different, so it is very important to study both and draw your own conclusions.

  • Ellen

    Corrie (per your agreement with Stackhouse’s writing on the Trinity):

    Does seeing a hierarchy within the Trinity (whether or not it is applied to gender roles), make “Jesus less than God”, per comment #734?

  • Ellen

    Paula, would you like me to address the issue of “priority”, or “authority”?

    They are not the same. I believe that men in leadership positions are in authority. Are the priority? No.

  • Ellen

    So my question would be, What would Jesus say to anyone who claims priority over another believer?

    Also, Paula, there is a difference between simply declaring “priority” and having a genuine belief that Scripture teaches that God places people in authority positions.

  • Paula

    I want a comp to answer the specific questions I asked in those two posts.

    And “feed my sheep” has nothing to do with a position of prominence, but of a lowly servant.

  • Ellen

    In other words, if you just study one group’s teachings, you might wonder how anyone could think different, so it is very important to study both and draw your own conclusions.

    I fully agree. There are three authors that sit on my shelf that I use on a very regular basis.

    “Two Views on Women in Ministry) (edited in part by Keener) is a nice resource.

    Another author whose books I have and use are David Instone-Brewer and Jay Adams (Adams in excellent in the divorce and remarriage conversation but I don’t think he touches on the gender thing much at all).

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    Just Googled Craig Keener (never heard of him) and it seems that he has about the same take as Stackhouse. I agree with the points they make. They do not agree with the comps on this issue, though.

    Here is what one person said who referenced Keener’s paper on the Trinity:

    ” My initial thoughts are that this debate has been hijacked by those who are using intra-Trinitarian relations to fight the gender wars in North America. I think subordination is consistent with Phil 2.6, John 5.18 and quite explicit in 1 Cor. 15.28. But those who want to use the Son’s willing submission to the Father as a theological rubric for complementarianism are barking up the wrong tree. There may be “priority” or even “rank” in the Trinity, but there is nothing from the intra-Trinitarian relations that dictates that “rank” is determined by gender. The women-in-ministry issue must be settled on other grounds and appealing to the Trinity to justify any particular view of gender or social equality is misguided.”

    I believe it is a lessening of Christ when we try and use the Trinity to bolster up our own need for authority over another person. These are members of the Godhead we are talking about, not two sinners with different genders.

    http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2006/11/functional-subordination-within.html

    I want to thank you for pointing me to those two theologians. It was refreshing to read what they had to write and I think they succinctly put into words what I could not do.

    Here is Keener’s excellent article on the issue of the Trinity:

    http@@//findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199904/ai_n8832969/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
    I do believe that you can have difference in role and be the same in essence but I don’t agree that, when comp teachings are fleshed out, that is really what you get. If we are the same in essence, then there is no trump card.

    I have absolutely no problem with teaching wifely submission to her husband. I do think that wives should submit to their HUSBANDS. I do not believe that the Bible teaches that a wife submits to her husband’s authority. It says to submit to her husband.

  • Don Johnson

    David Instone-Brewer is required reading for anyone who wants to understand the 1st century context of the NT “divorce” verses, as there are some many idioms it is very easy to misunderstand what is being said.

  • Ellen

    I want a comp to answer the specific questions I asked in those two posts.

    So my question would be, What would Jesus say to anyone who claims priority over another believer?

    Not until you ask the correct question: priority is not authority.

    as per #220 you said, <Now these are all rhetorical questions,

    “A question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical effect.”

    Which question to which no answer is expected would you like an answer to?

    (by the way, I appreciate the reference back to the comment #’s, that is helpful)

    And “feed my sheep” has nothing to do with a position of prominence, but of a lowly servant.

  • Sue

    This seems now to be more in the nature of a sit in, shades of the 60’s, so I’ll just jump back in.

    <iCorrie, the owner of the website that you made that accusation on is an editor for the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (a complementarian publication).

    Ellen,

    This is exactly why we are here. Exactly. I have written to CBMW and at first they implied that they would get someone competent in Greek to review some of the stuff on their website. But they haven’t.

    If I see something wrong and damaging then something needs to be done.

    This is not about disliking complementarians. In actual fact, many of my blogging friends are complementarians. And my complementarian minister asked me to try and get the statement of concern against the TNIV taken down.

    So, I respect lots of complementarians who are honest people. CBMW is simply not credible.

    Denny is smart, young and has his own mind. Maybe he can have a positive influence.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    This is what I said:

    “I am not pleased with anyone making Jesus less than God because they want to shore up their eroding doctrine and secure their own positions of supremacy.”

    I was speaking more to the motivation of some to use the Trinity and try to compare a husband/wife relationship to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

    These people say that the husband is like God. The last being that said that got kicked out of heaven and was cursed above all beings. 🙂

    Where does the Word of God say that a husband is like God to his wife and that the wife is like Christ?

    The wife, in turn, becomes like Jesus and only in His submission. But, there is a huge problem. The Bible tells husbands they are to be like Jesus in the way that He laid down His life for His Bride- the ultimate act of submission. They are NOT Jesus to their wives, they are like Him in the way that He laid down His life for His Church. Husbands are called to imitate Him in this area of ultimate sacrifice, they are not told to be Jesus or God to their wives. Nor are they told to rule her like God rules the other members of the Trinity. (Not saying that He does rule because I don’t really know if that is even necessary in the Trinity.)

    So, we have people messing with the members of the Trinity for the sake of their own personal doctrine and that is what I mean by lessening. I should have said that both God and Christ are lessened by this comparison and the Holy Spirit is totally cut out of the picture. How can we forget Him when we are discussing the Trinity? We are bringing God down to man’s level and making comparisons where there are none.

    It is the motive for doing so that bothers me.

    There is a lot more studying I have to do and I don’t think I will ever be able to grasp the concept of the Trinity- the three in one God. A God whose three members are completely and totally God and have different functions but are completely unified in all things.

  • Sue

    Thanks COrrie,

    This is what Ware said,

    Women should recognize that submission is “Godlike,” Ware said. “Christ came in submission to the Father. It’s not only Godlike to be the authority. It’s Godlike to submit to authority.”

    This is self-serving pagan crap.

  • Corrie

    This comment is hung up in moderation and I assume it is because I included two links in my post, so I will break it up:

    Ellen,

    Just Googled Craig Keener (never heard of him) and it seems that he has about the same take as Stackhouse. I agree with the points they make. They do not agree with the comps on this issue, though.

    Here is what one person said who referenced Keener’s paper on the Trinity:

    ” My initial thoughts are that this debate has been hijacked by those who are using intra-Trinitarian relations to fight the gender wars in North America. I think subordination is consistent with Phil 2.6, John 5.18 and quite explicit in 1 Cor. 15.28. But those who want to use the Son’s willing submission to the Father as a theological rubric for complementarianism are barking up the wrong tree. There may be “priority” or even “rank” in the Trinity, but there is nothing from the intra-Trinitarian relations that dictates that “rank” is determined by gender. The women-in-ministry issue must be settled on other grounds and appealing to the Trinity to justify any particular view of gender or social equality is misguided.”

    I believe it is a lessening of Christ when we try and use the Trinity to bolster up our own need for authority over another person. These are members of the Godhead we are talking about, not two sinners with different genders.

    http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2006/11/functional-subordination-within.html

    I want to thank you for pointing me to those two theologians. It was refreshing to read what they had to write and I think they succinctly put into words what I could not do.

  • Corrie

    Here is Keener’s excellent article on the issue of the Trinity:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199904/ai_n8832969/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
    I do believe that you can have difference in role and be the same in essence but I don’t agree that, when comp teachings are fleshed out, that is really what you get. If we are the same in essence, then there is no trump card.

    I have absolutely no problem with teaching wifely submission to her husband. I do think that wives should submit to their HUSBANDS. I do not believe that the Bible teaches that a wife submits to her husband’s authority. It says to submit to her husband.

    I have yet to read anything by Giles or Ware on the issue of the Trinity. I have just read excerpts from both of those books.

    The problem is having enough money and enough time to read!

  • Sue

    Paul only once said he had authority and he defined it as authority to build up. It was not authority over people. Read Luther on this. This was his complaint about the Roman church.

    He said authority is held by elders on behalf of the congregation, and NOT over the congregation.

    This is why the only time authenteo is used of church gonvernment, much later, it was said of a pope.

    This is the popery of the male. Self-serving crap. Quote me. Please.

  • Ellen

    Just Googled Craig Keener (never heard of him) and it seems that he has about the same take as Stackhouse. I agree with the points they make. They do not agree with the comps on this issue, though.

    Absolutely. It is worth noting that neither comps or egals are monolithin on this.

    I’m not sure of Ware, but Giles says that any teaching of any hierarchy within the Trinity is heresy and Arianism.

    I would like to see a self-imposed ban by people who use terms such as “heresy” to describe such a hierachy to refrain from using terms such as “making Jesus less than God”

  • Ellen

    This is exactly why we are here. Exactly. I have written to CBMW and at first they implied that they would get someone competent in Greek to review some of the stuff on their website. But they haven’t.

    (VERY MUCH TONGUE IN CHEEK) competent in Greek = egalitarian.

  • Paula

    Not until you ask the correct question…

    Which question to which no answer is expected would you like an answer to?

    You’re telling me I asked the wrong question??

    From Wikipedia:

    A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply. For example, “Why me, Lord?” Rhetorical questions encourage the listener to reflect on what the implied answer to the question must be. When a speaker states, “How much longer must our people endure this injustice?” or “Do you really think I want to have a Doctor Who themed wedding?”, or “How many times do I have to tell you to stop walking into the house with mud on your shoes?”; no formal answer is expected. Rather, it is a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something.

    Your definition is in error. There are answers, but they should be so obvious as to need no explicit response. Yet since comps insist that the obvious answers are not obvious, then they must supply a reasoned response. I view them as rhetorical because it should be so clear that comp teachings violate clear scriptures that they have to admit the error of their teachings.

    …priority is not authority…
    As I’ve asked repeatedly, will comps please make up their minds? Which is it? Has the husband AUTHORITY OVER his wife, such that she SINS AGAINST GOD in ever questioning it? How does he ALWAYS have the final say without having authority?

    But, as always, I don’t expect you or any comp to do anything but hedge and distract and try to change definitions.

  • Corrie

    “This is what Ware said,

    Women should recognize that submission is “Godlike,” Ware said. “Christ came in submission to the Father. It’s not only Godlike to be the authority. It’s Godlike to submit to authority.””

    Sue,

    Yikes!

    This would be a prime example of people using the Trinity to bolster their own doctrine.

    Of course, when you get to BE the authority, you will try and convince everyone else that it is just as “Godlike” to submit to that authority! Especially when you never have to be “Godlike” and submit yourself to the other person you are trying to convince is just as “Godlike” as yourself!

    ROFLOL!

    I am sorry but I just cannot trust that sort of thing at all because it is self-serving.

    Why didn’t God just have Paul write to the Ephesians that husbands are to be like God and have the ultimate authority over their wives and wives are to be like God and submit to their husbands?

    It is because husbands are called to be like Christ and submit their very lives, even unto death. Husbands are called to be “Godlike” in their submission of laying down their lives.

    I am trying to think of a plausible explanation for Ware’s words about being “Godlike”………

    Whatever happened to being a puny worm? Shouldn’t we be viewing ourselves like that instead of elevating our own persons to “Godlike”? We are nothing without God and Jesus left an example for men and women to follow and it has nothing to do with having authority over other human beings.

  • Paula

    I would like to see a self-imposed ban on people who call demanding one’s own way DIVINE SANCTION for males and SIN for females.

    I would like to see a self-imposed ban on people who say males are to play the role of God to females’ role of Jesus.

    I would like to see people just read the scriptures without the CULTURAL bias of male supremacism that has dominated most of history, without circular arguments, without seeking positions of prominence.

  • Ellen

    As I’ve asked repeatedly, will comps please make up their minds? Which is it? Has the husband AUTHORITY OVER his wife, such that she SINS AGAINST GOD in ever questioning it? How does he ALWAYS have the final say without having authority?

    Since there are many places in which many comps have given reasons for a wife question authority, I’ll assume that you well know this and put the SHOUTING in for inflammatory purposes.

  • Ellen

    I would like to see a self-imposed ban on people who call demanding one’s own way DIVINE SANCTION for males and SIN for females.

    I guess that would be a “no” for Paula.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    Heresy is leveled from both sides.

    The newest allusion is that those who are not for patriarchy are for sodomy (gay marriage).

    I have to read Giles book to understand why he said that teaching subordination in the Trinity is heresy. Was he referring to the concept of eternal subordination? It could be the way some on the comp side are wording it and that they are even using the Trinity, in the first place, to assert male authority over women.

    I have no idea.

  • Paula

    Ellen, I’ll only say this one last thing to you. We’ve met before and nothing has changed.

    You dish out everything you claim to take. Everything. You start rabbit trails, you change the plain meanings of words, you do everything but carry on an honest conversation. You make snide remarks and then play the victim when called out on it.

    This is childish and ruins every attempt at communication. I will no longer address your posts.

    Now, please, is there a comp in the house who can address my questions? I see that what scripture teaches about Christianity to be mutually exclusive with what comp theology teaches. Specifically:

    How can comp teachings ever be compatible with “not so among you” and “consider others as better”?

    Where are men ever told to play the part of God?

    Where are men ever exempted from following the model of Jesus, the humble servant, who never played the part of God while giving us the example of his life, even though he had the right?

    In Phil. 2:5-11, we see Jesus laying aside his prominence, his position, his authority, in order to serve his bride and lift her up like a masterpiece. He never bound her, or silenced her, or imposed His will upon her, though he is God. How does comp teaching possibly align with that?

  • Corrie

    “Since there are many places in which many comps have given reasons for a wife question authority, I’ll assume that you well know this and put the SHOUTING in for inflammatory purposes.”

    Or for emphasis. Why assume the worst?

    Wives do not question their husband’s authority. They are questioning their husbands. Big difference. When a wife questions her husband about something he is doing or saying or teaching, that is not questioning his authority. That is questioning him. A husband should have no problem answering his wife’s questions and he should not take it as a “threat” to his manhood. Hopefully, when either spouse asks a question of the other it is done with respect.

    We need to get back to the language the Bible uses. Maybe she is really questioning a husband’s love since that is what he is commanded to do? Is it okay to question love? Are there writings that teach us when it is permissable to question someone’s love?

    Why is there a need for a rulebook on when it is acceptable for a wife to ask her husband a question?

    This seems to be an issue of accountability. Are people afraid of being accountable to the one who knows them better than anyone else in this world? Is that why they transpose a wife asking her husband a question with a wife questioning her husband’s authority? The latter sounds very bad and should never be done and it will keep the person who must not be questioned unless there is a very good reason unaccountable.

  • Ellen

    Corrie, I realize that heresy is leveled on both sides – on the debate on hierarchy within the Trinity I just don’t think it’s necessary.

    Somewhere online there’s a pdf by Keven Giles that is an abridge version of “Subordination and the Trinity”. I’ve read it but cannot find the bookmark.

    I’ll keep looking.

    I understand when CBMW uses the example of the submission of Christ to illustrate that submission does not indicate inequality.

    I do not agree that this submission of Christ should be a supporting pillar of complementarianism. I believe that there are enough Biblical patterns and passages that teach the submission of the wife that we do not need that “pillar”.

  • Ellen

    Corrie, it is pretty well standard that using all caps online is “SHOUTING”. Google “netiquette + shouting”. It is a fairly easy thing to bold or itallics for emphasis. Sometimes I do us a word or two in all caps (generally where I would raise my voice in real life (IF I were going to do that…)

    Wives do not question their husband’s authority. They are questioning their husbands. Big difference. When a wife questions her husband about something he is doing or saying or teaching, that is not questioning his authority. That is questioning him. A husband should have no problem answering his wife’s questions and he should not take it as a “threat” to his manhood. Hopefully, when either spouse asks a question of the other it is done with respect.

    This is CBMW teaching.

    Why is there a need for a rulebook on when it is acceptable for a wife to ask her husband a question?

    I believe that CBMW would teach that it’s always acceptable to ask a question. I have not read where it is not.

    Why is there a need for a rulebook on when it is acceptable for a wife to ask her husband a question?

    I know of no rulebook, other than Scripture. Is there a rulebook for egalitarians on what to do if they have a selfish spouse? How do they know for sure if the spouse is selfish?

    Human questions are human questions no matter what side of this issue they are on.

  • Molly

    This is an area where one should study both sides, ala Proverbs

    Pro 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

    I decided I would study out egalitarian beliefs in the Scriptures WiTH THE INTENT to prove they were right. I’d studied egalitarianism before, but only with intent to prove them wrong (which I did, thoroughly). What really freaked me out was when I went to the Scriptures to prove them right and found that I could do that thoroughly TOO.

    In the end, I believe it really comes down to interpretation. That’s where the humility comes in. Which view best represents God, when the Scriptures truly can be used to adequately support either side?

    For me, I spent a lot of time reading the four Gospels, looking at the way Jesus treated women and the way He talked about authority and leadership. From this humble student’s vantage point, it seemed that Jesus would make a poor fit in the writings of Ware, and other teachers like him. From that place, I came to lean towards the egalitarian side instead of the complementarian side.

  • Ellen

    I decided I would study out egalitarian beliefs in the Scriptures WiTH THE INTENT to prove they were right. I’d studied egalitarianism before, but only with intent to prove them wrong (which I did, thoroughly). What really freaked me out was when I went to the Scriptures to prove them right and found that I could do that thoroughly TOO.

    My boyfriend and I do the same thing, only we take turns as to which side we are one. It took us a couple of years on Reformed, a couple of months on Pentecostalism and we’re still going around on Cessationism. It doesn’t help when the people debating cessationism have had brushes with the prophetic.

  • Don Johnson

    Since submission is to be a characteristic of all believers, of course submission does not denote inequality.

  • Ellen

    One last word to Paula…I recognize that many people are better at staying on-topic than I am (there are a lot of wonderful people on both sides of that fence). I do tend to ask that people be willing to repeat questions that they see that I have missed. I’ve done that a couple of times here.

    Grace is needed – I have also felt that there have been points made by the comp side that have been ignored…mostly it’s an issue of that’s just what we disagree on.

  • Sue

    (VERY MUCH TONGUE IN CHEEK) competent in Greek = egalitarian.

    No, that is why some egalitarian writing is a bit muddled.

    Competency in Greek is studying Greek as a language, not just studying Greek for the NT and to prove a point. I don’t know any complementarian writers who really have studied Greek as a language, except one and he backed down pretty quickly on authenteo and the requested that I never cite his email. That is the truth but I can’t prove it.

  • Ellen

    Since submission is to be a characteristic of all believers, of course submission does not denote inequality.

    Right. The question that comes up that relates to the Trinity is: does being in a position of submission necessarily mean an position of inequality?

    some egals claim that a pattern of male leadership necessarily leads to a position of inequality.

    some comps point to the Trinity and say that their belief that the Son is eternally submissive to the Father says that is not true, since there is full equality and deity within the Trinity.

    Some egals say that eternal submission of the Son is heresy.

    some comps do also.

    I believe that being in a position of submission can (but not necessarily must) be a position of full equality.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    Its unfair to you that you are the only complementarian continuing this conversation.

    I have a deep firm conviction that this teaching of Godlike authority for the male is profoundly wrong and profoundly damaging to men and women alike. I am hear to protest, not to attack your beliefs personally.

    I just want to interact with you as a friend and colleague on other issues. But, as you know, I am deeply scarred by these teachings and I don’t know how long it will take for me to recover fully.

  • Ellen

    Its unfair to you that you are the only complementarian continuing this conversation.

    Sue, I understand and appreciate your position. You know parts of my history well enough to understand my own scars.

    There are enough people here who are listening.

  • Sue

    I am here to protest the official teaching of CBMW, not the personal beliefs of complementarians. Many blogger friends on the BBB are comps and you probably can’t even tell from the comment box there. This is not an issue of personal friendship but a desire on my part for honesty and accountability on the part of CBMW.

  • Don Johnson

    I think the term is eternal subordination that is a concern, not eternal submission.

    Describing the Godhead has to use metaphors and analogies, since we are finite and God is infinite. And metaphors and analogies break when taken too far.

  • D.J. Williams

    Sue said…
    “I just want to interact with you as a friend and colleague on other issues. But, as you know, I am deeply scarred by these teachings and I don’t know how long it will take for me to recover fully.”

    Has it ever occured to you, Sue, that perhaps your scars are from a misapplication of these teachings and not from the teachings themselves. I humbly suggest this as a complementarian who hasn’t seen you demonstrate an accurate understanding of what I or others actually believe and practice.

  • Ellen

    The eternal “subordination” of the Son (unless somebody can explain it to me better) is (to me) simply stating that the Son is eternally in a position of being submissive to the Father.

    I spent several weeks studying nothing but the Trinity (and though it was sparked by the eternal subordination question, there were many, many rabbit trails – I tend to learn a lot on the rabbit trails)

  • Corrie

    “There are enough people here who are listening.”

    Why? I would hope that if they were educated and learned in these matters they would use their gifts to help us understand.

    From the comments of some men here, I woul gather that this is a game for them. I hardly think that God thinks this is a game since these teachings affect real lives.

    “Since there are many places in which many comps have given reasons for a wife question authority,…..”

    You said this in #782. That is what I meant by a “rulebook”.

    You said you know of no “rulebook” other than scripture for knowing when it is okay to question one’s husband. But, you also stated that there are many places in which many comps have given reasons for a wife to question her husband.

    If it is the teaching of CBMW that wives are free to ask their husbands questions, why are there many comps in many places giving reasons for a wife to question her husband?

    “Human questions are human questions no matter what side of this issue they are on.”

    If that is the case, then why are there many comps in many places writing when it is okay for a wife to question her husband. Are there also many writings in many places where comps outline when it is okay for a husband to question his wife?

    I am glad to know that CBMW does not equate a husband with authority as if these words are interchangeable. I am glad to know that they teach that for a wife to question her husband is not questioning his authority but just one human asking a question of another human.

  • Corrie

    Hi Mr. Williams,

    Could you give me an example of a misapplication of a teaching? Could you state the official teaching and then show how it is misapplied?

    I wonder how much is misapplication or just the wrong emphasis causing the wrong focus and yielding the wrong fruit?

    I think we all have scars and we are all wounded and we all have to be on guard against allowing those wounds to interfere with how we perceive what others teach and believe.

  • Ellen

    If it is the teaching of CBMW that wives are free to ask their husbands questions, why are there many comps in many places giving reasons for a wife to question her husband?

    Because there are so many egalitarians that are saying that complementarian women cannot ask questions.

    when I give illustrations about when it’s okay to ask questions, it’s nearly always a response to a statement that complementarian women cannot question, cannot have desires, cannot…whatever. (not whatver, as in “no more to say” but “whatever” as in “fill in the blank”)

    Let me ask you a question.

    I am in a relationship with a complementarian gentleman. I am not only able, I am expected to confront. I am asked for counsel. I am expected to reproach with Scripture when needed. All of these are CBMW teachings.

    I am committed to being submissive – and when married, will follow my husband’s leadership and will believe that he is in authority and following the Biblical pattern.

    Do I strike you as a woman who would be willing to have no desires of my own? As a woman who will blindly follow a husband into sin?

    Do I seem to be a woman who is willing to not think in order to be “submissive”?

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    Netiquette allows for a person to use caps for emphasis. All caps is considered shouting.

    I always assume someone who is capitalizing only certain portions, phrases or a couple of words here and there is doing that for emphasis. Every netiquette forum I checked says that this is perfectly allowable.

    It is when people write an email in all caps or write gobs of type in all caps that it because annoying and it is considered shouting.

  • Paula

    Yes, since I must say it, I used caps for EMPHASIS. It is much simpler than putting html tags around each word to be emphasized.

    Communication– an impossible dream.

  • Paula

    Sue, FWIW, I never saw you misquote anyone or misunderstand what they were saying. But it appears that to disagree must mean to misunderstand, according to some.

    And once again, the victim is blamed for abuse.

    And the sad fact remains that the teachings of male supremacism are cited by abusers who call themselves Christians, as their justification and right. IOW, many “Christian abusers” got their permission from writings like Ware’s and those at CBMW. Pastors frequently cite their work while condemning an abused Christian woman to suffer at her abuser’s hand. Therefore, those who write such teachings must bear responsibility.

  • Corrie

    Sue,

    I don’t really know you at all but you have certainly demonstrated an accurate understanding concerning this issue.

    I just went back to listen to the whole sermon once again and it is clear to me that this is what is being said:

    feminism/egalitarianism is the reversal of roles that leads to women sinning and men responding with abuse or passivity

    complementarianism is the biblical model where women submit, men rule and peace is restored as in the pre-Fall model

    That was the whole lead up to the quote about abuse.

    What troubles me is that people are going to such great lengths to deny that this is what is being said.

  • Ellen

    Corrie, I (mostly) agree on your two short definitions.

    One clarification (not correction) would be that

    feminism is the reversal and egalitarianism is the negation…as Ware said in the written statement, the inclination of men is to react sinfully (which being human, for many of us our first inclination may be the sinful one…I’m claiming humanity here.)

    complementarianism is the biblical model where women submit, men rule and peace is restored as in the pre-Fall model

    Yes…I believe that complementarianism is Biblical, although I agree that for a man to have to impose his rule is not.

    That was the whole lead up to the quote about abuse.

    The big/huge/humongous issue I have is the (I believe) wrong understanding that Ware was tolerating or justifying abuse, rather than saying that both attitudes are sin.

  • D.J. Williams

    Sue and Corrie,

    Sue, I don’t think I ever said you misquoted anybody – I said you misapply what they say – you fail to understand accurately what they teach. How can I say this? Because I am a complementarian and I personally know complementarians such as Chris Cowan who wrote this post and works for CBMW, and I’ve never seen the chest-pounding complementariansm that you’ve been railing against for 800 comments.

  • Ellen

    D.J., I do know of a bit of Sue’s history and I (personally) have written CBMW stating my desire to see them examine the “patriarchy” movement and its excess and abuses vs. “complementarianism”. Compare and contrast – and distance themselves when needed.

  • Sue

    I said you misapply what they say

    I claim that some men misapply the teaching that they have Godlike authority. It makes me ill to read this stuff. One fifth of women are abused and this is just collateral damage – a big so what, as long as men can have Godlike authority in the home.

    It makes me violently ill to read this stuff, but my pastor was influenced by it all.

    Is there nobody in the house who reads Greek at CBMW, I ask as an aside.

  • Corrie

    Madame,

    re: #718

    “I think it’s sad when people defend a position against another one for the sake of keeping a paradigm in place. That’s why I find myself with one foot in each camp these days. I can’t do away with certain Scriptures, but I can’t embrace teaching that is not from the Bible.”

    Don’t know how I missed this jewel! Great post and I can totally relate what you are sayng.

    Hi Mr. Williams,

    I must have missed the railing against chest-pounding complementarianism? Could you give me a couple of examples of this?

  • D.J. Williams

    Sue,

    I posted this earlier, and since it was apparently ignored, I feel it’s important to reiterate…

    “I don’t believe I have “Godlike authority” over my wife. Neither does Bruce Ware. Sue, these caricatures aren’t helpful to anyone. Since you say you’re concerned with addressing the issues, then let’s do that and not put words in our opponents’ mouths, please.”

  • D.J. Williams

    Corrie said…
    “I must have missed the railing against chest-pounding complementarianism? Could you give me a couple of examples of this?”

    Well, Sue just provided us with a prime example by arguing against the teaching that men have “Godlike authority” over their wives. I’ve never met anyone who teaches any such thing.

  • Sue

    Women, meanwhile, must “embrace responsibility for respectful, joyful, willing submission and creative assistance in all matters of home and the family,” Ware said.

    Referring to Ephesians 5:33, Ware called on wives to submit to and respect their husbands. Just as husbands loving their wives counteracts the effects of the fall, he said submission does the same thing for women.

    “The fall introduced this illicit urge and tendency toward usurpation — bucking his authority,” Ware said. “What this [verse] calls for is respect for his authority and who he is as husband.”

    The reason for such a response in women is because it mirrors the relationship of Christ to the church.

    “For how much is the church responsible to submit to Christ?” Ware asked. “In everything.”

    Women should recognize that submission is “Godlike,” Ware said. “Christ came in submission to the Father. It’s not only Godlike to be the authority. It’s Godlike to submit to authority.”

    Bruce Ware

  • Ellen

    Question: When we are called to be “Christ-like”, does that mean that we are called to be part of the Trinity, perfectly sinless and the sacrifice for the sins of the world?

    Why or why not?

  • Sue

    Women should recognize that submission is “Godlike,” Ware said. “Christ came in submission to the Father. It’s not only Godlike to be the authority. It’s Godlike to submit to authority.”

    Is that easier to read?

  • Corrie

    On a side note, I have yet to see these “same-sex” marriages and the rampant feminism in the Church that the complementarians seem to rail about all the time.

    I also don’t understand the contingent in complementarianism that is distancing itself from CBMW because it isn’t patriarchal enough. Starting with the public blog post by Tim Bayly concerning his brother Dave who resigned from CBMW and they didn’t even bother to inform CBMW about these things before they went public with their issues with CBMW.

    Is this contingent now pulling CBMW closer to patriarchy?

    There are many things that I appreciate about CBMW but has there been a shift?

    I know that all comps are not chest-thumping but that is the point of Moore’s statements. Most marriages, even the comp ones are really just “same-sex” marriages where the couple negotiates and discusses the issues in order to come to an agreement instead of the husband issuing and the wife obeying the husband.

    I know my marriage is complementarian but would fall under the same-sex title if scrutinized by some people.

    In fact, I have said this many times before, my marriage is more complementarian and holds up under the complementarian ideals than many of the marriages of those who teach these things. I look at the women on the CBMW board and they fit the definition of “white washed feminist” better than I ever will.

    Not saying that they are a wwf at all.

  • Paula

    Bible.org teaches exactly that, as I’ve blogged Here.

    Over and over I’ve seen comps argue that since Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman, then she is to treat him as Christ. This is how they take “as unto the Lord”. That is taking “Godlike authority”.

    Anyone who steps between a believer and God is taking Godlike authority over them.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    #821 but women are to imitate the submission and work of Christ [his death on the cross] and men imitate the authority of the sending God.

    Except for the square brackets, this is a quote. Believe me. Gives me the shivers. It sounds like a snuff film.

  • Sue

    Biblical manhood and womanhood must be rooted in the doctrine of the work and person of Christ. Therefore all women’s ministry in the local church must rely on the doctrine of Christ. Jesus is the example of perfect submission. The work and submission of Christ radically reorients Christian service for Christian women because it is following in the footsteps of our Savior.

    Lig Duncan on the CBMW blog.

    The husband is called to be the head of the wife in the same way that Christ is the head of the church. He imitates the headship of Jesus Christ. The wife is called to imitate the submission of Jesus Christ to the Father. Jesus Christ is so great that both a man and woman together are needed to display his glorious leadership and servanthood.

    Dave Kotter,

    Forgive me, DJ, but women do not need to hear this. I feel the nails.

  • Paula

    men imitate the authority of the sending God

    That is exactly the problem. Scripture never says or implies any such thing. When Jesus said “not so among you”, he said it to us all.

  • Sue

    Why do men assign to women the role of the suffering Christ and to men the role of the sending God? Isn’t it enough suffering just to be the woman, to bear the children in our flesh, but then – to be sent to the cross?

    DJ,

    Have some pity.

  • Ellen

    Sue, do you think that women are called to be the sinless lamb of God?

    My point being is that all analogies break down. To take each analogy (and call me on it when I do, as most humans do from time to time) to the worst extreme is not accurate or helpful.

  • Sue

    My point being is that all analogies break down.

    That is exactly the point. To say that because Christ is an authority therefore the husband is the authority over the wife, is to condemn some women to unspeakable damage. And NOBODY cares.

    Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is an incredibly damaging doctrine that maleness has authority over femaleness in marriage.

  • madame

    Ellen,
    Re. #812

    ” complementarianism is the biblical model where women submit, men rule and peace is restored as in the pre-Fall model

    Yes…I believe that complementarianism is Biblical, although I agree that for a man to have to impose his rule is not.”

    Is it Biblical for men to rule? Is that God’s way to restore peace? I thought men were told to LOVE.

    No, man should never HAVE to impose his rule. It’s not given to him to impose, and if he does, he’s sinning.

    ” The big/huge/humongous issue I have is the (I believe) wrong understanding that Ware was tolerating or justifying abuse, rather than saying that both attitudes are sin.”

    The big/huge/humongous issue I have is that Ware assumes that a man’s desire to impose his will is not sinful. A man is NOT given the free card to impose his will on his wife.
    If Complementarians are teaching that, they are teaching something very unbiblical.

  • Ellen

    If a wife submits to her husband as the church submits to Christ…

    why should a husband feel the need to “impose” his will? (this under the heading of “read my own mail)

  • MatthewS

    DJ,

    FWIW, I grew up in a Christian home that looked like an ideal family from the outside.

    My dad looks like super-spiritual-man from the outside. He is an ex-Marine (no such thing as ex-Marine, actually) with great discipline. Spends hours reading the Bible, praying. Everything he says, he says with authority and he is respected by many as a spiritual leader.

    Behind closed doors, my reality was that he was addicted to anger. It would build, build, build, until he would blow up and yell, insult, and often spank. The spankings were harsh and often undeserved.

    I would try to appeal to dad that he was in the wrong. He would tell me that he was God’s agent to me and that God sent him to me so I needed to accept whatever he dished out as being from God’s hand. If he was wrong, that was between him and God. My mom believed that the spankings and insults were abusive but she still feels that she could not put her foot down to dad because she must submit. We were actually taught that just as Jesus accepted abuse without a word, so the wife should silently accept abuse and her example would win the husband. Fortunately, I only know of one occasion where my dad physically mistreated my mom.

    After I was married and had a child of my own, I finally told dad that he was wrong to say and do some of the things he did. That was years ago. He still barely speaks to me. He gives me the very cold shoulder.

    For years, I tried very hard to submit to my dad and earn his approval. (Honestly, I still struggle with this) I now realize I could never make him happy. He is an unhappy man who lives in the fruit of the flesh: anger, control (but you don’t see it until you get close to him). For years, I thought his abusive discipline of me was God’s discipline to me for not submitting enough.

    I am not really egalitarian. I believe in some form of male leadership.

    But man, it really bugs me when people pretend that comp. teachings can’t logically lead to abuse. Angry, controlling men can in fact be encouraged to make their homes worse when they hear the evils of feminism and the goodness of comp. taught from the pulpit. Comp. preachers must, must, must address the issue of abuse. (Thankfully, some do.)

    Peter told Christian wives to do the right thing without fear. Sometimes, doing the right thing means telling an angry man that he has abused a child for the last time. What concerns me is that many well-meaning pastors are willing to step in and push the wife and child back into the situation, thinking they are doing God’s bidding.

    whew – that was a long one.

  • Sue

    My own son ran away and only after I left and established a home on my own free of abuse he came back. As a mother, the tears run down my face, I stood and took it for my children. Matthew, women need to be strong lovers of their own sons.

    Mothers need to be strong protectors and providers and faithful to their children.

  • madame

    Ellen,
    It’s not always that easy. Should a wife simply submit and go along, without ever protesting, if her husband is making one-sided decisions one after the other?
    What if he takes the hole family to a church she doesn’t like or agree with?
    What if he decides that she has to homeschool the children and she doesn’t want to?
    What if he decides against contraception and forbids her from using any?
    What if he cleaves to his parents and makes decisions with them, and then imposes these on his wife?

    You know, many men don’t understand that it’s not given to them to rule over their wives. It’s not a matter of “having to impose” it’s a matter of knowing that they aren’t the rulers of their households.

  • Lydia

    “Because there are so many egalitarians that are saying that complementarian women cannot ask questions.”

    What if the husband’s definition (at that moment) of being ‘unsubmissive’ is asking questions because he does not like the question… so he rules it as “unsubmissive”.

    Now she is in sin according to Ware. And the husband has the power to determine what is unsubmissive so he determines what is sin.

    I am also a bit concerned that CBMW is being quoted here (a lot) as the ultimate source of scriptural truth on this issue. Sue has pointed out, in Greek, quite a few problems with some of their interpretations on her blog.

  • Don Johnson

    My take is a husband should be a “head” in the same way that Christ was shown to be a “head” in Eph 5, which is by serving. All the examples given for Christ are serving type things, none are leading type things.

    The 2nd indicator of abuse in a home is a strong belief in male on top, the 1st is substance abuse. So the people that teach male on top should be aware that their teaching has consequences among sinful people.

  • Paula

    For the life of me I’ll never understand how any Christian can want to have the final say over any other adult Christian, especially as a permanent situation.

    I can’t imagine thinking some other adult believer must always bow to my will, whether I actually put that into practice or only hold to it as a principle.

    I cannot fathom thinking God has endowed me with a special leadership position solely on the basis of my reproductive organs– the “flesh”.

    And jumping on an abused woman, pouring the salt of blame on the wound of male privilege, is an act of cruelty that needs immediate and public repentance!!

  • Ellen

    I am also a bit concerned that CBMW is being quoted here (a lot) as the ultimate source of scriptural truth on this issue.

    I (personally) would not find it surprising if people used CBE as main source of egalitarian views. It is a handy resource to have a group of people in once place who believe the same thing.

    but

    that being said, this whole post is about Ware…and complementarian teaching.

    If the complaint is: complementarians teach (whatever), is it not fair that in order to say, “no they don’t and here’s a quote” – that a quote from a complementarian group is used?

    That doesn’t mean that we have not examined the beliefs against Scripture.

    It does mean that complementarians and egalitarians have different views on the interpretation of Scripture.

  • Lydia

    “My own son ran away and only after I left and established a home on my own free of abuse he came back. As a mother, the tears run down my face, I stood and took it for my children. Matthew, women need to be strong lovers of their own sons.

    Mothers need to be strong protectors and providers and faithful to their children.”

    Amen Sue. Blessings upon you, my dear sister.

    I was involved in something similar in a mega church where a popular elder was abusing his wife and it had been a secret for years UNTIL the children became teens and pressured the mother to leave. The web of deceit was woven even deeper with the threats that they not tell anyone because of his position in business and church. The family would be ruined they were warned. I finally told her (in a counseling session) that she had to remove the children from that environment because not only the unChristian message it sends but also pragmatically, in a few years her son would be big enough to take Dad on. It could only esculate.

    It was a very strong comp church and she had already spoken to the pastor who told her to pray more yet never confronted her husband. And it was a good thing the pastor never told her husband she came to him during that time or it would have been horrible for her.

    Too many churches are sweeping these things under the rug. It is inconvenient. It is bad publicity and some think if known, hurts the witness of the church!!! Especially if the abuser is someone popular, in leadership or wealthy. Everyone walks on eggshells in dealing with it instead of saying: If he hits you then get away from him immediately and call the police. I don’t care if he is the pastor! Even once is too much because it always esculates unless it is checked.

    It is ironic a sexual predator or abuser can find safety in the church.

    This is not an exaggeration. I have seen stuff in churches that would blow many people away. Yet, excuses are made for it as if the Grace were cheap and it is a ‘hospital’ for sinners. I became very sick and tired of hearing that one. So, when is a Christian to take the IV’s out and walk in the light?

    That is just ONE reason why Ware’s teaching where he, himself, connects dots between her sin of unsubmissiveness and the triggering of abuse.

    Who gets to decide when the wife is in sin? The husband, according to Ware.

    Dangerous teaching

  • Egal-eye

    Sue, #834, I hurt for you and for all the mothers and children who have had to suffer at the hands of ill-minded and ill-guided husbands. I, too, suffered and watched a child suffer. I know what it is to literally run for my life. After a couple of instances of outright physical abuse and many instances of controlling and isolating behaviors on the part of my former husband, I had to leave for the safety of myself and my children. My former husband was very well versed in the bible and believed he was Christian and believed that women should submit to their husbands. I remember the counsel of my pastor when, in my attempt to have a right biblical response, I asked how I would know it was ok to leave (this was back in the days when divorce among Christians was almost unheard of or at least not much spoken of). He just said, “You’ll know.” I would have far different advice should I be asked now.
    One comment I hear or read on occasion from comps (not all comps) is that we as women must be willing to suffer as Christ suffered if we have such a husband. To the best of my understanding, Christ did not suffer for someone’s random wrath alone-He always suffered because of His spiritual claims. When women today are asked to remain in an abusive or threatening relationship in the hopes that their spouses may be saved, the advice is rather misdirected because these women are not always being persecuted for their faith, they are often/generally being abused because of their husband’s desire to control. That is very different from being persecuted for one’s faith, which I believe we are all called to be willing and ready to do.
    While it is true that it happens that some husbands do become saved and temperate in the long process of having abused their wives and having wives who have patiently endured (and I am not herewith sanctioning that response from wives), I do not believe this type of sacrificial behavior on the part of the abused is called for or is biblical nor does this aquiescent response always result in saved husbands.
    If I were Ware, and I did not intend for my message to be construed as a green light for abusers, I would make every effort to restate my position, and clear up any misunderstandings. I would shudder to think that I had added to the arsenal of ANY ill-minded man anywhere. I have no doubt that the lives of some will be negatively impacted-even dangerously impacted-by such a comment if left unclarified.

  • Ellen

    What if the husband’s definition (at that moment) of being ‘unsubmissive’ is asking questions because he does not like the question… so he rules it as “unsubmissive”.

    A sinful reaction is still a sin.

    What if he takes the hole family to a church she doesn’t like or agree with?

    Is it a preference or a true “sin”? In an egalitarian marriage, what if the wife wants to take the whole family to a church that he doesn’t like or agree with?

    Is it worth tearing the family apart over?

    my thoughts…if the difference is style, or fairly minor differences in doctrine, go along. if the differences are major (Pentecostal vs. cessation, Reformed vs. Arminian, Roman Catholic vs. Protestant) things are more problematic. If a spouse converted mid-marriage, I might advise a wife to stick with her old church – depending on how firm her own convictions are. If a person marries a person of another conviction in the first place, they have no business complaining when it turns out badly.

    Personally, I will not ever follow a man to a hard-Arminian church, or a hard-egalitarian church. I will not be a member of a church with female leadership. I will not even visit a non-Trinitarian church.

    That is the reason this debate is important to me…as one who is single, it is vital that this conversation take place, so nobody is surprised after marriage.

    What if he decides that she has to homeschool the children and she doesn’t want to?

    There’s that “W” word. I want

    Is there a reason that she feels a home-school would be inappropriate? That she is not able? Or is it mere “want”? There is a difference. Why does the husband feel that a home-school is needed? What is the situation with the public school (I work in one…)

    What if he decides against contraception and forbids her from using any?

    I realize that there are issues such as this…and I see them written about more from the hard-patriarchy than I do from the CBMW crowd.

    See the comment above where I saw a distinction.

    I believe that (as the weaker vessel), he should live with understanding, lest his prayers be hindered. If she has a doctor who believes there are health issues, I would lean toward forcing another pregnancy as being abusive.

    What if he cleaves to his parents and makes decisions with them, and then imposes these on his wife?

    Are the decisions sinful? Is the problem the decisions, or that he is making them with his parents? Did she know his beliefs about including his parents ahead of time?

    Again, I see this more in the patriarchy teachings than in more moderate complementarianism.

    All of these questions are next to impossible to answer without knowing exact circumstances.

  • Lydia

    “What if the husband’s definition (at that moment) of being ‘unsubmissive’ is asking questions because he does not like the question… so he rules it as “unsubmissive”.

    A sinful reaction is still a sin.”

    He has been taught that he has the power and the authority to decide what is sin for his wife. He gets to decide what is ‘unsubmissive’. Dangerous teaching.

    our churches are filled with the unregenerate. Ware puts the cart before the horse. If he is going to confer extra biblical power for husbands, at the very least, make sure they are truly saved first.

    The husband is NOT her earthly priest

  • D.J. Williams

    Sue said…
    “”Women should recognize that submission is “Godlike,” Ware said. “Christ came in submission to the Father. It’s not only Godlike to be the authority. It’s Godlike to submit to authority.”

    Is that easier to read?”

    To say that is a proclamation that men should wield “Godlike authority” is a pretty questionable twist.

    This discussion seems to have outlived its usefulness. Continue attacking your straw man – I’m done.

  • D.J. Williams

    MatthewS,

    No, complementarianism does not logically lead to abuse. Sin leads to abuse. We might as well hold up the crusades as evidence that Christianity logically leads to war and the inquisition as evidence it logically leads to totalitarianism. I’m truly sorry for the sad experiences you’ve communicated, but complementarianism isn’t to blame. Sin is.

    Thanks for the transparency and your genuine concern. I will pray for reconciliation between you and your father.

  • Ellen

    I have yet to see these “same-sex” marriages and the rampant feminism in the Church that the complementarians seem to rail about all the time.

    Corrie, would you like a list of denominations that are struggling with a homosexual issue?

    The denomination I recently left…2 years ago they voted to make “women in leadership” denomination wide. 1 year ago they voted to allow women at synod for the first time. This year they are voting on whether or not to come into full fellowship with the denomination they broke off from in the first place…because of the homosexuality issue.

    Three years ago: “”On this July 4, the United Church of Christ has courageously acted to declare freedom, affirming marriage equality, affirming the civil rights of gay – of same-gender – couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages by the state, and encouraging our local churches to celebrate those marriages,” Mr. Thomas said at a news conference after the vote by the General Synod.”

    The Society of Friends: “We seek to know that of God within ourselves and others. We seek to express God’s truth in the Quaker and in the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transsexual/transgender communities, as it is made known to us.”

    Quakers in the UK: “one of the first statements in Quakerism regarding homosexuality was the controversial 1963 book Towards a Quaker View of Sex, published by a group of British Quakers, which affirmed that gender or sexual orientation were unimportant in a judgment of an intimate relationship and that the true criterion was the presence of “selfless love.”

    If you want more, I can get it…not that it has much to do with this conversation, only you asked.

  • Ellen

    For the record…I was in California the first day that they allowed gay marriage.

    if the gender thing is “big” within the church, the pressure is truly going to be huge regarding homosexuality.

    Christian will face persecution over this issue. Activists and gay couples will use the law to force Christians to act against their conscience.

  • Sue

    Thanks to others for sharing. It really helps to know the same story is repeated. These are very difficult things and it is too bad that some people are just treated as collateral damage.

    I have never to my knowledge quoted from CBE. I do my own research and it appears that few complementarians do. I think they would just rather not know because it is too embarrassing.

    There are a few that I communicate with regularly who would like to see me publish because they would like to see complementarianism rescued from the misrepresentation it gets on CBMW.

    My advice would be for them to choose another name to call themselves. Something like “traditional.” Complementarianism is lost by now, because it cannot back up from its position that men have authority.

  • madame

    Ellen,
    I wasn’t looking for answers, just giving one sided decisions that are, or can be, very hard for a wife to just accept and submit to.
    It’s NOT right for a husband to make such decisions on his own, and making them is imposing them. It’s sin. He isn’t loving his wife enough to get her input and consider it.

    I made sure I used examples where the wife is going to be actively involved, like church (female led, anti-trinitarian), homeschooling, having more children, etc…

    The Bible says very clearly that a man should leave father and mother and cleave to his wife. It says it in three different places, very clearly. It is sin for a man to cleave to father and mother after he is married.

  • Lydia

    It is not a ‘strawman’ to discuss the teaching of one sided submission when Eph 5:21 teaches mutual submission by believers. Husbands are excluded in that verse?

  • Ellen

    Have you read any of the comments that have addressed “all submission is not identical”? (serious question, since there are many posts and it is easy to miss some).

    Mutual submission is not identical submission. If submission does not have to be to one in authority, there can also be mutual submission within hierarchy.

    This must be true, if Christ submitted to the church in His sacrifice. (not saying that men are Christ, but as an illustration to make the point that mutual submission does not rule out authority)

  • Ellen

    I think that the strawman would be to say something to the effect of “CBMW teaches that a husband should never submit to his wife” (which is not what CBMW teaches) and then proceeding to argue the false point.

    Another example would be a statement such as “(teacher) promotes spousal abuse” (which is not true) and then tell us why spousal abuse is sin and why (teacher) is evil for promoting it.

    On the flip side, I could say that CBE promotes homosexuality (they don’t) and present all the Biblical arguments against homosexuality. While one of CBE’s past writers was pro-homosexuality, they took down all of her writing and – I believe – severed ties. A good thing. I am happy to applaud CBE for that good action.

  • madame

    Ellen, in comment 854, are you addressing me?
    if you are, nothing to be sorry for!

    It does surprise me that the command to men to “leave and cleave and become one flesh” is not as weighty as the command for a wife to submit, and the non-command for a husband to lead….

    A strawman (if that’s what you call it..), why is it simply understood that both spouses leave parents when they get married when the command is given only to men?

  • Don Johnson

    Mutual submission DOES work out in practise as different things. The one with more power will be expected to need to help more (submit more) the one with less power.

    This is the whole basis of what Paul says in Eph 5-6. In the pagan world, there were essentially no limits on the paterfamilias, but Paul (read God) does not agree.

  • Don Johnson

    On leaving parents, in a patriarchical society it was essential for the man to leave his father, else the father still ruled.

  • Ellen

    Here’s another “cleave” question:

    And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    How could Adam leave his father and mother if Adam and Eve were the first people?

  • madame

    A comment that Jesus picks up again, as an instruction, and Paul throws in with his instructions to men.

    Adam was talking about the future.

  • Lydia

    “Corrie, would you like a list of denominations that are struggling with a homosexual issue?”

    Being a woman is not a sin. Homosexuality, is.

  • Ellen

    Lydia, as I noted, the only reason I posted that comment was because Corrie asked, “where are all the denominations with the homosexual…”

    It was a response to a question, not a comparison.

  • Don Johnson

    There are some denoms that apparently only use the Bible in a casual way, they essentially do anything they wish. When you do anything you want, you will eventually leave the faith, as the Bible is not an anchor.

    There is a difference between those who use the Bible as an anchor and those who do not (or add to it with a Magisterium).

    Just because a denom does X that is different than others does not mean it is right or wrong, one needs to check the Bible.

  • Lydia

    “Lydia, as I noted, the only reason I posted that comment was because Corrie asked, “where are all the denominations with the homosexual…”

    It was a response to a question, not a comparison.”

    Actually, it is the typical strawman that I have heard comps use to prove that if they allow women in leadership or mutual submission in marriage…next thing you know there will be homosexual preachers and marriage.

    I am glad to know you do not think that.

  • Ellen

    Lydia, I believe that there is at least a casual connection, but that it should NOT be used in the gender debate.

    I also praised CBE on this post for severing ties with a pro-gay writer, which (hopefully) would indicate that I understand that all egalitarians (especially the “flagship” CBE) do not endorse homosexuality.

    I notice that you also use a “strawman” in the slipping in of “allow mutual submission”…

    You might want to say, “identical submission”

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    You do know that the patriarchalists blame egals/feminists for the homosexual problem.

    I heard of an elder in a patriarchal children referring to churches that were not like their church as the “homosexual woman church”.

    This is the kind of attitude that gets tiresome. It is like the lockerroom mentality in a high school.

    Tim Bayly kicked Light (and then me) off of his blog for saying that men submit to their wives and that women do things out of sacrificial love for their husbands.

    He believes that when men do the same thing for their wives it is always out of sacrificial love and when women do the same exact thing for their husband is it always submission.

    I get confused with who believes what in complementarian circles.

    “I have yet to see these “same-sex” marriages and the rampant feminism in the Church that the complementarians seem to rail about all the time.

    Corrie, would you like a list of denominations that are struggling with a homosexual issue?”

    No, it has NOTHING to do with egalitarianism. The homosexual issue is not a feminist issue.

    Also, I don’t think you understand Moore’s quote. He wasn’t talking about same-sex marriage as in two men or two women.

    He was calling marriages made up of one man and one woman “same-sex” marriages because in his opinion were ones of mutual submission and no authority/submission relationship.

    He slammed most of the marriages made up of a man and a woman in the church with this “same-sex” epithet. He also added that these couples were unaware that they were in such a marriage.

    I know there are denoms that have homosexual pastors/priests and are doing true same-sex marriages. That is not what I was referring to.

    I was talking about Moore’s slam on heterosexual marriages in the church and how he has labeled them too stupid to figure out that they are really in a same-sex marriage.

    Which leaves me wondering which sex are they? Are they both men because the wife is not in her place? Or are they both women, with the wife being submissive and the husband being submissive?

    I think he really meant that they are “trans-gendered” where each spouse has identified with the opposite of their biological sex.

    If we are going to call people names, we might as well get our terminology right.

    If a couple negotiates and discusses the issues in order to come to an agreement, they are in a “same sex” marriage because negotiation is the hallmark of a feministic marriage.

    As I mentioned before, a popular patriarchal “leader” alluded that if you are not for patriarchy then you are for sodomy.

    And we have to wonder why the egals might seem to be a bit agitated sometimes? As if patriarchy is the safeguard against sodomy. Right! They forgot that sodomy was and is always popular in patriarchal societies.

    We shouldn’t cry about being called names and being misunderstand when this kind of mud-slinging is going around.

  • Ellen

    We shouldn’t cry about being called names and being misunderstand when this kind of mud-slinging is going around.

    It would be nice if it were kept off Denny’s blog? Or not.

    I will commit to do my best.

  • Ellen

    I know there are denoms that have homosexual pastors/priests and are doing true same-sex marriages. That is not what I was referring to.

    Sorry for the misunderstanding…since I don’t listen to much to these rants (meaning Moore’s) I took you at your word.

    *BTW, another mainline Protestant church overturned a ban on gay ordinations last week.

  • Corrie

    “I realize that there are issues such as this…and I see them written about more from the hard-patriarchy than I do from the CBMW crowd.”

    Ellen,

    You are right about this but I am a bit concerned that the some in the CBMW crowd are adopting more and more lingo of the hyper-patriarchal crowd, even on the no birth control issue.

  • Sue

    Yes, one needs to know that Moore says that anyone who is not in an authority – submission relationship is in a “same sex” marriage. The woman really has to submit and the husband really has to be the authority, to reflect the image of God.

    I am back and still flinching at this stuff.

  • Bonnie

    Wow! I was afraid that, by the time I got back to this thread, it would be finished, and too late to respond to some things from last night. But I see that’s not the case!

    Ellen,

    I do appreciate very much your responses to my points. We are zeroing in on my concerns and I am seeing better now where our exact points of contention lie. Thanks very much!

    (I said): Another point would be that a husband’s will is not his authority.

    (You said): I guess I don’t really see them as separable.

    This is interesting, and I wonder how you would defend it. I do not see, Scripturally, that a man’s will is any different in essence, or ontology, than a woman’s. I see both a man’s will and a woman’s as human, as genderless. I believe that will is a gender-less thing. Human nature is a genderless thing; sin is genderless. As are pride, lust, etc. Likewise, the fruits of the spirit have no gender. This is why, in Christ, there is no male or female. Therefore, if a husband’s will is authority, then a wife’s must be too, because there is no ontological difference between their wills.

    Why do any of us have wills, if we are supposed to submit to one another?

    Because the playing field is equal between men and women. In Ware’s scenario, it isn’t.

  • Ellen

    Bonnie, you have said that you do not see this as complementarian vs. egalitarian questions. Do you include the belief that there is no “husband’s authority”?

    Complementarians believe that male leadership in the home and church is a good and godly thing. They do believe that a man does have authority. Egalitarians do not.

    And I’ve done some thinking about the whole authority/desire/will thing and posted it on my blog because it was sort of rambling.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    Following on my last comment, regarding your comment #704 on differences in definition of “will,” thanks for bringing this up. I do think it’s important to define “will,” and I accept your definition for the purpose of our discussion. Yet, in the two-paragraph quote of Ware’s that I have been discussing, he does not equate the husband’s will with what he thinks is best for the family (or the marriage). If there is an assumption (rather coded) that this authority is what the husband thinks is best for the family, still this will is not distinguished from the wife’s except to say that the husband’s is authoritative (and the wife’s is not).

    He speaks of what the husband “would like to do.” Whether this means his reasoned counsel for the family or his own personal wishes is not made clear. I do not know that there is any difference, practically-speaking, between what Ware says about the wife’s will (wanting to “have her way”) and the husband’s (what he “would like to do”) except that the one (the wife’s) sounds more selfish than the other. But why would a wife’s estimation of what’s best for the family be any less worthy than a husband’s, that his would take precedence?

    If Ware’s choice of words regarding the husband’s wanting to do “what he would like to do” vs. the wife’s wanting to “have her way” is meant to convey that a wife is running at cross-purposes with her husband, then wouldn’t a husband also be running at cross-purposes with his wife, and is this a good way for either one of them to behave?

    It also begs the question, why would this happen if the husband had done what Piper says a wise husband does (consults with his wife)? If it would happen, i.e., if a wife is truly unsubmissive or rebellious, then surely a wise husband would not see this as a threat to his authority. Why would a husband take this personally?

    Ware really is speaking of a battle of wills, one in which the wife is supposed to subordinate her will to her husband’s, unilaterally, and if she doesn’t, she is sinning. Yet, if men and women are equal in Christ, and their wills are equal in nature, then this cannot be true.

    It seems to me that a husband insisting on his will for the family (or marriage) over his wife’s is not exercising headship, or good leadership, or good husbandship; he’s being a boor. Justifying this by saying that it’s sanctioned by God is even worse. Error at best, and blasphemy at worst. If he gets mad because his wife does not “submit” her will to his, he’s worse than a boor. And if he abuses his wife or becomes passive, he’s a dangerous, cowardly boor (as we’ve all agreed).

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    Bonnie, you have said that you do not see this as complementarian vs. egalitarian questions. Do you include the belief that there is no “husband’s authority”?

    My own approach to Ware’s statement and gender issues is not from any particular camp. I have worked out (and am still working out) my beliefs, outside of any camp. I may agree with a particular statement that self-labels egalitarian, or one that self-labels complementarian. Or disagree with same.

    On the issue of comp. vs. egal., we can argue this way, one against the other, but I prefer not to, because I see no purpose to pitting camp against camp. Teaching against teaching or doctrine against doctrine, though, sure. I’m interested in the truth of what Scripture tells us about human relationships, including marriage, not in supporting any particular camp, or having the discussion be a “political” one because people are defending a “camp.”

    Since you just said that the comp teaching is too much to expect

    What I mean is that I think it puts too much burden and pressure upon men, fathers, and husbands (who are men 😉 ). I think that women were given to men to relieve them of their burdens, or at least help with them, not to increase their burdens! I believe this whether we’re talking pre-Fall or post-Fall. This is another of my main concerns in this debate.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    (I said:) Wrongly calling a wife’s submission a threat to a husband’s authority is one of my points.

    (You said:) I know you meant “lack of submission”…so here goes.

    Thanks for catching my error 🙂 As to your “company” analogy, I agree with you, if we are talking about a government structure, or a company, or a team, or some such organization. However I do not see a marriage as analogous to these things, nor even an entire family, because the nature of a family group and its purposes and function are different from those of other social groups and structures.

    And yes, you are seeing my concerns correctly. I appreciate it very much!

  • Ellen

    <i.If there is an assumption (rather coded) that this authority is what the husband thinks is best for the family, still this will is not distinguished from the wife’s except to say that the husband’s is authoritative (and the wife’s is not).

    That is (is the wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ) what complementarians believe, yes.

    <i.But why would a wife’s estimation of what’s best for the family be any less worthy than a husband’s, that his would take precedence?

    Worthy? It wouldn’t be. But (if complementarians are right) a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. (sorry to repeat, but that is the answer.)

    If Ware’s choice of words regarding the husband’s wanting to do “what he would like to do” vs. the wife’s wanting to “have her way” is meant to convey that a wife is running at cross-purposes with her husband, then wouldn’t a husband also be running at cross-purposes with his wife, and is this a good way for either one of them to behave?

    Ideally, it is not. But, if complementarians are right and male leadership of the home and church is good and godly, then a wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ. (are you sure that this is not a complementarian vs. egalitarian thing. If it is not, then I’m missing the reason for these questions; the point of which is: why does the husband have the leadership?)

    If Ware’s choice of words regarding the husband’s wanting to do “what he would like to do” vs. the wife’s wanting to “have her way” is meant to convey that a wife is running at cross-purposes with her husband, then wouldn’t a husband also be running at cross-purposes with his wife, and is this a good way for either one of them to behave?

    It sounds like under egalitarianism a man has precious few choices. If he believes that he has the leadership, he’s a boor… If he pushes, he’s a boor…If he becomes passive (let’s the wife have her way) he is a dangerous boor. Is there any point at which he might be right?

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    Regarding your comment #681 (which I think you meant rather than 680, right?)

    Let’s take apart Ware’s description of the woman that “is not in sin”.

    want instead to have their way

    Does that not sound a little selfish?

    It depends on just what this means. As I said, is this means an inconsiderate wanting to have her way, then I honestly don’t see any difference between this and the husband wanting or expecting her to fall in line with “what he would like to do.” The tip-off for me is the husband’s reaction to the wife and the fact that Ware calls the wife’s behavior a “threat to his authority.”

    If a husband is wanting to do something that a wife simply does not agree with, for whatever reason, there must be some arbiter above the husband before it can be finally decided who is in the wrong. Either one of them may be right or wrong about that particular course of action. To suggest that the wife simply go along with the husband because he is the leader or the authority is, frankly, abusive to the wife.

    And there is nothing wrong with a wife wanting her will to be served, especially if there is nothing wrong with a husband wanting his to be served.

    I think I’m repeating myself again…

  • Sue

    Bonnie,

    To suggest that the wife simply go along with the husband because he is the leader or the authority is, frankly, abusive to the wife.

    This is what I have always thought. That even without getting hit, having no rights or expectations of one’s own in life is abusive. The emotional abuse is terrible.

    Fortunately most complementarians don’t live like this, at least I assume.

  • Bonnie

    is the wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ?

    Yes. At issue is just what this means. As I said, is it about the nature of the submission, or about equating a husband with Christ? I think the former. It cannot mean to equate a husband with Christ in an authoritative sense because the husband, unlike Christ, is a sinner. I think it means that a wife should not do anything that does not serve her husband in some way.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    “By incorporating these concepts into the
    Ephesians passage, we gain additional insight into a husband’s role in marriage. He is to be a servant to his wife; he is to be sensitive to her needs, trying to anticipate them even before she does. He is to attend to those needs before his own, even if it costs him dearly. Obviously, this leaves no room for exerting his marital authority for his own pleasure or convenience. This is what it means to love your wife as Christ loved the church.”

    I believe that a husband is to be, not only sensitive to his wife’s needs (as she is to his), but to her will – to her wishes, her desires, her thoughts, her feelings, her opinions – and not just when he solicits them 🙂

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    CBMW also says, A wise husband will also value his wife’s opinions and actively seek her counsel and insights (see Prov. 12:15; 20:18). He will seek to form a consensus with her on all decisions (cf. Matt. 12:25); if she has serious reservations about a particular decision, a wise husband will carefully reconsider the issue before proceeding. The basis for his evaluation must never be, “What will be pleasing or convenient for me?” Rather, he must ask, “What will please and glorify God, and what will be best for my wife (and children)?”

    I appreciate this. I also find it to be at odds with what Ware said. I believe that this question (a corollary to the husband’s) — “What will please and glorify God, and what will be best for my (husband) (and children)?” – must also guide a wife.

    If he and his wife cannot agree on the answer to that question, he is the one whom God has authorized to break the tie, and he is the one whom God will hold responsible for the results.

    I think this might be true in certain situations (don’t ask me which, I’m not sure I could tell you, unless I was in one!) yet not in all. Besides, I don’t think that “tie” situations are generally cut-and-dried; they are complex, and if such an impasse occurs, I think that more is going on than merely a husband leading improperly or a wife lacking submission.

    Additionally, I believe that a woman, or a wife, stands before God on her on as far as accountability goes, both now and in the final judgment. I don’t believe that God holds husbands any more responsible for their marriage or their family than He does wives. I think that a husband will be judged for his decisions as much as a wife will, and that their motives, their heart, will be judged, more than the actual decisions made. (This also is a major point of mine in this debate.)

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    Is there a rulebook for egalitarians on what to do if they have a selfish spouse? How do they know for sure if the spouse is selfish?

    I will not speak as an egalitarian, but will say that I think that if attempted consensus does not lead to agreement, then each spouse must do what he or she thinks before God is right, while also seeking to reconcile. If reconciliation cannot be forged, then outside help must be sought.

  • Lydia

    “I notice that you also use a “strawman” in the slipping in of “allow mutual submission”…

    You might want to say, “identical submission””

    Ellen, you accuse me of being deceitful? I NEVER ‘slip’ anything in. I meant it as it was said. Remember what Moore said about comps being in same sex marriages because they were not Patriarchal enough. Corrie put a link to the article in this thread.

  • Ellen

    A man, then is truly held hostage to the whims of his wife.

    If she is rebellious and he caves, he’s a boor.

    If she is rebellious and he pushes, he’s a boor.

    If he thinks he’s in leadership, he’s a boor.

    If he thinks he’s not not in leadership and gives in to her, he’s probably a boor also.

    Unless they are in complete agreement 100% of the time, he’s held hostage, because if he wants his way, he’s a boor and if she wants her way, she’s just being equal.

  • Ellen

    Ellen, you accuse me of being deceitful?

    Not at all. I would suggest that you may have missed many of the comments that have made the point that “mutual submission” is not “identical submission” and that mutual submission does not rule out leadership.

    There are nearly 900 comments, it would not surprise me in the least if some of them had been missed.

  • Bonnie

    Sue,

    I am glad you brought up Luther. My son (12) is studying him right now; I did in college. I wrote a paper on Here I Stand. All through this debate I’ve been thinking of him!

  • Ellen

    Remember what Moore said about comps being in same sex marriages because they were not Patriarchal enough. Corrie put a link to the article in this thread.

    Remember the point that some of us have attempted to make clear? Complementarians are not monolithic. Are Egalitarians?

  • Lydia

    “Not at all. I would suggest that you may have missed many of the comments that have made the point that “mutual submission” is not “identical submission” and that mutual submission does not rule out leadership.

    Ellen, There is NO leadership. Only servanthood. Pastors, elders, etc are simply servants who ‘function’ in the Body. The only real authority in a adult believer’s life is the Government, the Word, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. Everything thing else is worldly and abused by sinful man when given too much power.

    The church brought in the worldly system of authority. It is not of Christ. There are MORE ‘don’t lord it over’ and ‘be a servant’ scriptures in essence than there are about authority…and even those are translated VERY poorly. Don’t ever forget that Jim Jones at one time was a Christian ‘authority/leader’.

    Beware of any man who focuses on his ‘authority’. He is focusing on the opposite of what Christ taught.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    Is this in response to my comments?

    A man, then is truly held hostage to the whims of his wife.

    If she is rebellious and he caves, he’s a boor.

    If she is rebellious and he pushes, he’s a boor.

    If he thinks he’s in leadership, he’s a boor.

    If he thinks he’s not not in leadership and gives in to her, he’s probably a boor also.

    Unless they are in complete agreement 100% of the time, he’s held hostage, because if he wants his way, he’s a boor and if she wants her way, she’s just being equal.

    If so, you misunderstand me. If she is rebellious, he can pray for her and continue to love her as his own body. This is what he is called to do. He might also consider that her “rebellion” may not be rebellion against God.

    On your last statement, please see my comment #891.

  • Lydia

    Moore and Ware are both as SBTS as profs. They are closer in belief than you may think on this issue. Mohler is very careful who teaches there and what they teach. So Mohler gives both Ware and Moore a pass on what they teach. Seems he agrees.

  • Ellen

    Ellen, There is NO leadership. Only servanthood. Pastors, elders, etc are simply servants who ‘function’ in the Body. The only real authority in a adult believer’s life is the Government, the Word, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. Everything thing else is worldly and abused by sinful man when given too much power.

    KJV, Hebrews 13:17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

    My understanding is that there are those within the church that have rule over me and that I should submit myself.

    NIV says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority” so the NIV there are leaders and the leaders have authority.

    We disagree on the leader/authority issue. I read that we have leaders and that we are to obey them. You disagree.

    I understand that complementarians have a different understanding of Scripture than egalitarians.

  • Ellen

    I also have to leave, but for a week and a half. Off to the “deep dark woods”. I will most likely be able to reply to a couple of things in the middle of the night or in the morning but we’re trying to get an early start.

  • Sue

    KJV, Hebrews 13:17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

    And there is a verse that has been whipped into shape by the translators. It says,

    Have confidence in your leaders and submit to them …

    Honest, the word “authority” and “obey” are not in the text. Here is where the KJV makes sure the hoi polloi will do as they are told. Wow.

    Thanks for this.

  • Sue

    NIV “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority” Heb. 13:17.

    Nope! The word authority is not in the Greek.

    Bizarro. What is going on? I have to work on this.

  • Paula

    The interlinear I use has this:

    Be persuaded to the ones leading you and be deferring for they are vigilant for the sake of your souls as having to render an account, that with joy they may do this and no one groaning, for this is disadvantageous to you.

    Persuasion and deferring don’t sound anything like an authority forcing their will, but equals being respectful and selfless.

    It is not absolutely clear in the context, either, that these “leaders” are church leaders, but might be civic leaders, but it certainly could be either.

    Good parents raise their children to be adults someday; good teachers bring their students to the point of graduation. Likewise in the church: good elders build others up and train them to be independent, to be elders themselves someday. It is not a permanent relationship of superior to inferior.

  • Ellen

    What is going on?

    It seems that the NIV, the KJV, the NASB, The Amplified Bible, the ESV, the CEV, the NKJV, the New Century Version, the 21st Century KJV, the American Standard Version, Young’s Literal, Darby’s, New Life Version, Holman Christian Standard Version, Wycliffe and the TNIV are all wrong.

  • Ellen

    Paula, how likely is it that civic leaders would be vigilant for the sake of souls?

    why the “leaders” in quotes, if the text says leaders?

  • Lydia

    “We disagree on the leader/authority issue. I read that we have leaders and that we are to obey them. You disagree.”

    Thanks Sue and Paula on this verse. I have studied Hebrews intently for a long time and did a deep word study on the Greek in this passage. AIt is not interpreted very well at all.

    All I can say about Ellen’s interpretation is that I hope she does not end up in a Jim Jones type church. At one time, he was considered godly and built up a following. There are other examples of seemingly godly leaders who turn out very different but you get the picture.

    I’ll stick with obeying the Word and the Holy Spirit. It is much safer than following men. :o)

  • Lydia

    “It seems that the NIV, the KJV, the NASB, The Amplified Bible, the ESV, the CEV, the NKJV, the New Century Version, the 21st Century KJV, the American Standard Version, Young’s Literal, Darby’s, New Life Version, Holman Christian Standard Version, Wycliffe and the TNIV are all wrong.”

    The Word is inerrant. Translators are not. :o)

  • Sue

    Whoa, I had never noticed this verse before. I had often studied the Greek word exousia to see that it is not used for church leadership, but I did not realize why everyone thought it was.

  • Paula

    Soul and spirit are differentiated in the scriptures. Soul is typically translated “life”, so you could substitute “lives” for “souls” in that verse. But to be accurate to the actual vocabulary, the word is “psuche”, not “zoe” (Sue, excuse my lame transliteration). Leaders is in quotes to indicate the word is being discussed in the following words.

    Also Sue, I’d be most interested in my paraphrase of various NT letters at http://www.fether.net/Bible/index.php . (I didn’t make it a link so my comment wouldn’t be delayed. Must get some sleep.)

  • Paula

    Yes, need sleep. I meant to say “Also Sue, I’d be most interested in your opinion of my paraphrase”.

    And also I should point out that neither psuche nor zoe are the word for “spirit”, which is pneumos.

  • Lydia

    Sue, also note the word Hupeiko in this verse. It is only found one time in the New Testament, in Hebrews 13:17 that I can find.

  • Sue

    Psyche can be “soul” “life” “self” “being” etc. I am pretty sure that the animals are also psyche in Genesis 1. ψυχῶν ζωσῶν “living creatures”

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    I thought you would be gone. I wish I were camping but I am going to work tomorrow to finish up some stuff. I will drop in tomorrow evening.

    Thanks for the discussion on Hebrews 13:17, that really cleared up in my mind where others were getting the church leaders authority from. I learned something.

  • Sue

    Paula,

    Wow, all that work I checked your link. What a lot of work. I don’t think that authentein means to be the “man’s ruin” but to be the “man’s master.” That is my thought.

  • madame

    Bonnie,
    I read through your posts and I think we are at a similar place.

    ” On the issue of comp. vs. egal., we can argue this way, one against the other, but I prefer not to, because I see no purpose to pitting camp against camp. Teaching against teaching or doctrine against doctrine, though, sure. I’m interested in the truth of what Scripture tells us about human relationships, including marriage, not in supporting any particular camp, or having the discussion be a “political” one because people are defending a “camp.” ”

    I couldn’t agree more. I think we should be seeking the truth, not to stand for one paradigm or another. Paradigms are a result of human interpretation and thinking, which are not necessarily always correct.

    ” If a husband is wanting to do something that a wife simply does not agree with, for whatever reason, there must be some arbiter above the husband before it can be finally decided who is in the wrong. Either one of them may be right or wrong about that particular course of action. To suggest that the wife simply go along with the husband because he is the leader or the authority is, frankly, abusive to the wife.”

    7Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

    I think it’s Scriptural for a man to genuinely consider his wife’s reservations.
    He has to consider her a fellow heir, who also has the Holy Spirit. Christ is the ultimate head of a marriage and a couple should come to Him if they reach an impasse. It’s very possible that God doesn’t want them to proceed yet.

    I believe all major decisions should be made together, with prayer. God said it wasn’t good for Adam to be alone. Did he only mean that Adam needed someone to discuss whether a bite of orange and a bite of mango together taste good or not? I don’t think so.

    I think we are missing the first purpose of marriage in this discussion. Marriage is first of all a one-flesh relationship. Both spouses have to walk as one. Not one spouse is independent from the other or should act that way. This includes decision making.
    The way I see it, you marry and you commit yourself to a life of no longer thinking only of yourself. You can’t even only think about ministry!

    I disagree with those who believe a man has authority to exercise his will in the marriage. Hard as I look at the texts, I don’t see that even implied.

  • madame

    Bonnie, Comment 887

    “is the wife is to submit to her husband as the church submits to Christ?

    Yes. At issue is just what this means. As I said, is it about the nature of the submission, or about equating a husband with Christ? I think the former. It cannot mean to equate a husband with Christ in an authoritative sense because the husband, unlike Christ, is a sinner. I think it means that a wife should not do anything that does not serve her husband in some way.”

    I agree, what does submission mean? Obedience? following? willfully cooperating with Jesus’ work on earth, using the gifts He gives us?

    I completely agree, my life is not my own. First of all, I belong to Jesus. My body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and then I am the wife of my husband, given to him as a helper.

    Helper is not just the one who washes the dishes and holds the fort when the husband is away, although this can be a way to help.

    I like the way Gary Thomas says it:
    A wife should think “what can I do to help my husband?, how can I be a helper to him today?” on a daily basis.

    Sometimes husbands need a wife’s help to stop a bad habit, lay down boundaries, work on their self esteem…
    Sometimes the most helpful thing is the one that sounds less submissive (remember Abigail?)

  • Ruud Vermeij

    2. The means of the woman’s creation as “out of” or “from” the man bears testimony also to the headship of the male in the relationship.

    The woman was created out of the man. The man was created out of the dust.
    Is this a matriarchal argument?

    10. The Trinity’s equality and distinction of Persons is mirrored in male-female equality and distinction.

    This is in fact an egalitarian argument…
    unless you bring heretics into the equation.

  • Lynne

    There is nothing in the creation narrative (Genesis 1 & 2) that implies the subordination of woman. She was made ezer kenegedo — the counterpart, face to face, the only one in all the material creation who matched him to be his mate. Male authority came in with the fall, just like thorns and thistles, and just like thorns and thistles, we who are a new creation in Christ should be seeking, as far as we are able in this present world, to reverse the effects of the fall and live as members of the kingdom

  • Paula

    I don’t think that authentein means to be the “man’s ruin” but to be the “man’s master.” That is my thought.
    Yes, it can go either way. What I wanted to do was find a phrase that encompassed the apparent common usage of the time (which gives the meaning “murderer”), as well as the immediate context of false teachings. I see the whole letter as needing to be read in that light. If we take only the “murderer” meaning in isolation, without considering the overall context of falsehood, I think we misunderstand Paul’s point. I also see that he suddenly switched from “women and men” to “a woman and a man” and believe we must not gloss over it as all the other translations do, treating them as generics.

  • Paula

    Wow, all that work I checked your link. What a lot of work.

    Yep, ’twas. But when God lights a fire under you, you get busy. I don’t even know how long it took, I didn’t keep track.

  • Paula

    Lydia (#915),

    I looked up all forms of the word in an analytical lexicon, and here’s most of what they have for all forms of the word:

    Luke 22:61 — and Peter was-under-reminded (remembered) the saying of the Lord
    Acts 1:9 — the cloud under-got (lifted up) Jesus from their sight
    Acts 17:14 — but Silas and Timothyunder-remained (stayed) there
    Rom. 11:4 — “and I was-under-lacked (left) alone and they are seeking…”
    Col. 2:14 — which was under-in-instead (hostile) to us
    Heb. 10:32 — you under-remained (endured) sufferings

  • codepoke

    > In other words, Dr. Ware treats Paul’s interpretation of Genesis as an authoritative and binding interpretation.

    This should go without saying. As an egalitarian, I find Paul’s interpretation entirely necessary. One would think the fact that Paul was an egalitarian would carry a little weight with Dr. Ware, but alas. I suppose not.

  • J. K. Gayle

    Compare the teaching of Ware on women with the teaching of Aristotle (Politics, Book I, Part 7):

    “Of household management we have seen that there are three parts- one is the rule of a master over slaves, which has been discussed already, another of a father, and the third of a husband. A husband and father, we saw, rules over wife and children, both free, but the rule differs, the rule over his children being a royal, over his wife a constitutional rule. For although there may be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is by nature fitter for command than the female, just as the elder and full-grown is superior to the younger and more immature. But in most constitutional states the citizens rule and are ruled by turns, for the idea of a constitutional state implies that the natures of the citizens are equal, and do not differ at all. Nevertheless, when one rules and the other is ruled we endeavor to create a difference of outward forms and names and titles of respect, which may be illustrated by the saying of Amasis about his foot-pan. The relation of the male to the female is of this kind, but there the inequality is permanent. The rule of a father over his children is royal, for he rules by virtue both of love and of the respect due to age, exercising a kind of royal power. And therefore Homer has appropriately called Zeus ‘father of Gods and men,’ because he is the king of them all. For a king is the natural superior of his subjects, but he should be of the same kin or kind with them, and such is the relation of elder and younger, of father and son.”

    And note how not long ago in the United States, some Christians so turned to such a Ware-like Biblical Council argument from Aristotle (i.e., the “God-like” submission teaching) to keep African Americans enslaved to their European American masters:

    “To the modern viewer, slavery seemed to run contrary to the evangelical Protestant faith that most white Southerners shared before the Civil War. In the eighteenth century, however, the most convincing pro-slavery argument for the Southern populous as a whole was biblically based. Many Southern scholars, such as John C. Calhoun, pointed to the Bible as the ultimate justification for slavery… No where in the scriptures is slavery condemned, but it does give slaves some entitlements. The Southern theologian Robert Lewis Dabney said that masters attempted in every aspect of their relationships with slaves to exercise the golden rule and Colossians 4:1. ‘Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a master in heaven.'” (Source here).

    Here’s a bit from The Pro-slavery Argument by William Harper, James Henry, William Gilmore Simms, and Thomas Roderick Dew, published 1852.

    “Aristotle, the greatest philosopher of antiquity, and a man of as capacious mind as the world ever produced, was a warm advocate of slavery—maintaining that it was reasonable, necessary, and natural; and, accordingly, in his model of a republic, there were to be comparatively few freemen served by many slaves.

    If we turn from profane history to Holy Writ—that sacred fountain when are derived these pure precepts, and holy laws and regulations by which the Christian world has ever been governed—we shall find that the children of Israel, under the guidance of Jehovah, massacred or enslaved their prisoners of war. So far from considering slavery a curse, they considered it a punishment much too mild, and regretted, from this cause alone, its infliction.” (page 306).

    Is Ware doing much more than turning, like slave owners did, from profane history to support his own interpretations of Holy Writ?

  • Bill

    Wow. I’m only going to say what I tell my HS students when there’s a boy/girl fight and I don’t really know who did what and I don’t really know who’s to blame. For the record, it always shuts the boys up and it always makes the girls smile, clap and/or cheer. Here it is:

    Sir, you just broke the number one rule in civilization. And the number one rule in every civilization since the dawn of mankind is…

    Do NOT upset the females!

    I’m serious.

    Take that how you want to take it, maybe, but there’s a real serious point there. Think about it.

    Then the girls nod their heads and look vindicated, still smiling, and the boys finally quit acting stupid, but they’re smiling. And then we can get on with class. It works every time.

    So brother, I hope you’re as smart as a teenager.

    Best of luck.

  • Ellen

    So brother, I hope you’re as smart as a teenager.

    That would certainly fit with Ware’s description of a sinful reaction. Caving to women…

    Girls are better than boys, after all (just as Sen. Obama said), “They will take for granted women can do anything that the boys can do, and do it better, and do it in heels…” (written tongue in cheek, emphasis mine…but…)

    (my daughter’s friend is on the way, once the cat is taken care of, we’re out of here)

  • J. K. Gayle

    As a boy, I’m smiling at Bill’s joke.

    And speaking of reactions, I remember reading in the Bible about certain men reacting to the sin of a particular woman (which included sin with a particular man). But the men only reacted to the woman and her sin, to see if Jesus would react with a nod to their intention to execute her publicly, which is what the Bible required of course. Jesus’s real reaction got them reacting to their own sin. This was the great equalizer. All of the sudden they stopped praying authoritatively, “Thank You God that You did not make me a woman.” And, for just a moment, they became egalitarians, in sin and in grace. One of them later wrote something different that was Biblical (and which actually became the Bible),

    “Because all of you are one in the Messiah Jesus, a person is no longer a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a male or a female.” (Galatians 3:28, International Standard Version)

  • Sue

    JK,

    I am waiting for Denny to respond on two posts especially on The Meaning of Authenteo. He lets the matter drop unanswered but then joins Russ Moore in preaching on this verse on the radio.

    Perhaps he should “begin a new argument” as you say.

    All women are affected by this. How can anyone afford not to get it right.

  • J. K. Gayle

    Yes, Sue, if we’re willing to laugh at the trouble we’re in by making women lesser, then we all may laugh.

    Here’s another attempt at humor:

    “A man will pay $2 for a $1 item he wants. A woman will pay $1 for a $2 item that she doesn’t want.”

    The sober fact is that in the US last year, a woman on average earned only 77 cents to what a man earned at the same job. This would include most any job that Dr. Ware might allow Paul and Genesis to allow a woman to do. A woman VBS worker, a woman Bible translator, a woman elementary school teacher — on average across the nation in 2007 — got just $0.77 when a man doing the same work got the whole dollar.

    I do hope Denny responds to you, even if he’s jokingly starting his own thing.

    You say, “All women are affected by this. How can anyone afford not to get it right.”

    And I agree saying, “All of us, women and men, are affected by this.” My daughters deserve the same full dollar that my son makes, all things (but their bodies) being different.

  • Ferg

    I am presuming that this post will get lost in the midst of the rest of them, which is quite fine as I think I’m invisible a lot of times on here; but I just want to thank those of you who were honest and gave personal stories. It adds so much to the discussion and whatever side one is on, we are talking about real people and real emotions not just concepts.

  • Don Johnson

    JK,

    The Torah on adultery never says to stone a woman by herself, it says to stone the 2 or just the man in some circumstances. So Jesus would have broken Torah if he has said to stone just the woman, which would have invalidated his claim to be Messiah.

    Since all of the accusers were not following Torah, they were all in sin, but the older realized it first.

    P.S. In case you are new, I am egal.

  • J. K. Gayle

    Ferg,

    What are some of the stories of women and men seeking His face in Dublin? Are women better off in Ireland, among churches and the workplace, than they are here in the States? Is it scripture interpretation and legislation that helps or hinders?

  • J. K. Gayle

    Thanks, Don, for clarifying. “So Jesus would have broken Torah.” This does seem to be the game of the men, the Pharisees, who were in sin by misinterpreting the Bible as they had it. But, to be very clear, I wasn’t saying anything like that about Bruce Ware. That is, I’m not going to call faulty hermeneutics of the Bible sin. Nonetheless, how we interpret the Bible is the large issue here with respect to putting women down under men, in marriage, in church, or in any other domain. Ferg makes the brilliant, Jesus-like observation, that this is very very personal stuff, not just a game in which a young rabbi might slip up and allow a bunch of other men to win an argument. Oh, that was personal too, and potentially deadly. I really do appreciate your comment, Don.

  • Ferg

    Great question J.K. Considering that 90% of people in our country would call themselves Catholic (the number practicing is massively short of that, but thats a completely different topic) we are still suffering under the old catholic regime. We have made huge strides in the last 10 years, however I would guess that we are behind the states in a fair balance of gender.
    Most churches would be complimentarian, I don’t know of many that aren’t. The church of ireland can allow women to teach, but they have also been known to accept homosexuality so I’m not sure they’re a good example. With good strides, makes for bad decisions and for people to go way across the line.
    I go to a Baptist church and I find their approach incredibly hypocritcal in relation to women. A very small example being that woman can’t teach but they can ‘lead’ the music and they can teach the 17 year olds in youth group. If you’re going to say that women can’t lead or teach men, at least follow it to it’s natural conclusion, don’t have people confused about where they stand.
    I find it incredibly frustrating and I find my wifes gifts not being used at all to their full potential which is why I’m seeking a good egalitarian church!!

  • Ferg

    Oh, and JK thanks for asking. Not many people are interested in things in Ireland, or in personal things here as a matter of fact. I appreciate it.

  • J. K. Gayle

    Thanks so much, Ferg. I do hope you two find a good church there!! You say more generally, “The church of ireland can allow women to teach, but they have also been known to accept homosexuality so I’m not sure they’re a good example. With good strides, makes for bad decisions and for people to go way across the line.”

    On your point about homosexuality, I think that’s a can a worms that needs to be opened. (Not here necessarily!!) One very very helpful work on biblical hermeneutics is “Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis” by William Webb. He’s a brave author, and as you can imagine has seen his book attacked by the likes of Wayne Grudem. Have you read Webb’s book or Grudem’s critique? I’d highly recommend all the reviews and the book itself as productively helping us work through how God is working through human history. He’s working lovingly, of course. Variously with respect to homosexuals, and slaves and women. The theme of the book is reading God’s work through the hermeneutic of redemptive love. There are other books that do this too, you may know. C. S. Lewis has “Reflections on the Psalms” by reading them from the perspective of Christian love. And James K. A. Smith with Henry Isaac Venema looks at “The Hermeneutics of Charity.” And I’ve always thought Elizabeth Cady Stanton (et al) needs rereading, especially her Declaration of Sentiments and “The Woman’s Bible.” Don’t mean to throw books in or at the conversation, except Ware is preaching by appeal to interpretation. And if he’s afraid of homosexuality too, then somewhere sometime we have to talk about that rather personally too.

  • Marilyn

    I’ve found this debate to be very painful because neither side seems willing to acknowledge the valid points raised by the other side. Egalitarians are unwilling to admit that Dr. Ware does not, in fact, argue that a wife’s behavior causes her husband to sin. Rather, he argues that a wife’s behavior reveals her husband’s sinful nature. Complementarians are unwilling to acknowledge that sociological evidence consistently shows submission to an abuser to be an ineffective strategy for deterring abuse. Submission empowers the abuser. Women in such a situation should flee evil. But, egalitarians, in turn, seem unwilling to acknowledge that isolated acts do not an abuser make; nor do they acknowledge the pain that a wife’s anger and disrespect inflicts on her husband. Complementarians, in turn, are unwilling to devote time and money to providing meaningful support to women who are the victims of abusers…and so it goes.

    Is anybody else out there as frustrated as I am?

  • D.J. Williams

    J.K. Gayle said…
    “And if he’s afraid of homosexuality too, then somewhere sometime we have to talk about that rather personally too.”

    Suddenly, all those egalitarianism-leads-to-acceptance-of-homosexuality slippery slope arguements don’t sound so crazy. 🙂

  • Lydia

    “I find it incredibly frustrating and I find my wifes gifts not being used at all to their full potential which is why I’m seeking a good egalitarian church!!”

    And there you have the whole point of this and why it is important. Satan is thrilled when the attempt to shut up one half of all believers from proclaiming the Word to anyone…male or female, because of gender.

    The whole thing is so confusing and legalistic. They need a new Talmud to list all the rules. A woman can witness but cannot teach a man out of scripture. A woman can give her tesitmony if she does not teach men. A woman can teach boys until they are —-what age? What age do they become men now? And a woman can never rebuke a man for false teaching unless he is under age of manhood which is __? A woman cannot answer doctrinal questions from a Western male. But a woman can answer doctrinal questions from a third world male. A woman can fill the communion cups but cannot serve them.

    I should think Satan is delighted we are so distracted with all these rules and ‘roles’. That is why I ignore these new ‘laws’. :o)

  • Lydia

    “Suddenly, all those egalitarianism-leads-to-acceptance-of-homosexuality slippery slope arguements don’t sound so crazy.”

    Well, if JK is advocating the acceptance of homosexuality, you can rest assured this egal is in total complete disagreeement.

    However, I do not HATE them. They need the gospel. And, as Christians, we should have been, as a group effort, by their side when they were dying of aids. If they come to the church expecting to be able to continue their lifestyle, then they are lovingly told they cannot stay until they repent.

    (Wish we would tell the gossips, the greedy and liars the same thing)

    The problem is that American Christians have made politics the religion. We war with the culture instead of evangelizing it. We should be known as those who love them much and have tears in our eyes over their lost condition. We should take their blows and hate with humility and love. Instead, we fight a losing battle in the public square over policy!

    Paul did not write about working toward a more moral Galatia or working within the system of Rome to outlaw such sin. It is so silly when one thinks about it. We are to BE the light and carry the message of Redemption to a lost world. We will be hated for it. Jesus told us that but even then, our response is ‘truth with love’.

  • Paula

    Funny, isn’t it, how quick comps are to label us as accepting the clear sin of homosexuality just because we think females are fully human and that God does not judge based on the flesh… but when the tables are turned and comps are accused of fomenting male entitlement and abuse of wives, they scream like little girls.

  • D.J. Williams

    Lydia,

    Good words. I was hoping the smiley would be a hint that I was going for humor there, not debate points. I just found it incredibly ironic and amusing that early on the argument was made the acceptance of homosexuality follows egalitarianism and before all is said and done someone shows up who sees the two as linked.

  • D.J. Williams

    Paula said…
    “…just because we think females are fully human and that God does not judge based on the flesh”

    …because, of course, us comps deny those two truths. 🙂 C’mon, Paula – it’s that kind of misrepresentation that has us in a 950-bullet stalemate.

  • madame

    Lydia,

    If they come to the church expecting to be able to continue their lifestyle, then they are lovingly told they cannot stay until they repent.

    Why? Did Jesus send people away from the Mount if they hadn’t repented yet? Did he send the crowd away until they repented?

    (Wish we would tell the gossips, the greedy and liars the same thing)

    Yes. True. And the hypocrites

  • Paula

    Come on, DJ, it’s your type of innuendo and personal attack that has us in a Hatfields and McCoy’s feud.

    What you did to Sue was nothing less than a virtual battering and you need to repent publicly.

  • D.J. Williams

    Paula said…
    “What you did to Sue was nothing less than a virtual battering and you need to repent publicly.”

    If you’re going to make such a serious accusation on my character, then at least do me the courtesy of giving specifics.

  • Lydia

    Sorry, DJ…I was too quick to miss the smiley face. one gets a bit tired of defending the false conclusion that women using their spiritual gifts will lead to homosexual preachers!

    I do want to note that as a student of history and culture….Patriarchal cultures have always been prone to homosexuality It is just hidden better.

    It still goes on. Many have been shocked to find a deep thread of homosexuality in Afghanistan during the Taliban!

    So, in truth, the equality of women has not been the catalyst for homosexuality. It has always been there. Now it is just paraded around because we are less shamed by our sin.

  • Lydia

    “Why? Did Jesus send people away from the Mount if they hadn’t repented yet? Did he send the crowd away until they repented? ”

    Madame, the crowd following Jesus thinned when he spoke hard truths. And the crowd following Christ was not the local church. We assume many were saved but we cannot make that claim. Many wanted to be healed.

    If you read 1 Corin 5, you will see Paul teaching how to deal with sin in the body and yes, he said, kick him out until he repents. he also said in that passage, “Do not judge the world”. But we are to judge and deal with blatent unrepentant sin in the Body.

    And what I see is less attetion to sin in the body and more waring with the culture which is the opposite of what Paul wrote inspired by the Holy Spirit.

  • tiro3

    Responding to Ellen’s comments on Heb. 13:7

    We are to remember our leaders. (hEgeomai-leaders) (mnEmoneuO-remember) We are to closely observe their behavior and how they work out their faith. We are to imitate their faith AFTER we have observed how they walk it out in their lives.

    Immediately following these words Paul says that Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, and that we are not to be carried away with different or strange (exonos-unusual,new) doctrines. This explains why Christians are to treat their leaders with honor and respect because of their commitment to ministry BUT check, recheck (like the Bereans who searched the Scriptures for confirmation) their doctrines.

  • tiro3

    trying again…
    In Heb.13: 17 the word often wrongly translated as obey is peithO which means to be willing to be persuaded.
    Ro. 14: 5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
    Paul in many places admonishes that each person must study, be willing to be directed by Scripture (not by fallible humans) and be fully convinced (persuaded) in our own mind for the things we believe. No one is to ever take the place of our conscience.

  • madame

    ” If you read 1 Corin 5, you will see Paul teaching how to deal with sin in the body and yes, he said, kick him out until he repents. he also said in that passage, “Do not judge the world”. But we are to judge and deal with blatent unrepentant sin in the Body.

    And what I see is less attetion to sin in the body and more waring with the culture which is the opposite of what Paul wrote inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

    Does that mean you kick out newcomers and seekers? I wasn’t thinking about people who are “established” Christians (expected to be mature, been calling themselves Christian for a while) and live in sin, but people who are finding their way to Jesus.

    I agree with your last paragraph

  • Lydia

    “Does that mean you kick out newcomers and seekers? I wasn’t thinking about people who are “established” Christians (expected to be mature, been calling themselves Christian for a while) and live in sin, but people who are finding their way to Jesus”

    Acts 5 is a reminder of what God did about the blatant sin of newcomers in the body. And that was just lying about money. Ouch.

    I guess we would have to discuss what salvation, sanctification and what the Body is really all about. The problem, in my humble opinion, is that we have churches built on the dead bones of unbelievers. We have moral church and social church. We have a ‘jobs’ program church and we have ‘hireling’ church.

    The bottom line is that a new true believer will be seeking Holiness. They will not be perfect or mature. Sanctification is a process that can look like death to the world. They will have godly sorrow over sin even while fighting the flesh. They are broken. Just as I said something this morning that I should not have. I am convicted of it…ashamed. And i have some things to repent of if I want to please God.

    Try reading Hebrews 10: 26-31. And 1 John. It is an eye opener. We sin but our lives should be ones of continually walking in the light. Our sins bring godly sorrow and repentance. We should be consistently growing in Holiness.

    Besides the Bible, a great book on Sanctification is Holiness by JC Ryle.

  • D.J. Williams

    Paula said…
    “Post #800 was the main dagger thrust.”

    And what specifically in post #800 amounted to a “virtual battering?” Where specifically in that post did I use “innuendo” and “personal attack?”

  • Paula

    D.J.,

    Surely you noticed what happened to Sue following your blaming the victim. You seem to be oblivious to the pain you caused her. That is a very personal attack. Didn’t you read the other comments after that, the personal views given by others? What do you think was going on there?

    But all I can do is tell you; I can’t make you see.

    Some of us think it’s important to show public support for a wounded soul, and I don’t take kindly to those I see dishing out the pain. I have no authority and wouldn’t want it, but I have the duty, as a Christian, to confront this sort of thing when I see it. To do otherwise is to fall prey to the very thing we egals have been objecting to, namely, the silence of comps when abuse happens due to teachings like Ware’s.

  • Paula

    Has it ever occured to you, Sue, that perhaps your scars are from a misapplication of these teachings and not from the teachings themselves. I humbly suggest this as a complementarian who hasn’t seen you demonstrate an accurate understanding of what I or others actually believe and practice.

    Whether you meant to convey that she was to blame (see bolded words) or people who abuse are to blame (someone else misunderstands), the result is that you accused her of failing to understand.

    You did damage, intentional or not, as you can see by reading the posts that followed.

    And for the record, Sue knows all too well how these teachings are “applied”. And if you insist it isn’t the fault of the teachings but people who misunderstand or misapply them, then the responsibility for the misunderstanding (and how it is applied) lies squarely at the feet of those who teach male entitlement, and in such an easy to misunderstand manner.

    Again: if these comp teachings are being misapplied, then those who teach them better get their act together before more women are abused. It is reprehensible to shirk responsibility on the basis of misunderstanding when **many** people misunderstanding what you teach. That’s poor teaching, and it’s causing women to suffer.

    Now I’d like to know which of those teachers is “man” enough to take responsibility and actually do something about it.

  • Brian (Another)

    My question is if there are 30 more comments to be had……oooo! 29!

    Not to derail the good discussion peeking through the rest….

  • J. K. Gayle

    Lydia and Paula,

    You’re both saying some very important things. First, prohibitions of homosexual behaviors are in a completely different category from the promotion of either race-based slavery or the denigration of women. The Greek poets and philosophers wrote about and seemed to favor homosexual relations that included pedophilia and eroticism between the same-sex teacher and student. Some of these same writers are the ones who also favor owning slaves of darker races and keeping women silent around men and subjugated under husbands. The Bible, if not interpreted through the logic of say Aristotle, eventually gets us to Jesus and Paul, who say and write things much differently from Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. The William Webb book is a good place to start with this stuff, but there’s much research published and accessible that we ought to talk about. Western homosexuality in the 20th century needs to be talked about. Especially if Christians are picking and choosing which Greek male (pro homosexual, pro slavery, pro women-silencing, pro abortion) logical arguments to make. How Jesus loves, and how his disciples do too, is a much better lens with which to read scripture.

    Second, I also read what D.J. writes as an effort to silence Sue (by discrediting her personally). Too many men (and complementarians, men and women), discredit the very personal issues surrounding what they believe is the law of Scripture. But why wouldn’t they? It’s consistency of impersonal logic, and preservation of status quo power.

    Hat’s off to Denny for allowing these kinds of dialogical (conversational) comments. Has he answered Sue’s good questions yet?

  • Paula

    Tanx JKG 🙂

    And yes, Denny is to be commended for allowing people to actually express convictions. I’ve been in places that only wanted a polite tea party and then wondered why nothing was ever resolved. (Not that I expect resolution here either, but at least we’re free to speak!)

    The scriptures are full of passion– and not just love. I think some things are worth getting ticked about.

  • J. K. Gayle

    D.J.,

    All arguments can be, as you say, “slippery slope arguements.” I think most complementarian arguments are very motivated (sometimes unconsciously) by fear, especially fear of the slippery slope. But the slope is most dangerous when one gets up on his high horse, and most terrorizing when he thinks he has to stay there.

  • Ferg

    #948 Lydia, I’d love to see someone answer these questions. I’ve asked a few times about where the role of women stops and how far they are allowed to go in their teaching. No one has seemed to be able to give me a clear definition.
    Like I’ve said before, if people are going to stick rigidly to something they believe that’s ok, however I’d love to know what EXACTLY the out working of this is.
    Like the sunday school issue and women teaching boys/young men. Can women be youth leaders. can women lead worship. can women lead midweek bible studies of both sexes. can a woman hear from God through scripture and teach her husband about it.
    there are more where that came from, just quesions I’d love to have answered. If someone can answer them, I’d be really greatful. DJ, and thoughts?? :o)

  • Dana Ames

    No time to read all the comments. Responding to the points in the original post.
    1.If order of creation were that meaningful, humans should be serving animals; they were created first.
    2.Woman was taken out of man because they were meant to be in communion, not for one to lord it over another.
    3.God said, “Let us make mankind in our image.” So in the image of God he created THEM.
    4.This does not automatically imply subordination; such is read into the text.
    5.This does not prove anything.
    6.Women name men in scripture. Again, does not prove anything.
    7.Eisegesis.
    8.Paul is making a different point in the Rom and 1Cor citations than the subordination of women. Again, God speaking only to Adam does not necessarily mean that females are subordinate.
    9.The man and the woman were NOT cursed. God says the serpent and the ground will be cursed.
    10.Fine, as long as subordination is not involved. The Trinity is about love and interdependence, for which both equality and difference are necessary.

    Having said that, I will also say that this question is not going to be settled by flinging arguments or scripture verses or other Greek quotations back and forth. It’s a personal journey and discovery, both ways. I used to believe there could be a middle ground; I don’t now. Both conclusions cannot be right. I rarely read blogs on this topic anymore these days; way too much fear blowing in the wind. I feel like it’s a big risk for me to comment here.

    Denny, because of how you interact at Jesus Creed, I believe you are a man of integrity and good conscience and come by your beliefs because of sincere prayer and study. My experience is that the majority of folks who believe in marriage/male-female relationships without hierarchy (“egalitarians”) are willing to grant that about “complementarians”, while most of the latter not only cast aspersions on the character of the former, but indeed call their salvation into question because they hold a different interpretation of the bible in this matter -so their beliefs about about other things automatically come into question. I find this to be exceedingly, deeply grievious. This is one of the many reasons that I no longer identify as “an evangelical” after 30 years of having been one.

    Denny, I commend to you the wisdom of Miroslav Volf in ch. 4 of his “Exclusion and Embrace”. Please read it and try to understand what he’s saying.

    Dana Ames

  • Katherine

    I grew up with a similar kind of teaching to the one Dr. Bruce Ware purveys here, and I am only now, in my mid-twenties, realizing the subtle but pervasive damage it has wrought in my life and the life of others like me. There’s complementarianism, and then there’s arm-wrestling every story and doctrine of Holy Scripture to suit a narrow and sinful view of humanity. I denounce it for what it is.

  • Sue

    Mercifully I have pretty much forgotten who said what, but thank you very much, Paula. I do remember that the things were said but not by whom.

    If 10-20% of women are abused and someone is making them believe that God says that they initiated the abuse, then something has to be done about it. I would say the same thing if it were about men.

    I do think that role of provider and authority is harsh on men. If men were preached at, and maybe they are, that they weren’t being good enough providers, I would be upset.

    In fact, I often read on complementarian blogs that men are wimps, wussies, amoebas and other such things. I am appalled at this. What on earth is that about? I don’t get it at all.

    And I really don’t get the Russ Moore reaction – maybe we should all circle around a punch an abuser in the face. I can hardly believe my eyes/ears.

    And yet, in subtle and very destructive ways, I have myself seen these beliefs destroy peoples lives.

  • Paula

    Glad to help, any little way I can, Sue. Two of my 3 sisters were abused and none of us knew until it was almost too late. And then there was the life-long verbal abuse dad heaped on mom all their 50+ years of marriage.

    Yeah, pizza! But the prices they charge for it now… some frozen ones are pretty good though.

  • J. K. Gayle

    Sue,

    You say “I am waiting for Denny to respond on two posts especially on The Meaning of Authenteo. He lets the matter drop unanswered but then joins Russ Moore in preaching on this verse on the radio.”

    If Denny does respond or has responded, will you let us know where?

    The preaching at men does sound, to me anyway, like Aristotle harshly teaching. He didn’t like the Spartan men for being so lenient with their women wives.

    And, pass the pepperoni this way please.

  • Lydia

    “Like I’ve said before, if people are going to stick rigidly to something they believe that’s ok, however I’d love to know what EXACTLY the out working of this is.”

    Fergie, Some of it depends on who you are. For years and years Mrs. Criswell, wife of the famed Dr. Criswell of FBCDallas, taught a mixed SS class of 300 people. The explanation was that she was doing it under her husband’s authority…yet he was not in the room! If I recall correctly, it was even on radio.

  • Don Johnson

    It is macho talk, which has no place among believers. It is inflammatory, egging some male egos on to do what? To take charge and then what? My take is this kind of pandering talk is culpable.

  • Egal-eye

    I have heard women sing solos in churches quite strict, songs such as ‘Trust and Obey’, etc., and I pointed out to the pastor of one that the content and context certainly comprised teaching or preaching, and some of the songs were even written by women. Does the fact that is is short or melodic make it ok to present to men?! I did not get a good answer to that.

  • J. K. Gayle

    Paula,
    Your family’s stories of husbands and fathers abusing make me want to cry. I’m sorry! My own family’s story is very similar. Now our various responses to the abuse have been very complicated. For instance, as a little boy, I made promises to myself: “I’ll never treat my wife, my children’s mother, like that. And I’ll never ever mishandle my kids that way.” The trouble is I don’t always now respond to my wife and my kids for who they are in ways that I need to be her husband and their dad. I’m too busy reacting to dad, and how I don’t want to be like he used to be. By God’s grace and Jesus’s love, the man has changed and is changing. My mom and dad have a much healthier relationship. He says he’s sorry regularly, when he needs to, as she needs him to. And my kids and their grandparents have a wonderful relationship. Much has changed. There is egalitarianism in the marriage, and it’s making all the difference. Oh, and my parents are professional Christian ministers. Her roles now are not unequal to nor different from his. So there is hope, not for perfection, but for progress.

  • Lydia

    My favorite are the churches that have a ‘minister of youth’ for a male but ‘director of the children’s program’ for females.

    They just can’t quite force themselves to pronounce her a minister of anything…including children… even though she is a seminary grad.

  • Paula

    I should clarify that the physical abuse of my sisters was from husbands, not dad. Dad had his faults but he wasn’t physically violent. And he did have many fine qualities. But I really think the only reason he never mistreated me the way he did mom and my sisters is because I stood up to him. And somehow, neither of my brothers are abusive in any way. And we do owe our parents the most important thing, that being a strong Christian faith, even if a poor example of it in daily life.

    JKG, I only wish more people had your soft heart– regardless of what the likes of Moore think of that. Jesus wept, he loved, he cared even about women and children. A real Man.

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    Hi Denny, et al,

    It may be of interest to you to look at this thread (here are some excerpts):

    Green Baggins, #25: “Sue, a couple of thoughts here. Firstly, the range of authenteo is by no means limited to negative “domineering.” That is one possibility, but by no means the only possibility. Even Baldwin, in his monumental, exhaustive study of the word did not conlude that domineer is an impossibility. See pages 49-51 of the second edition of _Women in the Church_. Simple, positively viewed “having authority” is a genuinely attested usage. Add to that Kostenberger’s unshaken (and basically unchallenged) study of the syntax of “neither this nor that” such that both activities are viewed either positively or both negatively (and it is quite apparent that teaching is viewed positively, since negative teaching has another word for it), then authenteo is viewed positively as simply having authority. That is then negatived such that women are not to have authority over men in the church.”

    Sue, #96: “This is the first time I have posted on a site where people don’t read Greek. I am not used to working from commentaries. I really don’t know what else to say. I can’t show you how it works if you don’t read Greek.”

    Green Baggins, #97: “I have had 7 years of Greek, Sue, including 3 years of classical Greek at St. Olaf College, and 4 years of NT Greek at Westminster Theological Seminary. What on earth made you think that I don’t read Greek?”

    Green Baggins, #100: “Fancy that, Sue. Two people who both understand Greek coming to completely opposite conclusions about what the word means. I don’t think it is the first time. …

    You still have not answered the grammatical argument of Kostenberger. His argument does not depend on the meaning of authenteo. In fact, his argument heavily influences how we should read the verb.”

    Green Baggins, #101: “Sue, my confusion over two very similar names should not lead anyone to conclude that I don’t read Greek. This does not give me much confidence in your powers of logic.

    Sue, are you truly teachable? Are you truly humble? I have tried exceedingly hard not only to listen to your arguments, but to all the egalitarian arguments. I have tried to answer your arguments. As sad as your experience with men in the past has been, it in no way constitutes any reason why I should be convinced by your arguments. This is not to downplay what you have experienced. The interpretation of passages of Scripture cannot be based on our experience. Rather, Scripture judges our experience.”

    Green Baggins, #104: “No, Sue, I have not in the least sidestepped Philodemus. I argued that just because we do not have the original any longer does not mean that we don’t have it. So your argument about it not existing is not valid.

    Contrary to your assertion, Sue, I am not side-stepping your arguments. Rather, you are side-stepping mine.”

    From Galatians 3:28 and Feminism

  • Paula

    TUAD,

    After all that’s been said about people pouring salt into Sue’s wounds, you have the gall to post this personal diatribe?? For shame!

    And who the heck is Green Baggins? Shall we all go to other conversations and glue disjointed posts together? Let me do some Googling and see what I can make you look like.

    “Are you truly teachable? Are you truly humble?” are questions people like you need to answer before demanding them of others.

    And comps wonder why there are egals.

  • Don Johnson

    didasko is used in the Bible for both negative and positive teaching. So even assuming the neither/nor construction means either both are positive or both are negative, it is still possible for authenteo to be either negative or positive.

    Also, given that Paul is remote, he might just be giving a broad brush statement, let the deceived woman learn, and while she is learning, do not let her teach anything; so it is POSSIBLE that it breaks the neither/nor construction.

    The basic challenge in trying to understand 1 Tim is that we are not Timothy in the 1st century, as he was Paul’s spiritual son, it can be assumed that there was a LARGE shared context between them, a shared context that we do not have.

  • D.J. Williams

    Paula said…
    “Whether you meant to convey that she was to blame (see bolded words) or people who abuse are to blame (someone else misunderstands), the result is that you accused her of failing to understand.”

    I fully meant to convey that the person who abused her is to blame. If my lack of clarity conveyed otherwise, Sue, I am deeply sorry. However, I did mean to convey that the abuser most certainly did not understand complementaranism as held to by myself and every other comp I know. Complementarianism as held by myself, Denny Burk, Chris Cowan, Bruce Ware, and others, never, I repeat, never and in no sense whatsoever justifies abuse. Abuse is sin. Period.

    The complementarianism I’ve seen Sue argue against doesn’t reflect the belief as espoused by Denny, Chris, Bruce, and myself. Thus my suggestion that her scars weren’t caused by complementarianism (as she explicitly and repeatedly proclaimed), but by a misunderstanding or misapplication of complementarian teachings. I stand by that statement. I don’t think she understands complementarianism. That’s not a personal attack, it’s an obeservation from one who actually holds those beliefs.

    Hope that helps clear the water. Sue, if my language seemed to make light of your past circumstances I apologize. I disagree with you strongly, but I hold zero personal animosity towards you and wish you God’s grace.

  • Don Johnson

    Teaching males on top to sinners has consequences. Not everyone is a mature believer, in fact many are not, and some are very immature. Given this, it is irresponsible to not bend over backwards in this area as the 2nd indicator for spouse abuse is a strong belief that the husband is in charge.

  • Don Johnson

    Also, it can be somewhat like communism, whenever a flaw was pointed out in a communist country the typical response was that it was not communism. You can only believe that so many times, at some point you need to accept that it is communism that is failing, as they eventually did.

    And similar for masculism. That is, I would only accept masculism as taught by the Bible with extreme regret; if there was any other way to understand some puzzling verses, that would be preferred. But I do not see that in the non-egals. I see stretching to MAKE the verses speak masculism.

  • Paula

    D.J.,

    Thank you for clarifying and apologizing to Sue. But I must take strong issue with your assertion that she does not understand comp teaching. It seems to me that comps tend to equate disagreement with failure to understand, and of course that’s not the case at all.

    It is also good to clearly state that abuse is always sin.

    The problem is that comp. teachings do give a husband unilateral and permanent authority over his wife, even though she is a full-grown adult. And such teachings, taken to their logical conclusion, entitle husbands to abuse.

  • Don Johnson

    “Going too far” with egal teaching (if this were possible) means too much mutuality, mutual respect, mutual submission, etc. In other words, this is a very SAFE thing to have too much of if this is possible.

    “Going too far” with non-egal teaching results in abuse, even if abuse is stated to be sin. What does a leader do to rebels? At some point there will need to be consequences for their rebellion (assuming it is seen as that).

  • Sue

    DJ,

    I did not notice or at least remember any animosity. I would like to repeat that I have quoted those who I critique. I claim that statements like this, by Ken Sande, CBMW,

    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

    Are offensive to women, deeply damaging and emotionally abusive regardless of the context.

    I am also deeply offended that my former church now no longer allows older women missionaries in the pulpit to speak. How disrespectful! I protest the entire treatment of women in the home and the church by those wrongly influenced by these doctrines.

    I also recognize that there are some very dear men and women who call themselves complementarians, and live in a way that is honouring and appealing. But why then don’t they denounce this stuff?

  • J. K. Gayle

    “Two people who both understand Greek coming to completely opposite conclusions about what the word means.”

    “Also, it can be somewhat like communism, whenever a flaw was pointed out in a communist country the typical response was that it was not communism.”

    I am just a poor boy,
    Though my story’s seldom told,
    I have squandered my resistance
    For a pocketful of mumbles,
    Such are promises
    All lies and jest
    Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
    And disregards the rest.
    …Lie-la-lie…
    –This is not Aristotle and Plato singing.

  • Paula

    Sue, your comment #997 about why the “moderate” comps don’t denounce the “extremists” is exactly the same question being asked about Islam. They too insist that the extremists don’t follow the “teachings” correctly, yet who can deny that all those “extremists” can justify their actions from the Quran? I’ve read the Quran and know it supports violence. So why don’t the “moderates” complain?

    Well, at least comp extremists haven’t yet reached the point of murdering moderates, but the intimidation is the same. Moderates don’t speak out because it will cost them.

  • Paula

    Kewl!

    Don, your point about “extreme” egal vs. “extreme” comp is very good. I can’t think of any way to warp egal teachings into abuse or sinfulness.

  • Don Johnson

    I think we as sinners can warp anything. But I think the egal model is inherently safer than the non-egal model. I think anyone can be an abuser, in some cases it does not matter what model one is using. But in some cases it does matter.

  • Bonnie

    Wow, this is some thread. Is there any pizza left?

    Ellen, I agree most absolutely that we are to obey our leaders, as they have authority to be obeyed. I do not agree, however, that a husband is the leader or authority of his wife.

  • Sue

    Bonnie,

    I agree most absolutely that we are to obey our leaders, as they have authority to be obeyed.

    You can’t find that about church leaders in the Bible.

  • Egal-eye

    Bonnie, per obeying ones leaders, you might find it helpful to read #962 and 963 if you were away then. Do look this up on the interlinear that Tiro3 listed. It is as he reports. (Tiro3-no offence if you are not a ‘he’. Just thought you are for some reason.)

  • Bonnie

    Madame,

    Were we separated at birth?! 😉

    He has to consider her a fellow heir, who also has the Holy Spirit. Christ is the ultimate head of a marriage and a couple should come to Him if they reach an impasse.

    Absolutely. (Of course, they should be coming to Him before they reach an impasse, but I know what you mean and agree: if there’s a disagreement, husband and wife should seek Christ, both separately and together, to resolve it, rather than the wife simply going along with the husband. The latter may seem like a solution but I really don’t believe it’s a godly one, because it doesn’t get to the root of the problem.)

    Ware’s two paragraphs as quoted in this thread are about the “problem” of the wife wanting her will to be served. As I said before, I do think that’s a problem if it’s at the expense of the husband. Yet, if the wife’s wanting her will to be served is a problem, especially if it conflicts with her husband’s, why is this not also her husband’s problem?

    Ellen and others say it’s because he is the one tasked with leading in the marriage. Well…this is not leading…in a godly way, at least. It is, simply, being inconsiderate. The wife’s will is as important as the husband’s, and he shouldn’t want his will to be served any more than hers, especially if he’s loving her as himself! This is not “caving to women,” as Ellen puts it, it’s simply honor and respect and kindness and all that good stuff.

  • ahunt

    I am deeply grateful for this discussion. It is too late for me. I simply do not care anymore. My husband of 30 pretty good years actually prefers that I do not go through the public motions anymore. He prays for God’s Will for me, and only that, and we are closer now, empty-nested, than ever before.

    Our similarly alienated DILs, along with our relatively disinterested sons, are finding their peace and motivation in egalitarian congregations.

    The truth is that most evangelical households are egalitarian in some fashion or another, and this is a good thing.

    The marital dynamic Bruce Ware advocates infantilizes wives and ensures that husbands never truly mature into adults, socially and spiritually.

    Unchallenged will is invariably selfish will. The irrational belief that a man automatically submits his own will to the well-being of his family is not supported by any empirical evidence I’ve ever encountered.

    Absent challenge…far more likely, is the manly assumption that whatever makes a man happy must, and by HIS definition, be in the best interests of the entire family.

    Bruce Ware sets up a family dynamic that encourages men to believe that husbandly will is family law.

    I just don’t want to hear it anymore, and the Better Half is reconciled to leaving my relationship with God in God’s hands. Very unlike Bruce Ware, who appears to believe that God comes to women only through men. Why else the apparent assumption that husbandly will constitutes God’s will, to which wives must always submit?

  • Bonnie

    Madame,

    (part deux)

    I think we are missing the first purpose of marriage in this discussion. Marriage is first of all a one-flesh relationship. Both spouses have to walk as one.

    Yes!

    I’m about to say something strong but it’s what I believe: a marriage in which the wife, or her will, is subordinate to the husband’s is a poor excuse for a one-flesh relationship. Two-become-one does not mean that one swallows the other, consuming it like an amoeba, or cancelling the other out when wills are at odds. It’s about having patience and maturity and taking the time to work out a resolution that truly and fully respects each of the two.

    And I shouldn’t bring this into this thread, but… I’ve read things in the past relating to the sexual relationship which were very similar to Ware’s statements in that they implied a difference in the essence of the sexual natures of man and woman. Yes, obviously there are some differences, and there are also differences between women and between men. But there really was no mutuality suggested, because there wasn’t a belief that there needed to be. But the man’s sexual nature is not authoritative over the woman’s, or in any way more important or deserving of precedence (I Cor. 7:3-5)

    I don’t think those who wrote these things really mean to be disrespectful to women, nor does Dr. Ware, but their teachings are nevertheless.

  • Bonnie

    Sue, and Egal-eye,

    Thanks, and sorry — I should have specified that I wasn’t talking about church leaders. I was referring to government, or even bosses (as in a company) a la Romans 14.

  • Bonnie

    Lydia,

    This, imho, is the best thing that’s been said yet in this entire thread:

    The problem is that American Christians have made politics the religion. We war with the culture instead of evangelizing it.

    And this one runs a close second (although I don’t think it includes all who call themselves complementarians nor is it limited to them):

    All arguments can be… “slippery slope arguements.” I think most complementarian arguments are very motivated (sometimes unconsciously) by fear, especially fear of the slippery slope. But the slope is most dangerous when one gets up on his high horse, and most terrorizing when he thinks he has to stay there.

  • tiro3

    ““Two people who both understand Greek coming to completely opposite conclusions about what the word means.””

    Happens all the time. I belong to a Greek scholars list.

    Getting our personal prejudices out of our perception so that we can see clearly is truly not an easy task for humanity in general. Greek scholars are no different. But those who really want to see, generally manage at some point. It is important for those with a preponderance of evidence to continue to speak up.

    My applause to McCarthy, Paula and many on the Christian network for doggedly continuing to speak against the hierarchalist subordinationists tainted dogma. Thankfully, not all who claim hierarchy as their belief system stick to it in their daily lifestyle.

  • Kathy

    Can the second greatest commandment be taken too far? I guess it stops with husbands? Isn’t a wife more than a neighbor? What would that tell us? What’s MORE, to love a wife as your own body or as your neighbor? What then should that tell us?

    How can the comp/patri position be consistent with the golden rule?

    Can someone make sense of this for me?

  • Kathy

    ‘Don, your point about “extreme” egal vs. “extreme” comp is very good. I can’t think of any way to warp egal teachings into abuse or sinfulness.’

    Yes, I too thought it was very good! 🙂 I think it an important one worth considering.

    The goldeb rule taken too far can produce what kind of damage to someone? And loving the wife even further as one’s own body?

  • Kathy

    Sue said,

    ‘You can’t find that about church leaders in the Bible.’

    I been finding myself saying this more and more these days. That Heb passage is used all the time to support such a NOTION.

  • Kathy

    Bonnie said:

    ‘Ware’s two paragraphs as quoted in this thread are about the “problem” of the wife wanting her will to be served. As I said before, I do think that’s a problem if it’s at the expense of the husband. Yet, if the wife’s wanting her will to be served is a problem, especially if it conflicts with her husband’s, why is this not also her husband’s problem?’

    I agree with this. What’s wrong with loving her as he would want to be treated and even more so as his own body?

  • Bonnie

    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.

    Why are we pointing this out about wives, when obviously everyone after the Fall was prone to chafe easily under legitimate authority and find submission distasteful? And why would wives (or women, or children) rebel any differently, essentially, than husbands, or men in general?

  • Kathy

    Bonnie said:

    ‘I think we are missing the first purpose of marriage in this discussion. Marriage is first of all a one-flesh relationship. Both spouses have to walk as one.’

    That’s it! That’s why it is MORE than the golden rule. It’s about a one flesh union!

  • Bonnie

    Ferg,

    Regarding your comment #976, what you say is exactly the problem with a prescription that adds to Scripture, or to what God actually calls us to do. It tries to list all the rules, but it never can, because there are always those “difficult” and “unclear” situations that people argue on and on about but don’t resolve because most actual, real-life situations are much more complex than hypotheticals, and only those people who are actually involved in an actual situation know about all the particulars.

    Iow, we each are responsible to serve God, follow Christ, walk in the Spirit, put aside the deeds of the flesh, etc. and figure out our own situations. It will not always be cut-and-dried, or clear-cut; it will mostly likely require lots of humility and grace and perhaps also lots of time and effort. There are no short-cuts to doing the right thing. But doing the right thing is the only thing that truly solves a problem.

  • Kathy

    ‘Why are we pointing this out about wives, when obviously everyone after the Fall was prone to chafe easily under legitimate authority and find submission distasteful? And why would wives (or women, or children) rebel any differently, essentially, than husbands, or men in general?’

    That’s an excellent thought or question! Why would they rebel any differently?

    The problem then isn’t rebellion but the teaching based on claimed INDICATIONS from the texts that the husband has rule entitlement.

  • Kathy

    er, rather that should have been something like ‘…the husband is entitled or authorized to rule or have authority over the wife’.

  • Lydia

    “It seems to me that comps tend to equate disagreement with failure to understand, and of course that’s not the case at all.”

    This is what I have seen for 20 years. I know because I was one. If they did not agree, they just did not ‘see it’.

    Seminary is not different than going away to college and believing everything your professor teaches you. The problem is that most people get out in the real world and see it does not operate in ivory tower thinking.

    But with the seminary, most grads go right into preaching/teaching what they learned which only reinforces error. To the point that being able to see there are even contradictions in scripture on this issue is impossible. After all, they have been explained away by experts even if they did have to READ INTO it what is not there.

    And some, who have made big names for themselves with this teaching have too much to lose even if they did see it.

  • Paula

    Isn’t that what the Pharisees said? Jesus was upsetting their apple cart and they were afraid of losing their “place”– so their solution was to get rid of Him!

    And so it is today, as you said Lydia. People make a career out of a teaching, and can never back down or all their life’s work was for nothing. Never mind the truth.

  • Bonnie

    Marilyn,

    I’ve found this debate to be very painful because neither side seems willing to acknowledge the valid points raised by the other side. Egalitarians are unwilling to admit that Dr. Ware does not, in fact, argue that a wife’s behavior causes her husband to sin. Rather, he argues that a wife’s behavior reveals her husband’s sinful nature. Complementarians are unwilling to acknowledge that sociological evidence consistently shows submission to an abuser to be an ineffective strategy for deterring abuse. Submission empowers the abuser. Women in such a situation should flee evil. But, egalitarians, in turn, seem unwilling to acknowledge that isolated acts do not an abuser make; nor do they acknowledge the pain that a wife’s anger and disrespect inflicts on her husband. Complementarians, in turn, are unwilling to devote time and money to providing meaningful support to women who are the victims of abusers…and so it goes.

    Is anybody else out there as frustrated as I am?

    I feel your pain, Marilyn. It is, indeed, a tangle of many problems.

    I can testify, though, that I have acknowledged valid points raised by both sides, as well as pointed out the ones that seem invalid.

    For example, Dr. Ware argues that a wife’s behavior leads a husband to sin. It doesn’t seem that his point is that a wife’s behavior reveals her husband’s sinful nature, although that is in fact true (as is vice-versa). Rather, his point is that a wife’s “unsubmissive” behavior, due to her sinful nature, is so bad that it provokes the husband. He also calls the wife’s behavior a threat to her husband’s authority. Whether or not her behavior is justified, this will never be the case except in a specific situation in which he may indeed have been given some sort of authority. But he does not have authority over her by nature of being her husband.

    I believe that the assumption of husbandly authority is abusive in itself, even if subtly and covertly, because it puts the wife’s will under the husband’s. It is, by its nature, disrespectful, and shows disregard of the wife.

    Anger and disrespect on the part of either spouse toward the other are indeed extremely painful for the one toward whom they are directed, although anger itself is not always unjustified, and not all pain is wrongly suffered. But if the anger becomes abusive, though, it is sinful.

  • Sue

    I believe that the assumption of husbandly authority is abusive in itself, even if subtly and covertly, because it puts the wife’s will under the husband’s. It is, by its nature, disrespectful, and shows disregard of the wife.

    Bonnie,

    I have said it before and I’ll say it again, that this is so helpful to me. All the comments are.

    On the topic of translation, I used to read about “feminist” critique of Bible translation before and I thought what they were saying was overdone, and I have had to reresearch it all myself. Even that verse in Heb. 13:17 kind of shocked me. Think of how it must have been used to keep people in line.

  • Kathy

    Spousal abuse does not result from the golden rule or the Eph 5 instructions to husbands for the husband to love the wife as his body, but teaching’s of male entitlement to leadership and authority and teachings about women being deceived, desiring to rule over their husbands, ALL based ON ‘indications’, ‘implications’ (not legitimate ones), ‘assumptions’, ‘notions’, and the like vs. the written word, DOES result in spousal abuse. And why? It’s because men are born rebellious sinners (scripture) and not born as the leading gender. (pagan belief)

    Men are born sinners (scripture) and not as the leading gender, (pagan belief) then the saved are born children of God, (scripture) again, not righteous spiritual leaders (something from another world).

    It’s not like to be born male is to be born a leader or ruler, physical or spiritual. But that’s the problem. The view of the ‘male’. The focus there IS ON gender over what the bible says where therein are no such NOTIONS.

    Building on scripture (?):

    1. All men are born rebellious sinners >

    All men are born as fallen rebellous leaders.

    2. All reborn, are born from God, are God’s children. >

    Men who are reborn are born as spiritual (though still rebellious) leaders.

    What happended there? The belief that men are born leaders because they are male has been added. But where is that in the scriptures?

    Also the belief that men are reborn as sinless (or righteous) spiritual leaders has too been added but over and against, that they are born just as children of God. Children aren’t leaders and we are not born into the kingdom of righteous male leadership.

    To enter the kingdom, we become humbled as children.

    Can I have a cookie now?

    All are born rebellious sinners.

    All reborn are born children of God.

    So why do any believe that males are leaders when there is no wittness in scripture that they are born leaders over females? Where does scripture wittness to that kind of birth? The comp/patri position causes confusion ontiologicaly speaking and cannot be concluded from the written word.

  • Sue

    God named the human race “man” (5:2), which Ortlund says “whispers male headship.”

    This is one of those moments when I ask myself how come it was not previously obvious to me that God spoke English in the garden of Eden. I also wonder why God whispered, why didn’t he shout it out.

  • Kathy

    Below is 2 different languages:

    1. All men are born rebellious sinners >

    All men are born fallen rebellous leaders.

    2. All reborn, are born from God, are God’s children. >

    Men who are reborn are born as God’s spiritual leaders.

    This notion of male whatever is just not bible speak.

  • Kathy

    There are four kinds of births in the comp/patri view.

    A physical one. All people are born rebellious sinners.

    A physical male one. All males are born rebellious authoritative or ruling sinners over female sinners.

    A spiritual one. All saved are born children of God.

    A spiritual male one. All saved males are born Leaders of God.

    Huh? I would like to know where the wittness of these other 2 births are in scripture?

  • manley pointer

    at least we have an admission that they’re arguing God’s design from, not strictly before, the fall. thanks denny and bruce!

  • Kathy

    1. All people are born rebellious sinners (Only males are born rebellious leaders)
    2. All saved people are reborn children of God (Only males are reborn a child/Leader of God)

    Where is the scriptural witness that men are born leaders? Birth speaks of ‘ontology’ which is why this is important. There’s attempt to apply Adam’s priority of Creation to all males who are Born of woman. Truley, why is the false application made? It is an impossible application in light of the scriptural witness ON birth.

    Now, if Adam had rule soley because he was created first, ‘by indication’, then males could only have rule based on the same thing. BUT his creation vs. birth is not the real issue. The reason why Adam had rule over his wife is simply because he was male. The reason is because gender (besides humanity) is ONLY how an actual link can be made from Adam (who was created!) to males (who are born). Genesis at creation though says nothing about ‘gender over gender’, the real argument. Men are born rebellious sinners, born of woman just as women are, and reborn children of God just like women.

    The language of Genesis at creation is that God made ‘the human’ before the woman. In other words, it doesn’t talk about the human’s gender untell after the creation of woman:

    The human said, ‘She shall be called female for she was taken from male.’

    The male will leave his father and mother and cleave to his female.

    Does gender really ‘indicate’ one’s rule?

  • Kathy

    A human being has to be born a leader if they are truley a leader as it must be inheret in their humanity otherwise a leader is born of God and God gifts them with leadership in their rebirth. Now, is leadership inheret in gender? The comp/patri argument is that a male is born a leader (over female) because inheret in their maleness is leadership.

    Comp/patri = male is born a leader

    Fact = one is born male or female

    So, male = born leader. This shows that the argument really is, ‘gender indicates rule’ because one’s birth (ontology, born a rebellious sinner, or/and reborn child-not leader-of God) certainly does NOT!

  • Kathy

    One’s birth as a sinner, born male or rebirth as a Child of God cannot be linked back to Adam’s priority of creation, since it is Adam’s being Created first that ‘indicates’ he was created to lead the woman.

    Do males inheret Adam’s priority of creation? I thought the bible in Gal 3 & 4, spoke of Inheritence being an Entirely different thing! There is no male and female, for you are all sons, co-heirs! But of what? Do we inheret Adam’s anything, according to Galatians? Yikes!

  • Gem

    Can’t think of what I could add, but I wanted to “subscribe”. 🙂

    Galatians 5:1 (KJV)
    1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

  • Kathy

    Maybe the 1 male sex chromosome somehow passes on an inheretence of Adam’s Creation priority to other males who are Born?

    I thought the sex chromosome determined gender, not rule. Back to the good ‘ol question, the real argument, does gender ‘indicate’ rule?

  • Egal-eye

    Sue and others who have said this, I so agree that it is abuse even to just ascribe authority to the husband over the wife. On another blogsite it was described as being like a rape of the woman’s spirit or soul. Comps, albeit mild ones, have asked me why this whole thing is such an issue since “there is so much women can do in the church (minus,of course, the things they can’t)and look at all the people that are being saved!!!!!” How patronizing! And to what, I wonder, are these people getting saved? When countered, one pastor exclaimed to me that he, too, is under authority-to the elders in this case-and its ok with him. It doesn’t BOTHER him. Well, I guess not, because he is only under their authority and not under his wife’s and every other woman’s AND he can preach, teach, greet at the door, elder, deacon, and usher if he wishes.

    They just don’t get what it does to one’s spirit to be under the kind of philosophy/theology they uphold.

    In the days of slavery, there were those, even when given the choice, chose to stay with their masters because it was safe and reasonably good. On the other hand, there were slaves who would rather risk death trying to be free than to remain in even benevolent slavery. I would likely be in the latter category so despicable and vile and oppressive is the whole male/heirarchical tone and reality. I have failed to be able to convey the depth of the oppressiveness of it all to even my mildest comp male friends. Why is it so hard to understand? (Madame, do I need to also slap my own wrists now?)

  • Paula

    ahunt (#1013), looks like your comment just appeared, must have been stuck in moderation. But you’re right of course, and I’m happy that, as you said, most marriages don’t practice Ware’s brand of male privilege. It’s just like Calvinism: the logical conclusions of the teachings are reprehensible, but happily most people don’t live like those teachings matter. They just preach the gospel to everyone.

    But the problem unique to comp teaching is that it is responsible for male entitlement being adapted by some and used against women. That is a responsibility they need to face and accept and repent of, and then stop teaching what everyone but them knows their teachings mean in reality.

  • Bonnie

    Kathy,

    I’m hearin’ ya.

    Now, if Adam had rule soley because he was created first, ‘by indication’, then males could only have rule based on the same thing. BUT his creation vs. birth is not the real issue. The reason why Adam had rule over his wife is simply because he was male.

    It appears (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong) that Ware, et al see pre-eminence in Adam’s being created first and Eve from him. But, as has been said many times now, I think the “from him” part is the reason for the unity of marriage, of two-becoming-one.

    I also think (and please, don’t anybody go ballistic, or at least count to 10 first 🙂 ) that there is something about Adam being created first (before Eve) related to man (or the husband) being “head.” But, as I’ve also said, I don’t see Scriptural support for man/husband being leader/authority over woman/wife simply by nature of his being male or head, or created first.

  • Corrie

    I think Paul pretty much settled the argument about man being created first when, in 1 Cor 11, he said HOWEVER in the Lord man is not independent of woman and woman not independent of man for as the woman (Eve) originates from the man (Adam), so also the man has his birth through the woman and all things originate from God.

    Paul’s HOWEVER cuts out all the wrangling about who was here first, imho. It does NOT matter since every man since Adam has come from a woman and we ALL originate from God.

    And we all can see throughout scripture God turning primogeniture on its head so that is certainly NOT a rule for who rules whom.

    It is a half-argument that is self-serving for half of the people in God’s kingdom and Paul was correcting the Corinthians who were teaching only half the truth. We are not supposed to be building doctrines on only half the truth.

    Why do comps/pats stop at “woman came from man” all the time in their teachings when Paul went all the way and said BUT every man since Adam has come through woman so that all things come from God. You cannot teach the first part as if it is a stand alone doctrine, especially when Paul was clearly refuting their error of thinking.

    I believe it is intentional that they stop where they do.

  • Don Johnson

    Not incorporating the whole counsel of God into a teaching is a way to disrespect what God teaches. This is one of the potential negative aspects of verses, where verses are put together into “proofs” ala Euclid’s elements, when the Bible is not like that. A verse by itself is almost always detached from its immediate context, its pericope, and doing this risks misunderstanding.

  • Corrie

    “For example, Dr. Ware argues that a wife’s behavior leads a husband to sin. It doesn’t seem that his point is that a wife’s behavior reveals her husband’s sinful nature, although that is in fact true (as is vice-versa). Rather, his point is that a wife’s “unsubmissive” behavior, due to her sinful nature, is so bad that it provokes the husband. He also calls the wife’s behavior a threat to her husband’s authority. ”

    Exactly, Bonnie.

    Ware also asserts that women have an “illicit urge” to buck their husband’s authority.

    What a lens to view women through, huh? It sets up the very situation that Ware describes in this latest sermon.

    Every question from a wife, every disagreement will be seen as an (Psalm 35: 21) “Aha! Aha! I was told you would buck my authority and that you would want to have your own way and that you would want me to serve you instead of YOU, woman, serving me because that is what you, woman, were created to do!” kind of moment.

    I have had illicit urges but none of them have to do with bucking authority.

    Are men said to have certain “illicit” urge towards their wives to do them violence or harm or ???? No. It is just said that a man will RESPOND to his wife’s illicit urge with certain “sinful” behaviors.

    I actually find this ironic since the comps/pats love to tell us how men are initiators and women are the responders. I guess it only goes like this when it suits their argument?

    If women are the responders why are they the initiators when it comes to their husband’s sinful responses? Why doesn’t it work that the husband is the one who initiates the response of rebellion in his wife because he exasperates her or treats her like a child or discounts her opinion or treats her like a slave or disrespects her or doesn’t value her contribution to the home or publicly ridicules her and makes fun of her, etc.

    I guess men only initiate when it is good and women initiate when it is bad?

  • Paula

    Excellent points, Corrie!

    I guess Ware thinks men are like microscopic organisms that know only “stimulus-response”; he reduces men to chemical reactions.

  • Brian (Another)

    While not the most eloquent or learned, I still want to interject a thought or two.

    1) Wow! 1000 posts. And still no sign of pizza.
    2) We agree (at the bare minimum) that there are two readings of the Greek. I might argue it is and 1900 years of scholars didn’t invent the meaning because it suited them. Sue, et al would argue (might argue?) that yes, they did. Thus we might both say I do not absolutely know, I’m just basing my decision on what I see flows from the text (and the bible as a whole) and what those whom I trust translated it. We each hold opposite views of the latter.
    3) I think it’s logical fallacy to argue that because men abuse their roles (as a comp, this is the role I view) ipso-facto complementarians MUST be wrong. Just as complementarians are accused of viewing through male-dominated glasses, it’s important to not let personal experiences drive a view. Despicable though the experiences were (and that is the nicest word I’ll use towards a man or woman committing abuse). I see this as a straw-man. Along the lines of saying that the commandment to honor our father and mother must need to be updated since parents abuse that.
    4) I’ve read it several times, but just to clarify, Dr. Ware said that women sinfully rebel. Then the sinful ways men can respond is a) abuse b) not lead. He did not say, however, that this is how men should respond nor the only way to respond. To read into his statement that women are responsible is wrong (i.e. men are sinful because of women). Men are responsible for their sinful actions. Women are responsible for their sinful actions. I know I’ll get flamed for this but I believe it is a fairly accurate representation.
    5) As far as roles go, I think it important not to confuse Godly headship (as a complementarian, this is my belief) with sinful domineering. The bible (in Eph, Col, etc. and yes, I understand that Sue, Bonnie, Paula, etc. disagree) teaches headship not domineering or abuse. I don’t believe (nor should any other complementarian) that my wife does nothing unless I command her specifically to do something. And yes, it is sad that men (incorrectly) take comp teaching to mean this. Again, men being sinful does not allow us to negate the command.
    6) Sue, et. al. I would say I’m sorry that anyone is victimized by abuse, but my words would do little for you. I pray that those who abuse truly give their lives over to Christ. That, in the end of everything, is what we want to happen. I pray that the scars are covered by He who was cursed to hang on a tree for us. Words do little, I know. We prayed for you this morning.
    7) The complementarian side of things does not view 1 Tim 2 as a singular text, but flows with the entire bible. Something I’ve read a bit (by both sides of this discussion) is “I don’t find blah compelling.” Specifically to me, that is how Denny’s discussion was treated. Denny presented (on several occasions) evidentiary supports for his argument. Several of those were met with “I don’t find that compelling” and was thus dismissed. Then, the challenge of “I’ve asked Denny to engage in discourse and he’s refused” is issued. But, in my view, it was, you just dismissed it. I would venture a guess that egals would view it the same way, just insert . So where does that leave us? Other than a comment that started out as very short and turned into something else.

    Dr. Piper wrote a great piece on disagreeing with one another (speaking specifically to Christians). It’s worth the minutes to read it, especially for those of us seeing red after reading what “the other side” might say.

    http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2008/2965_If_You_Can_Be_Godly_and_Wrong_Does_Truth_Matter/

    I hope everyone enjoys a pizza on me. I won’t pay, but you can pretend that I did and the feeling should be the same. Except you’re a little poorer than before ;-).

    Brian

    PS: It started out as a short post, really!

  • Bonnie

    I actually find this ironic since the comps/pats love to tell us how men are initiators and women are the responders. I guess it only goes like this when it suits their argument?

    Exactly, Corrie! This “man initiates and woman responds” is another of those tired canards.

  • Bonnie

    Brian,

    Regarding your (3) in comment 1051, my point is not that the abuse of a role proves the role wrong, but that the role itself is abusive, if subtly and covertly (at least in the beginning).

    Regarding (4), both men and women sinfully rebel against God. A wife does not sinfully rebel against her husband any more than he sinfully rebels against her.

    To (5), headship is not domineering or abusive unless it means “authority” or “leadership” of women as a sex, or as wives. The problem, in my view, is not with headship, but with the prominent complementarian understanding of what being the “head” means.

    To (7), I’m not sure what you are saying here…you seem to be dismissive of the discussion in general. However, I and others have indeed provided evidential support for our arguments, in many, many comments. You might say that you don’t find these arguments compelling, but does that mean there’s a problem with the arguments, necessarily? Does it mean that you are dismissing them? It may, yet you are welcome to if you disagree with them; I don’t see a problem with that.

    Ellen did not respond specifically to my points for some time, yet when she did, we were able to have a good discussion. Her responses did not change my mind, nor did mine hers, but this doesn’t prove whose arguments were valid and whose weren’t. Her engagement did prove that she read and understood my points, and helped me see exactly where our points of contention lay, all of which I appreciated very much.

    This discussion, all 1000+ parts of it, has been fruitful for me in helping me recognize and organize in my own mind all the facets of the debate.

    The complementarian side of things does not view 1 Tim 2 as a singular text, but flows with the entire bible. Something I’ve read a bit (by both sides of this discussion) is “I don’t find blah compelling.” Specifically to me, that is how Denny’s discussion was treated. Denny presented (on several occasions) evidentiary supports for his argument. Several of those were met with “I don’t find that compelling” and was thus dismissed. Then, the challenge of “I’ve asked Denny to engage in discourse and he’s refused” is issued. But, in my view, it was, you just dismissed it. I would venture a guess that egals would view it the same way, just insert . So where does that leave us? Other than a comment that started out as very short and turned into something else.

  • Bonnie

    Ack again. Please ignore that last paragraph in my comment; it was a cut-and-paste from Brian’s comment that I used as reference while responding and forgot to delete!

  • Paula

    3) I think it’s logical fallacy to argue that because men abuse their roles (as a comp, this is the role I view) ipso-facto complementarians MUST be wrong.

    This itself is a straw man; we do not claim this at all. What we are saying is that comp teaching is understood by **many comps** as sanctioning male rule to the point of making any self-will by the wife to be sin. And as we’ve repeated many times, any teaching that can be so easily and greatly misunderstood (as comp defenders assert is the case) must be clarified and the teachers must bear responsibility for the outworking of their teachings.

    RE #5, where is this noun “headship” in the Bible? And where is any precedent for making “head” = “boss” in the first century? We’ve gone over this ground a thousand times and comps still insist on the “boss” meaning and ignore the “source” meaning. And above all, no context where “head” is used supports the novel interpretation “boss”.

    RE #7, neither do egals view 1 Tim. 2 or any other text as isolated. And when we say something is not “compelling”, we back it up with counterarguments and scriptures. To paint us as flippantly brushing things aside is a false charge; in fact, we could easily level it against comps. I’m still waiting for any comp to answer the most basic questions:

    How does hierarchy mesh with “not so among you”?

    Where are males exempted from modeling the servanthood of Christ?

    Where are males told to play the role of God the Father?

    Which spiritual gifts are said to be only for males? (remember, “pastor” is a gift)

    Can it ever be a sin for a woman to preach the true gospel? To teach correct, faithful doctrine?

    Where are all women labeled as deceivable?

    Where does it say Eve tempted Adam?

    What leadership qualities did Adam display before sin? During the temptation of Eve? (he was “there with her”)

    Which one, Adam or Eve, blamed God and the other human for their sin?

    etc. etc. etc.

  • Bonnie

    An addendum to my response to Kathy’s comments (or was it Corrie’s?) about male leadership: I believe that another comp. argument as to the “why,” is that, without a leader, there will be anarchy (I believe Ellen said this — Ellen, if you didn’t, my apologies). This argument ignores the fact that, in Christ, there can be no true anarchy, because both husband and wife are serving Him.

    If the argument were true, there could be no best-friendships such as David and Jonathan’s. “Leadership” in such a relationship is shared.

  • Brian (Another)

    Bonnie/Paula:

    No, absolutely not being flippant about the egal arguments. That is what I have read, though, from many commenters. Did you know commenters is not a valid word? I think if we comment, then we are commenters. As opposed to commentators (perhaps the technical word to use there). Ooo, tangent, sorry…..

    Sorry if the comment had the tone of such. Difficult to convey a tone in a 2D post.

    I agree about the 1000 posts. Though I turn around and there are 40 more. I just can’t keep up, so sorry if some of what I said was already addressed.

  • madame

    Paula, comment 1055 is great. Wonderful. I have many of the same questions.

    Bonnie, I guess we must have been separated at birth.

    Egal-eye, yeah, you need your wrists slapped.

    Corrie, You make so much sense! The “man is the head” seems to be the answer to everything concerning boss-ship, last word, authority… But they forget the second part!

    I’m bowing out of this conversation. It’s been great discussing theory and finding that many people think the same way as I do.

    Sadly, real life is a bit different. This teaching that man is boss is rooted in my family, and I can testify to the problems it can create.
    Women can become extremely insecure, to the point that they don’t make any decisions on their own. They are infatilized.
    Husbands don’t have to make the effort to work with their wives if they can get their way each time. They don’t exactly respect their wives if they never stand up. In fact, instead of respect and honor, I see condescension “she doesn’t know, I do”.
    Even if the man was the one who made the final decision, the wife still feels guilty for any wrong that was done.

    On the other hand, in cases where the man abuses his authority in a more exaggerated manner, if the wife doesn’t stand up for herself, her children suffer. They don’t know any different. They will probably want to leave home as soon as possible, and many won’t have much respect for either parent. No respect for the abusing father, and very little for the mother for allowing the abuse and not getting out.

    I agree. The doctrine of male authority over his wife is abusive. Especially because it’s not Biblical. It places women under a very heavy yoke, makes them doubt themselves and feel powerless.
    It causes a lot of pain.

  • Corrie

    Brian,

    “3) I think it’s logical fallacy to argue that because men abuse their roles (as a comp, this is the role I view) ipso-facto complementarians MUST be wrong.”

    Can you point me to one example where someone used that argument for their view? I haven’t seen this argument used and I agree with you that it would be a fallacial argument.

    I also think comp arguments that say that women can’t teach men because they are more “easily” (not in the Bible at all) deceived is just as fallacial. Or the comp argument that women desire to rule over their husbands (that is not in scripture, either) are equally as fallacial.

    Also, I, personally, don’t believe that all complementarian beliefs are wrong. I believe that some of them are wrong and I am also very concerned about all the additions to the Bible as far as adding words to the verses that pertain to women. It shows bias and prejudice, instead of letting the word of God speak to us and letting the chips fall where they may.

  • Corrie

    Why is charged rhetoric like “threat” and “illicit” used for women but you see NO such rhetoric used when it comes to men?

    Women threaten, challenge and have “illicit urges” to usurp their husbands but men “respond”?

    I also find it funny that they don’t translate “desire” to mean an urge to have a sexual relationship with one’s husband, especially when it is connected to the result of such a union- childbirth. The woman cannot escape the effect of sin because she will still desire a relationship with her husband and that wil result in childbirth which is now going to be hard. That seems like the plain rendering of the text.

    Like I said before, I have “illicit urges” but none of them are to rule over my husband. Could a women desire her husband “illicitly” in other ways? Why does it always go down to power, control and authority? Why can’t it be the desire found in Song of Songs? Illicit seems to be used to get an emotional reaction out of his listeners.

    I would MUCH rather he rule over himself. With 10 children, I like the thought of self-government and initiative and people just taking the bull by the horns and doing what they need to do.

    It seems like the over-focus on the part of some people concerning their own power, authority, control over others is a point of stumbling for them because that is the lens that they view EVERYTHING through.

    Where is this focus found in scripture as being biblical? It seems like scripture contends that this over-focus on one’s own so-called authority and power over others is actually worldly.

    When the talk about gender always boils down to who has the authority and power and who does not, it smacks of idolatry and “me-ism”.

    I don’t find the emphasis on OTHERS that is found in the scriptures in these teachings.

    If love believes the best, why is Ware telling men to believe the worst about their wives? This really bothers me because it sets men up to be suspicious of their wives and we all no what happens when suspicion sets into a person’s thought patterns.

  • Marilyn

    A few comments ago, someone asked where the moderate comps were, and why they weren’t speaking out. I consider myself to be in the moderate comp camp. For what it’s worth, here is my reaction to Dr. Ware’s remarks.

    As a moderate comp, I believe that within marriage, a husband is to lead and a wife is to submit to her husband’s leadership. I believe that I am under direct Biblical command to voluntarily submit to my husband. The fact that I am commanded as a wife to voluntarily place myself under my husband, implies that my husband has authority over me. I believe that the command to me to submit is consistent with how God has designed men and women. My personal experience is not the basis for my beliefs, but it does support my beliefs. My submission frees my husband to listen to me and open himself to me in a way that he was not able to during an earlier period in our marriage when I resisted submission.

    Today, many men have abdicated their responsibilities to their families. In light of this, I think it is timely and appropriate for complementarian organizations like CBMW to emphasize the importance of male leadership in the home. Given the current contemporary context, I believe that public remarks by CBMW leaders should and will place significant emphasis on the importance of male leadership.

    Where I differ from CBMW is that I do not believe male leadership and female submission to that leadership to be a good summary of the essence of a Christian marriage. Rather, I believe that Christian marriage is much better summarized by any of the three Ephesians 5 couplets – He Sacrifices/She Submits; He is the Head/She is the Body; He is to Love/She is to Respect.

    If I am reading CBMW materials correctly, CBMW draws on I Corinthians 11:3 to develop their He Leads/She Submits marriage model. Husbands represent Christ’s leadership of the church; wives represent Christ’s submission to the Father’s will. Along with egalitarians, I continue to recoil at the image that came to my mind when I first read CBMW’s February 22, 2008 genderblog post – that of a woman’s body hanging on a cross. To me, the theology underlying this model seems at odds with the notion that men are to protect women. I also have trouble reconciling this model with Ephesians 5, where the husband is depicted as the one who sacrifices. (The wife, in turn, responds with submission.)

    I believe in the Trinitarian doctrine of eternal subordination, but for many reasons the application to marriage espoused by CBMW does not make sense to me. In particular, I am concerned that when elevated to the position of a stand-alone marriage model, “He Leads, She Submits” de-emphasizes the one flesh unity so clearly implied by Ephesians 5.

  • Paula

    I believe that I am under direct Biblical command to voluntarily submit to my husband.

    Can anything be a command and a voluntary act at the same time?

  • Bonnie

    Brian,

    Please note that I didn’t say that you were being “flippant” — I said that you seemed to be dismissive of the comment thread. A person might be flippantly dismissive, but not necessarily.

  • Ellen

    I love public wifi…

    I read few of the comments from my email, but not all…let me comment on the “abuse”. D.J., once the accusation of abuse has been leveled, you cannot win. It’s like the race card. If you deny it, it only proves you’re abusive.

    There is no definition: if a woman “feels” abused, you lose.

    in fact, everybody loses. Those who truly are abused (as Sue has been in the past) may be marginalized because of those who see abuse in every situation. I do not wish to minimize true abuse – like the boy who cried wolf, the more we hear the cry, the less we hear the real one.

    As a woman, I know. One time in the past I played the “hostile work environment” card…there was, but it was not sexual – but that’s what the legal minds go to first. I did myself a favor, but no favor for women who really suffer. I was wrong in doing that.

    Now, my daughter’s computer goes back to he side of the table…

  • Bonnie

    Corrie,

    I also find it funny that they don’t translate “desire” to mean an urge to have a sexual relationship with one’s husband, especially when it is connected to the result of such a union- childbirth.

    I don’t have the references handy, but I think this “urge to have a sexual relationship” actually was an argument of some in the early Church (not church) used to teach avoidance of women because of their “corrupting” influence. If a man was tempted sexually by a woman, it was solely because the woman was a temptress, because of this “desire.”

  • Brian (Another)

    Sorry, I was writing this and I had to go and be a hero and feed myself. I’m not trained in Greek or Hebrew or have a seminary degree. I did pass my Czech class, though. What I mean is I’m not endowed with wisdom galore. But here goes. Regarding…..

    Headship: I think we would be in complete disagreement here. Headship (as I said) is not domineering but leading. Men are called (in Comp) to be loving, servant leaders. We follow Christ’s leading of the church. And, as I’ve said before, men should absolutely be taught (perhaps more than we are now) this concept. Servant leadership is far from the view portrayed by too many sinful men (I disagree with Paul and say that I, not he, am the chief of sinners……i.e. my statement starts with me). It seems that if you define headship negatively then it makes it difficult to resolve how the Son willingly serves the father (I would say the model for Husband and wife).

    Logical fallacy: I was wrong here and incorrectly categorized the argument, then. Sorry ‘bout that. It appears, given that the complementarian view is quickly portrayed as the way of the abuser. Along that line, I disagree that **many comps** view any self-will by the wife to be a sin. I incorrectly drove the inference, but it’s difficult to say that complementarianism is wrong because teaching a complementarian view is teaching an abusive relationship. It seems like circular reasoning. But I think we disagree on that one.

    1 Tim 2 isolation: That was directed to Don Johnson’s #1048. I don’t feel comp. isolate 1 Tim 2 or any other verse quoted by Dr. Ware, Denny, etc.

    “Not so among you”, I would say, refers to a human domineering. We, as men are called to servant leadership, not domination and conquest.

    Males are absolutely not exempted from the servanthood of Christ.

    Males are not told to play the role of God the Father, but our marriage is modeled after the trinity.

    In comp, women are not to teach men. Men are set as elders and teachers of all.

    The woman was deceived. Don’t know what, precisely you mean by the question, though.

    I am unfamiliar with the Eve tempted Adam.

    Adam did not display leadership.

    Adam blamed Eve (dismissed his leadership, see above).

    Anyone can feel free to correct.

    Brian

  • Brian (Another)

    And I am not being dismissive of arguments, either (as above, didn’t intend on conveying that). Flippant or argumentative. When you say flippant, does anyone feel like it’s almost a substitute for cussing? No? Oh. Well, regardless, I don’t dismiss, I just feel the weight of the comp. view is overwhelming. And, I would hope (since egal are trying to persuade) that you feel the same about your position as well. Otherwise, it’s arguing for the sake of arguing (wouldn’t you say?).

    I think that egal see my comp view as error in Christian teaching. In the same manner, Tom Nelson, Dr. Ware, Dr. Moore, etc. have stated the same for their positions. I only say this to point out that one of the offenses to which some have pointed was the “cancer” statement (I’m sorry to drag it all back to that again). Tom put it that the errored teaching (error in the view of comps) of egalitarianism winds up poisoning doctrine as a whole (I would present that shunning what is read in scriptures is shunning the authority of scriptures. I don’t see the scriptures as authority as making me less of a person…..but I think that is a different argument for a different day…..that likely most of us would agree anyway….digressing….). Egalitarians say that Comp teaching is errored teaching that results in or causes abusive relationships, etc. I think we are equally passionate about our theology. I say that to offer up that I hope the passion of holding to my view isn’t taken as arrogant (that would be shown as being dismissive). I weigh carefully what is being offered. As, I think, most others do as well.

    Marilyn said: Today, many men have abdicated their responsibilities to their families.
    Brian says: AMEN!

    Brian

  • Don Johnson

    On 1 Tim, this is one of the hardest books to understand, one: it is by Paul who Peter wrote was hard to understand in the 1st century, two: we live in the 21st century with a different language and different culture and three: we are not Timothy.

    My take is the non-egal interpretation of ONE verse in 1 Tim (1 Tim 2:12) is one that is flawed as it claims to know more than we can know today. We are not even sure what authenteo means. We are not sure if the verse is directed to a specific person or is general. So WHY make choices that restrict women?

  • Paula

    “Not so among you”, I would say, refers to a human domineering. We, as men are called to servant leadership, not domination and conquest.
    Did Jesus say “do not domineer”, or did he say “the greatest must be the least, the slave of all”? How does a slave get to be a boss– even a kind one? “Even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life…” That is the exact opposite of the comp view. In other words, this passage of scripture denounces the top-down hierarchy of the world and forbids it for the church.

    Males are absolutely not exempted from the servanthood of Christ.
    Then they model Christ exactly the same way females do. Christ modeled submission to all, by all. Ergo, they are not bosses, even kind ones.

    Males are not told to play the role of God the Father, but our marriage is modeled after the trinity.
    Comp teachers would strongly disagree. They keep saying only women model the submission of Christ too.

    Where in scripture is marriage compared to the Trinity? Please supply chapter and verse.

    In comp, women are not to teach men. Men are set as elders and teachers of all.
    Where does the scripture forbid all women to teach men? Would you charge a woman with sin if she taught correct doctrine to a man in “a church setting”? And if it isn’t sin, then what is it?

    The woman was deceived. Don’t know what, precisely you mean by the question, though.
    I’ve read many comp articles claiming the reason Paul forbid women to teach (as they assert) was because all women are more deceivable than men. At the same time, none of them fault Adam for just standing there and watching as Eve was beguiled.

    I am unfamiliar with the Eve tempted Adam.
    Read the quotes I collected here:
    http://www.fether.net/2007/12/07/misogynys-war-against-egalitarianism/

    Adam did not display leadership.
    Exactly. He either had nothing to display, or he shirked his duty and thereby disqualified himself from leadership. And if we followed comp reasoning, we would then claim all men for all time are poor leaders.

    Adam blamed Eve (dismissed his leadership, see above).
    And God.

    All of which shows Adam to be the poorest leader, the wimpiest protector, one who passes blame. And yet comps teach that God therefore gave him even stronger rule, divinely sanctioned power, and inherent spiritual superiority.

  • Lydia

    ” I might argue it is and 1900 years of scholars didn’t invent the meaning because it suited them. Sue, et al would argue (might argue?) that yes, they did. Thus we might both say I do not absolutely know, I’m just basing my decision on what I see flows from the text (and the bible as a whole) and what those whom I trust translated it. We each hold opposite views of the latter.”

    Historical interpretations can be wrong for 2000 years. Slavery was condoned from bad interpretations until a few hundred years ago. Did we grow up? Mature? What happened? I could go on and on with examples such as the State church, magistrates, buring heretics, baptizing infants, transubstantiation, sacraments….the list is pretty long of bad interpretations for thousands of years.

    “3) I think it’s logical fallacy to argue that because men abuse their roles (as a comp, this is the role I view) ipso-facto complementarians MUST be wrong. Just as complementarians are accused of viewing through male-dominated glasses, it’s important to not let personal experiences drive a view.”

    I agree. And I agree we do not need emotive arguments. It dismisses the truth. What we need to do is use interlinears more. There are several reasons why we are where we are today.

    1. Gen 3:16 being mis-translated. The consequence of sin was that Eve would turn away from God and toward her husband and he would rule over her. Her problems would stem from turning away from God and to her husband. We see this played out in the OT and history. Ironic, huh? That this SIN is advocated by CBMW.

    2. The introduction of the false doctrine of Adam being in authority over Eve BEFORE the fall. This simply HAS TO BE READ INTO THE ACCOUNT. God NEVER states that in the text. Not only that, but Genesis 1 has to be ignored to come to their conclusions.

    3. Creation order to prove the authority of Adam over Eve is just silly. Cows were created before Adam and we see birth order completely ignored in too many OT stories. One could make the argument that God saved the best for last using the same ‘logic’ as CBMW. It makes about as much sense.

    4. Ezer as always subordinate is just plain ‘reaching’. A lot of mental gymnastics have to be performed for that one…to the point of blaspheming the Soveriengy of God as our Ezer.

    5. If God had meant authority over Eve then why a One Flesh Union?

    6. Creation materials do not give us the ‘image of God’. So Ware, teaching that woman are the indirect Image of God because Eve was created from man is silly. Dirt is where man gets his Image of God? And we know that 1 Corin 11 teaches us that after Eve ALL men come from women and all things from God. Ware is reaching here and ends up with a false teaching. He completely misunderstands Glory of God and Glory of man in 1 Corinthians because he ignores the entire passage and proof texts.

    Bottomline is if we do not get the Creation account right, we cannot interpret the NT correctly on this issue.

    So much of the comp view has to be READ INTO the creation account. It is guessed and suggested. What they teach is NOT clear from the text. No where does God tell Adam over Eve that Adam is in charge of her. No where. Until Genesis 3:16 and then it is a consequence of sin. Not a command.

    But here is a question: So if his ruling over her is a consequence of sin as God tells us in Genesis 3:16…then how could this sinful situation have been in place before the fall?

    It really makes no sense. Women do not have 2 ‘heads’ and they do not have earthly priests as CBMW wants so many to believe.

  • Don Johnson

    As an egal, I will say it is very heartening to me to see so many females see flaws in the non-egal teaching as they are the ones is seems to be mainly addressed at and there are the ones with most of the burden if they accept it.

    So when someone adds words to the Bible, just say NO.

  • Sue

    I can’t actually keep up but

    Brian #1051

    2) We agree (at the bare minimum) that there are two readings of the Greek. I might argue it is and 1900 years of scholars didn’t invent the meaning because it suited them. Sue, et al would argue (might argue?) that yes, they did.

    Brian,

    Sometimes I agree that there are two possible interpretations of authenteo, to be polite or maintain dialogue. As a studen of Greek, honestly, no I don’t think so – it only means to rule as a master over a slave or to coerce.

    3) I think it’s logical fallacy to argue that because men abuse their roles (as a comp, this is the role I view) ipso-facto complementarians MUST be wrong. Just as complementarians are accused of viewing through male-dominated glasses, it’s important to not let personal experiences drive a view.

    I suppose this is how you would have interacted with a runaway slave who had been beaten. You would have said that just because the master was cruel that did not mean that slavery was a bad thing. You can do anything with words.

    4) I’ve read it several times, but just to clarify, Dr. Ware said that women sinfully rebel. Then the sinful ways men can respond is a) abuse b) not lead. He did not say, however, that this is how men should respond nor the only way to respond.

    I am incredibly offended at the implication that women sinfully rebel but men get two choices. First, might women sinfully when they find themselves married to someone who won’t give them any free choices about anything from morning to night. Second, some women are real people pleasers and would do anything at all for someone. That is a terrible theology to teach that all women are rebellious but men may be this or that. It is misogyny and it hurts like h*ll to read this stuff.

    5) As far as roles go, I think it important not to confuse Godly headship (as a complementarian, this is my belief) with sinful domineering.

    Some of us are single now so male headship is mercifully irrelevant. I can’t answer the rest of your questions without more deep pain.

    However, abusers are people, men and women, who have been Christians all their life and are not able to get proper help because the church denies that Christian men and women abuse each other, since the church supports male headship and no divorce. If you open the lid on abuse, you encourage people to separate and divorce. No church wants that, so some men and women suffer terrible abuse, and don’t let anyone know.

    This is reality.

    I am sorry if you think I didn’t treat Denny with respect. I reread BGU 1208 in Greek last night on the internet. It is a casual letter to a brother about getting a load of a cattle across on the ferry. It is a dispute and talk of insolence and rudeness.

    It is also a fragement, words and letters missing, many words occur in this fragment that are nowhere else in Greek.

    Let me say again, in all honesty, no I do not think that anyone should authenteo any other person, ever.

    But, in my view, it was, you just dismissed it.

    No, Denny was invited some time ago to view the evidence regarding Philodemus on my site but he just said that he did not have the time.

    But now, you notice that he does not bring it up, so I think that he knows that it is not valid, but will not mention ir or acknowledge the work I did on this.

    Some other complementarian told me that many of them have viewed the work on my site, and he said he would discuss this with Dr. Kostenberger. But nobody acknowledges that the complementarian position on 1 Tm 2:12 has lost its bets evidence.

    I reread BGU 1208, to see if I could find out more about it, but it seems to have been an argument about money, and a personal, family dicussion. It was not about “authority” it was on the lines of “I made him do it – and now its done!” so there.

    There really is no positive argument on the complementarian side, as far as I can see.

    I am sorry to sound so adamant, but the word means to be master of a slave, or to be master as God is master. But that is not the way one person treats another.

  • Paula

    Since it is a known fact that the USB has tampered with the original text, and since most Bible dictionaries have never been updated after significant archaeological discoveries in the early 1900s and 1970s, and since we have seen pervasive bias in most, if not all, translations:

    I would recommend that we get copies of as many interlinears and documented research as quickly as possible. I don’t know where to find the second but I’m sure someone does. But I expect that once the control types find out what we’re learning from interlinears they will find a way to either change them or ban them.

  • MatthewS

    Brian,

    I appreciated your comment (I think #1049 – crazy, man!). I may be projecting here, but it seems like you are trying to frame your own views vis-a-vis others’ in a respectful manner. (I may have stated this, but I feel like I am somewhere in between CBMW and CBE.)

    I look at complementarianism as somewhat like selenium. There is a doctor on the radio that sells vitamin packs that are good for what ails ya. A key ingredient is selenium. This makes many people healthier. However, if your water supply already has a high selenium content, those vitamins can injure or kill you – you don’t want to overdose on selenium.

    Sermons are not preached in a vacuum. They are preached to flawed people. An unstable, controlling person who hears feminism denounced and headship-submission praised, is likely to go home and make things worse than they already were. The man is overdosing on selenium, so to speak, and it can be deadly. Pastors need to be careful to nuance and balance their sermons. I have heard pastors who subtly mock the manliness of men who don’t take charge in their home – this has a negative effect on situations that are already bad.

    The bumper could say: “Complementarianism doesn’t abuse people; People abuse people!” In a vacuum, yes. But in real life, a good vitamin can become a poison pill.

  • Sue

    Marilyn # 946,

    I’ve found this debate to be very painful because neither side seems willing to acknowledge the valid points raised by the other side. Egalitarians are unwilling to admit that Dr. Ware does not, in fact, argue that a wife’s behavior causes her husband to sin. Rather, he argues that a wife’s behavior reveals her husband’s sinful nature. Complementarians are unwilling to acknowledge that sociological evidence consistently shows submission to an abuser to be an ineffective strategy for deterring abuse. Submission empowers the abuser. Women in such a situation should flee evil. But, egalitarians, in turn, seem unwilling to acknowledge that isolated acts do not an abuser make; nor do they acknowledge the pain that a wife’s anger and disrespect inflicts on her husband. Complementarians, in turn, are unwilling to devote time and money to providing meaningful support to women who are the victims of abusers…and so it goes.

    Thank you for supporting the reality that submission increases the abuse. This is a matter of life and death. Yes, women can be abusive too. And men need to be able to talk about that.

    No, the abusive behaviour is not revealed by the sin of the wife. The abusive behaviour is always in the abuser and will come out no matter what. The abuser sets up the victim over and over and over.

  • Paula

    I like it, Don… just say NO.

    And what will His Royal Highness, the Husband, do to a woman who says NO?

    Put her in the highest room in the tallest tower, guarded by a fierce dragon? (stole that from Shrek)

    Tell her she sins against God in telling His Royal Ego NO?

    Become a wimp and blame it on her?

    Beat the NO out of her?

    Kill her?

    What does a proper comp husband do with she who dares to say NO?

  • Sue

    The victim sins by remaining a victim, by not leaving immediately. The victim sins, perhaps, by marrying an abuser. I don’t know. My dad was great and I had no knowledge whatsoever of abusive personality disorder when I married. I just had never heard about it and was taught all that crap, total crap, about the sin of the wife leads to the ***** of the husband.

    I think that this teaching should be made illegal by the amount of damage that women and children suffer. Just ask any hospital emergency. This is terrible, terrible stuff.

    I feel incredibly sorry for those who are abusers. It needs to all some out in the open, but the male headship teaching means that abusers are ostracized. This is an incredibly cruel religion and in my view does not resemble the teaching of Christ.

  • Brian (Another)

    Re: #1073 Again, not a scholar here, but I’ll try.

    Just to correct, never used the word Boss. And no, it does not forbid the complementarian view of man/woman. Just as there is no hierarchy but an ordained order in the trinity. They are not three but one.

    Christ serves us and yet he is our head. Marriage is to imitate that. Dr. Moore’s sermon goes into marriage modeling the trinity far more eloquently than I. No, there is no verse that says “marriage is like the trinity”.

    Men do not play the role of God the father. Men are not God. One thing I am positive we agree upon ;-). Sorry for the dangling prep. Not quite sure what you mean by “only women model the submission of Christ”. We are called to a life of servant leadership.

    Adam/leadership: Ah, I understand what you mean. I don’t think Adam blithely watched Even sin and then came running up to take a bite (“Alright, she did it first, so now I get to!!!”). I don’t understand, though, why you would say that “Adam…just standing there and watching as Eve was beguiled.” I don’t think that is in Gen 3. I would say that comps that say women are more deceivable point to the serpent approaching Eve.

    I think men and women can equally be used by Satan to tempt one another. I don’t agree with Augustine of Hippo.

    Yes, Adam also blamed God. Though I’ve never read it that way. Interesting.

    Yes, Adam exemplified sin. Very sad. Jonah ran away and God used him, too (and countless other very poor examples of men like David, Moses, etc.). I don’t see it as an argument against complementarianism, though.

  • Brent

    OK, I admit it: I sat down and read all 1000+ comments.

    Women threaten, challenge and have “illicit urges” to usurp their husbands but men “respond”? (Corrie: #1060)

    Corrie, thank you for commenting on Ware’s rhetoric and how automatically men’s and women’s motivations are different because of their sex. Your comment was insightful; it’s very telling.

    Some comps (not meaning to paint a wide brush) on the comment thread seem to be laboring under the assumption that those of us who oppose Ware’s teaching believe that he is justifying abuse. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not sure anyone has said that. What I, and many others, are disturbed about it that abusers will take the comment and run with it, no matter how it was intended; it was irresponsible and unthinking. It will be used and abused by abusers to justify their actions – period.

    It was also irresponsible of Ware to only outline TWO sinful responses – abuse or passivity. Is there no third, Christlike way? It seems that if a wife is unsubmissive, a man has only two options – be a boor or be a wimp. Great.

    Ware’s rhetoric also places women as the “first sinners” and that abuse is a “response” to their sin – justified or not (and I know everyone believes that response is unjustified), it reflects a cause-effect relationship. It also implies that if women were to be more submissive, abuse would lessen (since unsubmissiveness is one of the causes). As Sue has already, and numerously, pointed out, it absolutely will not – it will only get worse. Abusers want submission, but not so that they will stop abusing – it’s so that they can feel justified in doing it more.

    If Ware is going to connect unsubmissiveness and abuse, he should be more clear about what causes it and what the root problem is. Calling it “sinful” simply isn’t enough.

  • Sue

    I have heard pastors who subtly mock the manliness of men who don’t take charge in their home – this has a negative effect on situations that are already bad.

    Thank you, MatthewS, that helps.

  • Brian (Another)

    That is a hurtful caricature of the sinful application of a complementarian view.

    Funny though it may be (I did chuckle to read it), given I view it (comp view) as scripture, it’s appalling.

    BK

  • Light

    Comment #1062: My submission frees my husband to listen to me and open himself to me in a way that he was not able to during an earlier period in our marriage when I resisted submission.

    I appreciate Marilyn’s comments here. This is also an accurate picture of how things work in my egalitarian marriage. When you know the other person is willing and eager to put the other person first, you do indeed feel “heard.” Marilyn admits that she resisted submission. I posit that she wasn’t rebelling against her role as a woman, she was rebelling against what we are all called to do as Christians.

    I’d like to say for the record that egalitarians DO believe in submission. As a woman, I submit whether my marriage follows the egal model or the comp model. In the egal model, however, a husband also submits to a wife. This is the very picture of servanthood.

  • Sue

    Brent,

    If you read all the comments, you are truly amazing.

    If Ware is going to connect unsubmissiveness and abuse, he should be more clear about what causes it and what the root problem is.

    He should know that he is saying the exact opposite of the truth. Submissiveness leads to abuse, if the person you submit to is abusive.

  • MatthewS

    I think Sue at #1082 is speaking from a punched gut, not from the ivory tower.

    I personally know pastors who counsel wives to remain in abusive situations. That arouses in me the same passion that you see in Sue’s comment in 1082. My personal opinion is that the CBMW web site does not address this well enough.

    Not all complementarians are guilty of holding the wife down while the husband abuses her. I think Alex Strauch (“Equal Yet Different”) is an example. He points wives to 1 Peter and tells them to do the right thing without fear. If the right thing is getting the kids out of there, so be it.

    Also, he points out that in 1 Cor, Paul specifically makes the bedroom an egalitarian room.

    Further, he reminds that a church leader must not be an angry, violent, abusive dad. (1 Tim, Titus). A church that lets a chronically abusive or violent dad remain in leadership is in sin.

  • Paula

    Just to correct, never used the word Boss.

    Then what do you, personally, mean by “head”?

    And no, it does not forbid the complementarian view of man/woman. Just as there is no hierarchy but an ordained order in the trinity. They are not three but one.

    Of course I think it certainly is mutually exclusive with comp teaching. And what is order without hierarchy? How does that relate to marriage?

    Christ serves us and yet he is our head.

    Again, what does “head” mean? Is he our boss as comp teaches (re. head; of course all agree he’s our boss, but not that this meaning is intended for “head”), or is he our Source, as first century Greeks meant it?

    Marriage is to imitate that. Dr. Moore’s sermon goes into marriage modeling the trinity far more eloquently than I. No, there is no verse that says “marriage is like the trinity”.

    If no verse, no scriptural connection between the two, then it is strictly Ware’s opinion, not sound Biblical teaching.

    Men do not play the role of God the father. Men are not God. One thing I am positive we agree upon ;-).

    Good to know. I only wish the comp teachers agreed.

    Not quite sure what you mean by “only women model the submission of Christ”. We are called to a life of servant leadership.

    This idea of only women modeling Christ’s submission is found in many comp writings. For example, see the horrible wedding vows promoted by bible.org:
    http://www.fether.net/2008/01/18/vows-and-wows/

    And if we all are called to a life of servant leadership, then that includes women.

    Adam/leadership: Ah, I understand what you mean. I don’t think Adam blithely watched Even sin and then came running up to take a bite (“Alright, she did it first, so now I get to!!!”). I don’t understand, though, why you would say that “Adam…just standing there and watching as Eve was beguiled.” I don’t think that is in Gen 3.

    Yes, it’s right there in verse 6. He didn’t come running up, he was there the whole time.

    I would say that comps that say women are more deceivable point to the serpent approaching Eve.

    Yes, and then they extend it to all women for all time. This is their justification for why they believe Paul forbid women to teach men. But no scripture ever says Eve was inherently more deceivable, but only that she was deceived because the serpent beguiled her. Adam, not being beguiled, sinned with his eyes wide open. Does that make him less prone to teach error? Not at all.

    I think men and women can equally be used by Satan to tempt one another. I don’t agree with Augustine of Hippo.

    Good to know.

    Yes, Adam exemplified sin. Very sad. Jonah ran away and God used him, too (and countless other very poor examples of men like David, Moses, etc.). I don’t see it as an argument against complementarianism, though.

    It is comp teaching that ignores Adam’s part in all this and only focuses on God’s prediction (not command) that Eve would choose to follow Adam, who alone was told to leave the garden and return to the dust from which he alone was made. There is no hint that God used Adam for his purposes beyond procreation after that.

    And that is all a very scathing indictment of comp teaching.

  • Brian (Another)

    Slavery was never commanded in the bible. That argument is taken up on other threads elsewhere, though.

    I would say that interlinears is the model of trajectory hermeneutics. It’s nice being the dumbest person (me) on the blog. I get to learn words like interlinear.

    1) CBMW doesn’t teach that godly headship is a sin.
    2) This is modeled in the account and is supported later in Scripture as well (see Dr. Moore’s sermon).
    3) It wasn’t the overall creation order solo. Additionally, we were specifically given dominion over animals.
    4) Unfortunately, like Sue, I haven’t the time to go through all of the comments. Wish I did. Don’t remember the argument here off the top of my head.
    5) The mind cannot survive without the heart. Yet the heart gets its commands from the brain. The brain protects by producing sweat to cool off, etc.
    6) Don’t think Dr. Ware’s is false teaching, but I also don’t know to what 1 Corinthians “entire passage” you are referring.

    I’m not going to “shoot from the hip” on 3:16.

    Don’t know the argument behind the 2 heads thing. Our ultimate authority is God. Comp view would say (I think) that men head their families, following hard after God.

  • Don Johnson

    The Bible never says that the husband is the “head” of the family, just that he is “head” of his wife.

    The Bible does say that both parents are to be the rulers of the household.

  • Brent

    OK, I skimmed a little. 😉 I’m obsessed with this issue, though.

    It’s true that there can be a form of “servant-leadership,” in which a person serves by leading (a pastor could be said to do this, for example – as an authority figure providing a service to the congregation). However, I don’t think this has anything to do with different roles for men and women.

    On the issue of comp vs egal, I will say that I’m with Brown v. Board of Education: “Separate but equal is inherently unequal.” And “Power corrupts.”

  • MatthewS

    Brent 1084 – excellent comment.

    The abuse cycle goes something this: tension, build up, explosion, calm after the storm, tension…

    The explosion can be physical, mental, spiritual, verbal, or sexual. It is very similar to a substance addiction.

    A wife that thinks that her rebellion is the cause is doomed to blame herself for that repeating cycle. In the calm, she will think that she is submitting better. In the explosion, she will blame herself and wonder where she went wrong. The thing is, her husband is addicted to this cycle and will keep repeating it, regardless of the wife’s behavior. Additionally, many such men are naturally very good at making excuses and blaming others, and many such wives are enablers and naturally blame themselves.

    In my mind, it is in this situation that complementarianism goes from vitamin to poison pill (referring to my earlier selenium analogy).

  • Paula

    I would say that interlinears is the model of trajectory hermeneutics.

    Eh? Interlinears have absolutely nothing to do with trajectory hermeneutics.

    1) CBMW doesn’t teach that godly headship is a sin.

    Nobody said they did.

    2) This is modeled in the account and is supported later in Scripture as well (see Dr. Moore’s sermon).

    What is “this” you are referring to? And I think we’ve all seen far too much of Ware’s sermon at this point.

    3) It wasn’t the overall creation order solo. Additionally, we were specifically given dominion over animals.

    Emphasis on WE. Both male and female were given this dominion. Never is one person given dominion over the other.

  • Don Johnson

    My take is all non-egalism is poison, if it is diluted enough with Christian maturity it is almost like drinking pure water, but why not just drink the pure water. However, there are many who do not dilute it very much at all and, regardless of the claim that abuse is sin, abuse will result.

    It is similar to the question about how much slavery is healthy for a slave? My answer is none, altho it can make a HUGE difference if you are under a nice and nasty slavemaster.

  • Sue

    Bonnie has addressed very well the fact that to have the husband always have his will win over the wife is abusive. When it is not physically abusive, it is emotionally abusive. I remember all kinds of friends of mine who were not allowed to go to university or have a job after they were married because they were not “allowed” to.

    In my view, most complementarians are not abusive, but the teaching is, no doubt about it. And many Christian men deprive their wives of a full and normal life.

    Since kephale has no relation to authority in Greek all the teaching about male headship is made up. I know I shouldn’t just talk like this but I have read through hundreds of pages of Grudem’s studies and they do not support his thesis.

    Why teach something that is so obviously cruel, restrictive, and demeaning to women.

    I remember one women commenter here who said elsewhere “well, if you put it like that, it is not so degrading” – something like that to soften complementarianism.

    Why should marriage be degrading and humiliating for women? Why does is have to be like that?

    Women want to get married and have children but unless a guy really does not believe he is “the authority” it really is not worth it.

  • Paula

    I think “this” is “godly headship”, right?

    But where is this noun, “headship” in the Bible? Where is evidence that “head” could mean “having authority over” in first century Greek?

  • Brent

    As an aside, am I the only one bothered by the fact that Ware and others believe that abuse is primarily a problem of men’s accountability? (Forgive me if I’m putting words in Ware’s mouth, but I have heard this from several places. Maybe I’m thinking of Piper.) That is, the “ideal” solution to an abusive situation is to have other men step in. I understand why that would be practically useful – greater muscle strength – but it smacks of the idea that the only important action going on is between the men; women’s voices and opinions are secondary at best.

    [/tangent]

  • Don Johnson

    It is sad state of affairs in Biblical literacy when the preferred non-egal term “headship” is not even found in the Bible, yet the non-egals are not the ones to point this out. It reminds me of the fairy tale, “The emperor has no clothes!”

  • Don Johnson

    If one man cannot control a rebellious wife, ask for more male reinforcments!

    It is so crazy it would be funny except it is so sad.

  • Sue

    That is why I had to leave my church. Because the minister said that he believed that Wayne Grudem has proved male authority to be true because out of 2000 + occurrences of kephale it was proven that kephale meant authority.

    I read the study, and yes, one case of “kephale of the family” a century later in Rome. Only one and we have a whole lot of Greek literature to review.

    It was certainly not used that way in the LXX or classical Greek. But later in Rome, Greek picked up expressions from Latin.

    I don’t think anyone considers this proof. They really just trust Grudem’s word that it means authority.

  • Brian (Another)

    Sue (#1076)

    2) Well, I would say that you disagree, then, and hold to only one meaning of authenteo. I don’t know if you’re alone on this, but at the bare minimum there is Crysosdom (sic). Boldly hold your convictions! If you’re convinced that it has one and only one meaning, I certainly do not find it insulting for you to say so. Nor should anyone else. However, I hold to the interpretation I’ve read (NASB and ESV are my chosen versions currently). I seek counsel from those I trust and I read books and other publications to glean what information I can. The latter being very useful for learning about contrary views. Such as here!
    3) Yes, we (complementarians) can sinfully twist headship.
    4) I don’t understand why “two choices” is hurtful. What Dr. Ware is saying is that women and men are both sinful. I should have stated that outright. Among the many ways that we can sin, he listed one for women and two for men that relate specifically to male/female relationships. I don’t recall saying all, either. If I did, my apologies, but I’m not good on text searches here.
    5) I would say you are the headship in your home (much as the biblical examples you brought up in the past). Perhaps teachings on marriage are irrelevant to your personal application (now). But that makes them no less part of scripture cannon. And they are relevant in the event that you choose to remarry (another topic, another day).

    After that, I want to say that I don’t think you should apologize for being adamant. Just as I won’t apologize for being adamant. Being passionate about the bible is a wonderful thing. I think we would pray the same thing for each other! I don’t think that you lacked respect explicitly, I think, though, that Denny offered two or three examples, all three of which you stated as “I didn’t find them compelling”. I have to rely on others for my Greek scholarship, so you are light years ahead of me on that one. Just didn’t want you to dismiss something (flippantly or not 😉 because it didn’t compel you in its singularity.

    Can’t comment on losing its best evidence. The arguments that I’ve heard are compelling still for complementarianism (I know, we disagree).

    Don’t know why complementarianism has “no positive argument”. Do you mean there is no absolute/convincing argument? I understand that and we would have to disagree. If you mean that complementarianism is always negative? I don’t understand and vehemently disagree.

  • tiro3

    “But where is this noun, “headship” in the Bible? Where is evidence that “head” could mean “having authority over” in first century Greek?”

    Matt. 20: 25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

    It seems to me that if kephale meant authority over, that in this verse Christ would rather have said “those who are heads/kephale’s exercise authority over them”. But then we are STILL left with the fact that Christ also said that “IT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU”.

    Unless someone thinks that the ‘you’ is plural feminine, it seems to me that Christ clearly emphatically stated that authoritative positional privilege ruling and positionally exercising authority over others to which one can command that they must submit, is not a behavior that is applauded for Christians.

  • Sue

    Brian #1105,

    Thanks for a great answer.

    The difference now in scholarship is that the Philodemus quote and the BGU 1208 are online for all to see. These are the only two pieces of evidence recorded by Kostenberger as relevant.

    But, when you read them, you realize that they are fargments, reconstructed, first, Philodemus has absolutely no relevance, and second, BGU 1208 is obviously a private dispute and a rather informal letter.

    Now, for the first time ever, everyone can see the evidence. Denny could read both the Philodemus fragment and the BGU 1208 online and he could discuss them firsthand. Why doesn’t he?

    I demonstrated that Grudem quotes that BGU 1208 reflects a hostile situation, a dispute, and the bahaviour was considered insolence. Dr. Grudem did not disagree with that because he rested his conslusions on Philodemus, which cannot be proven to have the word authenteo in it.

    Does this help?

    DOn’t forget that Junia is a woman, but the Bibles you read says that she is Junias.

  • Sue

    Brian #1105 continued,

    You really should never trust any translation when it comes to gender issues. Look at this.

    “and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

    2 Tim. 2:2

    The word tranlated “men” here means “people” “human beings” but it was translated as “men” because the translators think that only men can preach. I went and asked Dr. Packer about this. A little hangdog, he said “well, we think it means men.”

    Why does he have the right to exclude women from scriptures verse at will. The authority, the power that men have to translate and interpret the Bible is damaging to women. Men do not protect women, they deprive women of a full life.

  • Brian (Another)

    Paula (#1089):

    Head: Lead, guide, example and model to follow.

    Connection: If this were Ware on an island with no one concurring or questioning, I would agree with you.

    God the Father: I think most complementarian teachers would say that men are not God.

    Vows: If you hold to a complentarian view, not offensive. Just as Christ served his disciples (for example) and is head of the church.

    Beguiling: No, that Eve was deceived first is not reasoning behind complementarianism.

    Comp. Teaching: No, complementarians do teach that men will not lead as God intended and sin.

  • Sue

    The major sin of women is that they are too dependent on men. That it why women get abused. Russ Moore even preached on that. This is where the headship men get it backwards. Women sin by being too dependent, not by being rebellious and “bucking” against their husband.

    Sort of sounds like breaking in a horse – if she is bucking, chafing, resisting, fighting – where do these men get these images – wonder woman and super woman, they all dream of dominating her.

    I did not want to say it before but Dianna was not the goddess of love, s Moore said, she was chaste and the protector of women in childbirth. I thought Russ Moore got a little too interested in the lovely Dianna.

  • Brian (Another)

    Sue (#1108): Whether we agree on comp/egal or not, saying that just because we don’t get to do something does not mean we don’t have a “full life”. I think you diminish complementarian women’s lives or simply insult me with:
    “Men do not protect women, they deprive women of a full life.”

    Or, perhaps, you mean some men?

  • Sue

    yes, some men deprive some women of a full life. But all comps put boundaries around women. That is a fact. There are fences within which women must stay.

  • Sue

    Brian,

    I am referring to 2 Tim. 2:2 ESV. That verse was deliberately translated to read “men” and not “people” because the translators already believed that in a general sense, women cannot teach. So, yes, complementarians damage the cause of all Christian women if they use that verse in the ESV.

  • Paula

    Brian (Another),

    It would be helpful if you included the statement you’re responding to on each line, or at least give the post number.

    1. Head: Lead, guide, example and model to follow.

    You gave your personal view; now, can you show that this definition is what the Bible meant? Does any Greek source of the first century carry that meaning? How is God the “example” to Christ? Christ only cited Himself as our example, not God as His example.

    2. Connection: If this were Ware on an island with no one concurring or questioning, I would agree with you.

    I’m not sure what specific statement you’re referring to.

    3. God the Father: I think most complementarian teachers would say that men are not God.

    Yet they teach that men play the role of God the Father to the woman’s role of submissive Christ.

    4. Vows: If you hold to a complentarian view, not offensive. Just as Christ served his disciples (for example) and is head of the church.

    If you hold to a Biblical view of mutual submission, they are revolting. Anyone who would put a human being between themselves and God is an idolater, and anyone who would accept such a “role” is usurping the place of Christ.

    5. Beguiling: No, that Eve was deceived first is not reasoning behind complementarianism.

    Eve wasn’t deceived first; Adam was not deceived at all. Eve was the only one deceived, but the reason is not (as comp teaches) inherent in her femaleness, but because she was beguiled by the serpent. Comp teaches that Eve’s deception is inherent to all females.

    6. Comp. Teaching: No, complementarians do teach that men will not lead as God intended and sin.

    Huh?

  • Sue

    Why do men who are seminary professors say that women cannot be but they can only do the things that men allow them to do, and especially a woman can only pursue her own goals after she has already helped her husband to achieve all his goals. How selfish is that?

    To wait until your husband dies or gives up on life to actually have permission to pursue personal goals.

    Why doesn’t Denny just read Philodemus and BGU 1208 online and have a discussion with me about them. We could discuss the structure of the passage in Hippolytus, or Tetrabiblos.

    The reason why no complementarian will do this in public is because it will not support their cause. I know this from talking to a couple of comp scholars in private, but I can’t quote their email. This whole thing is a tragedy, more for some of us than others.

  • Brian (Another)

    Paula (#1094): Yup, you’re right. I didn’t know what an interlinear really was. I didn’t understand the definition. Scratch that comment.

    Don Johnson (#1095): View understood on non-egal. Again, though, saying that someone can abuse a teaching means we should jettison the teaching (or that the teaching is wrong) is an error. If my pastor says that I must meet with my congregation 6 times a week or else it is a sin would be a misapplication of a biblical principle. But it doesn’t give me the right to say we can change Hebrews to say meet if and only if you feel like it. Sue argues correctly against complementarianism by showing evidence of authenteo. And your statement sounds like you are saying regardless of the claim that abuse is sin, abuse will result, thus the teaching is poison. But what do I know, I’m just a begonia?

  • Sue

    I agree that the doctrine of complementarianism is abuse of women (and men) and therefore is sin. But many complementarians don’t act out the teaching to make the wife only serve the husbands will all the time.

  • Brian (Another)

    Sue (#1096): The Father always has His will over the Son and yet is not abusive. I would say that “not allowed” to go to university, etc. is a perversion of the comp. teaching. A wife influences her husband and a husband is attentive to his wife. A husband does not make a decision for his family in a vacuum. Complementarianism is not arbitrary authoritarian forcing of one’s will. That is absolutely not what is taught. Marriage shouldn’t be degrading or humiliating. The Father didn’t degrade or humiliate the Son nor the Son the Spirit. I see relegating marriage to the statement “not worth it” as puzzling and troubling. Marriage should be about what you put into the marriage, not what you get out of it. If all a husband or wife wants is to serve some self need, then don’t get married. That being said, being head of a wife should never, ever be used to condone or support abuse. I am truly sorry that I believe it has in too many people’s lives. Tragic only begins to describe that.

    Re: Head (in the bible), we would disagree here (Eph 5).

    Abuse is a sin of man or woman (mostly men, let’s face it). Somehow, to stop sinning, we must be accountable to God. Accountability to a God we cannot physically see is often not persuasive to us, thus why accountability to others. We are called to call one another out. Without accountability, an abuser will seek to abuse someone else. I dare say this is far from “calling in reinforcements”.

  • Brian (Another)

    Sue (#1107): Don’t know. I am not a Greek scholar so trying to read Greek fragments would be double silly for me. I would say that Grudem believes it does contain authenteo.
    #1110: Yes, comp. does believe that a wife rebelling against her husband is a sin. It’s a shirking of a biblical command. What comp. doesn’t teach, however, is that if you’re abused, take it and pray he changes. I know that was a sad misapplication by prior men, but the bible never states to condone or suggest abuse.
    #1112: I don’t agree with you. Having boundaries is not abusive or limiting. As a comp, I would say that having a fulfilling life is to hold tightly to these words and not letting them depart from your heart. Husbands are the heads of their wives and are called to loving servant leadership modeled after Christ. Part of those words not to depart from my heart. I am bound by my wife not to lay eyes upon another woman. Which means I am the “square” at my office. More than once that kind of submission has led to the loss of someone I called a friend. But I certainly don’t think I live an unfulfilled life. I could buck that trend, of course and go to the Owl House with buddies. I might even have fleshly delight. But I would certainly stand as unfulfilled.
    Paula (#1114): I thought I did number (if there were numbered items in the original post to which I was responding) and reference the original comment #. I don’t know to which comment you were referring so I guessed. (1) God instructs the Son, the Son willingly submits.
    (4) I don’t hold to a view of mutual submission. So yes, I understand why you find the Bible.org vows revolting. I do not see it as man usurping God but as an order of relationship between men and women.
    (6) Comp teaches that men sin by not following the way God intends (Dr. Ware’s point).
    Sue (#1115): That does seem selfish. Then again, a woman saying hey, my needs should come first is also selfish. To take a possible example in life (fictional) As a comp, if I’m to provide for my wife, it is important that I do what is necessary to provide. I would hope that discussion with my wife would produce her willing submission. I wouldn’t come home one day and say “we’re moving to phoenix to do….”. I would discuss so she understands what I want to do, I would hope she gives me feedback. If, after prayer (counsel, etc.), I still saw Phoenix as what I should do, I would expect my wife to willingly submit. I know my wife trusts my decisions, though. I know, that sounds backwards and ridiculous to many. I understand.
    #1117: The doctrine of complementarianism is not sin. I didn’t quite understand the other part of the sentence, though.

    Thanks all for the wonderful discourse. I’m off to the 4th of July holiday weekend. For those in the states, enjoy a hot dog. For those in Hawaii, enjoy a can of Spam. For all others, enjoy a local cuisine that doesn’t make you ill but reminds you of some sort of revolutionary war.

  • Ferg

    Brent in #1100, I’ve come across that too. Men are mainly the ones that matter. It’s very frightening. I’m sure you probably won’t even see this comment in the midst of it all but it’s good to see you here again!
    I’ve asked a few questions that STILL haven’t been answered by someone from the comp side which is a shame cause I’d love to know there thoughts on certain issues. (I wrote a few in post 976)

  • Paula

    A husband does not make a decision for his family in a vacuum.

    He should not make sole decision for his family at all; the husband and wife should jointly decide. They are both the children’s parents (if there are children), and children do need parents over them for their protection. But a wife is not a child who needs such adult supervision. The couple, as both adults, should decide together.

    But what is most definitely taught by comp teachers is that the husband had “final say” over even his wife, and she is required to go along with his decision. This is in fact degrading to her.

    In contrast, what Jesus modeled between himself and the Father while he was here, is how all Christians are to submit to God. What Jesus modeled for how one human treats another is sacrifice, servitude, selflessness. Each believer, male or female, is to model that behavior between them. And all of us, male and female, must relate to God as Jesus did.

    Comp teachings try to make Jesus’ example of how we relate to God as how wives must relate to husbands.

  • Lydia

    “My take is all non-egalism is poison, if it is diluted enough with Christian maturity it is almost like drinking pure water, but why not just drink the pure water. However, there are many who do not dilute it very much at all and, regardless of the claim that abuse is sin, abuse will result.”

    Exactly. It is poison because it starts with a wrong premise that the husband is the authority over the wife. And not the right premise in that there is to be mutual submission between true believers. And that submission is voluntary and between the person and Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin if we are abiding in Christ.

    Funny how the Eph 5:21 verse is totally ignored by comps. I would like to see that taught as carte blanch to all believers in the church no matter their behavior or beliefs, or title. This would mean John Piper should submit to me. (GASP)

    Some of you all think that sounds arrogant. Yes, I know. That is the point. That is what you sound like. Because you are so quick to ignore so much scripture about serving and humilty.

    “Anyone who would put a human being between themselves and God is an idolater, and anyone who would accept such a “role” is usurping the place of Christ.”

    Yes, Paula! The teaching is idolatrous and we must keep pointing it out. And this is what is so frustrating and blows me away that more people do not see it. They can in one breath claim they do not teach the husband is a wife’s earthly priest and in the next breath tell her he is in charge. And that in mixed company only men can teach her. What message does this send? That there is an earthly priest for her.

    This is why I said they are teaching women they have 2 “heads” (according to their wrong interpretation of head): Christ and the husband.

    But Paula, you keep bringing this up and no comp can explain why there are so many ‘not so among you’ type verses and verses about serving, humility including, ‘the first being last,etc…that are ignored. Does scripture contradict itself or do these verses not apply to believing husbands and wives because of the bad translations of a few proof texts?

  • Don Johnson

    If a wife says No what is a non-egal husband supposed to do about it?

    If whatever it is a non-egal husband does cannot be distinguished from egal, why not call it that?

    If there is a difference, what is it?

    Plus we have an example of a non-egal translation in the ESV, yet it is known to be corrupt in a few places relevant to the “women” issue. By corrupt I mean choosing the non-primary meaning of words with no textual justification, such an translating Greek anthropois as men instead of people in 2 Tim 2:2, translating Greek “en” in Rom 16:7 as “to” instead of “within”, adding a note on Gen 3:16 that teshuqah is not simply desire but desire “against” and similar.

    If people get to play this fast and loose with Scripture they can make the Bible say anything. This is similar to what the Jehovah’s Witnesses do to arrive at some of their strange doctrines.

  • Paula

    #1110: Yes, comp. does believe that a wife rebelling against her husband is a sin. It’s a shirking of a biblical command.

    This is not found anywhere in the Bible. Never is a wife said to be sinning against God if she rebells against her husband. Not once. Show me this Biblical command against rebellion of a wife to her husband.

    #1112: I don’t agree with you. Having boundaries is not abusive or limiting. /

    Nobody is saying boundaries are wrong in themselves, but that men are not entitled to create their own boundaries around women. Such boundaries around women are not found in scripture. So it is in fact abusive for a man to do this.

    Husbands are the heads of their wives

    You still have not shown that first century Greek understood “head” to mean “authority over”. It simply means “source of”. Man is the source of woman (Adam–Eve); Christ is the source of man; the Trinity (it doesn’t say the Father but God) is the source of Christ.

    and are called to loving servant leadership modeled after Christ.

    Women are not given any different model of Christ than men. Whatever Christ modeled, he did for all of us, male and female.

    Part of those words not to depart from my heart. I am bound by my wife not to lay eyes upon another woman.

    And equally, she is bound to not look at another man. Same “binding” on everyone. She too must “submit” to that.

    (1) God instructs the Son, the Son willingly submits.
    And this model is to be followed by both men and women to God. We are not to use this model between each other.

    (4) I don’t hold to a view of mutual submission.

    In violation of scripture: Eph. 5:21 says “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. ” That’s mutual, and men are not given any special treatment, that they can fail to submit to women.

  • Don Johnson

    2Ti 3:1 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty.
    2Ti 3:2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,
    2Ti 3:3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good,
    2Ti 3:4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
    2Ti 3:5 having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

    Notice that abusive is one of the indicators.

  • Lydia

    “The Father always has His will over the Son and yet is not abusive.”

    What a strange statement. The Father and Son are ONE. What you are writing only makes sense if you say ‘Incarnate son’. The Trinity in eternity have a united will.

    Another reason this analogy cannot fit ‘earthly’ relationships is because a son grows up and becomes independent of his father with his own will. Not only that..but as the father ages, he may become dependent on the son’s will in making decisions for his medical care, nursing home, money, etc.

    The Three in the Godhead is never independent in will. It is completely united for eternity. There are not 3 wills in the Godhead.

    So, very bad analogy. Does not work.

    Jesus Christ is God. He is part of the Godhead.

    I don’t think people realize how dangerous this teaching is. It lessens Jesus Christ.

    Just to remind us:

    Isaiah 9:6
    6 For unto us a Child is born,
    Unto us a Son is given;
    And the government will be upon His shoulder.
    And His name will be called
    Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
    ****Everlasting Father****, Prince of Peace.

  • Lydia

    “If a wife says No what is a non-egal husband supposed to do about it?”

    Seriously, I have come across some “Christian” patriarchy sites that say a husband should spank an unsubmissive wife. I am serious.

  • Don Johnson

    Yikes!

    The “rule of thumb” said originally that a husband could not beat his wife with a stick thicker than his thumb, if it was more it was abusive, BUT WAS NOT CONSIDERED ABUSIVE OTHERWISE. Yikes!

    I was hoping a non-egal would answer my questions.

  • tiro3

    “Why doesn’t Denny just read Philodemus and BGU 1208 online and have a discussion with me about them. We could discuss the structure of the passage in Hippolytus, or Tetrabiblos.”

    Sue, I’d love to see a discussion on that. Why wait!

    Brian #1118 “The Father always has His will over the Son and yet is not abusive”

    A careful reading of the Athenasian Creed and some research into Prof. Berkhoff’s Systematic Theology will show you that the Trinity has only ONE Will, there are not two or three wills. They all agree all of the time. None exerts pressure or their will upon the other. The miracle of the Trinity is that God is ONE, yet in three persons, yet not divided.

    Brian #119 “Yes, comp. does believe that a wife rebelling against her husband is a sin.”

    Do you have a scripture to support that. I cannot think of one. And if it is a sin to not obey a husband (a def. of rebelling) then what is the punishment. Parents have a responsibility to discipline their children. Do you claim that husbands have a responsibility to compel a wife to obey them.

    “I would hope that discussion with my wife would produce her willing submission. I wouldn’t come home one day and say “we’re moving to phoenix to do….”. I would discuss so she understands what I want to do, I would hope she gives me feedback. If, after prayer (counsel, etc.), I still saw Phoenix as what I should do, I would expect my wife to willingly submit.”

    IMO a better method of decision making is that both agree. And in both agreeing the intent is to see both the needs of the other met, and the needs of the whole relationship met.

  • Paula

    If this were strictly an academic exercise I would agree. But with comp teaching, half of all Christians are being told they can’t use certain spiritual gifts, can’t preach the gospel to the other half, and can’t disagree with their husbands. And some women pay for this with their lives. Hence the importance of this battle.

  • tiro3

    #1133, And for many women who do not actually lose their lives as in dying, many lose their lives in substandard quality because their dreams, goals, desires, skills do not matter much if at all compared to men’s.

  • Kathy

    Bonnie said:

    ‘It appears (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong) that Ware, et al see pre-eminence in Adam’s being created first and Eve from him. But, as has been said many times now, I think the “from him” part is the reason for the unity of marriage, of two-becoming-one.’

    I agree, with what you’ve said, Bonnie. I do think though that if Adam’s priority of creation is NOT an indication of male entitlement to rule, well, then the whole thing falls apart anyway. Point 1, or where it all begins is with his being created first. Everything rests on that. TRULEY, everything rests on that 1 little thing or is this NOT so? I tend to focus on things that are the basics or foundational, and I don’t see the woman’s coming from man as carrying the same amount of weight as his priority of creation. Everything begins somewhere, and that’s where this false doctrine begins.

  • Kathy

    Bonnie said:

    ‘I also think (and please, don’t anybody go ballistic, or at least count to 10 first ) that there is something about Adam being created first (before Eve) related to man (or the husband) being “head.”’

    Yep!

  • Sue

    Brian, #1118

    That is absolutely not what is taught. Marriage shouldn’t be degrading or humiliating. The Father didn’t degrade or humiliate the Son nor the Son the Spirit. I see relegating marriage to the statement “not worth it” as puzzling and troubling.

    Of course, it is not taught that marriage is degrading and humiliating for women.

    Every here of the story in one of the complementarian ladies books, where the mother is looking at a beautiful dress in the store window, and she says to her 6 year old daughter, “Wouldn’t you like a dress like that some day,” and the little girl says, “No, mommy, not if it means that someone will treat me like Daddy treats you.”

    Out of the mouths of babes. That woman was humiliated in front of her own daughter. The humiliation and degradation is just under the skin for many women. Of course, they want to remain married so they don’t admit it. It is even more degrading to be divorced so lots of women just live with an undercurrent of misery.

    Not everyone is like that, but clearly enough, because these are words and stories I have picked up elsewhere.

  • Kathy

    Corrie said:

    ‘Why do comps/pats stop at “woman came from man” all the time in their teachings when Paul went all the way and said BUT every man since Adam has come through woman so that all things come from God. You cannot teach the first part as if it is a stand alone doctrine, especially when Paul was clearly refuting their error of thinking.’

    I’ve thought of and wondered the same thing!

  • Sue

    What I want to know is how complementarians think that women only ever being allowed to do just only those things that there husband allows them to do for their entire life, is somehow no more restricting than the awful and incredibly difficult fact that men are subject to the boundaries of remaining faithful.

    So, the husband remains faithful but he also gets to decide everything, although nicely, and after listening respectfully to the wife presenting her views. The wife remains faithful to and gets to decide nothing or have any goals in life.

    Single women just have to remain within the fences set up by the great theologians who provide a list. Garbage. Why aren’t single women equal to men? But no, they have to remain within the bounds of domesticity, doing something related to babysitting or hospitality in order to demonstrate their submission to male leadership and thus demonstrate that they are Christians.

    They should be deeply ashamed of themselves for speaking to single women like that. Women who are equal and have equal potential. They just make me thing of some oldfashioned cowpunchers who wrestle calves to the ground to brand them – for their own good, of course.

    Or breaking in that bucking horse. What is in the coffee these men are drinking.

  • Kathy

    Sue said:

    ‘You can do anything with words.’

    That’s the biggest danger and why our language needs to be as close to the bible’s as possible.

    *Urgh*

  • Lydia

    Denny,

    I do not know you but am familiar with CBMW. I must admit I am a bit leary as to why you are allowing open and free discussion on this issue. I am delighted it is so but also confused. It is quite rare in the comp world…especially from women that are automatically blown off and labeled as feminists and liberals even if they are conservative on primary doctrine like me.

    See, I have noticed that very few comp men are commenting. Makes me a bit nervous. Should I soon expect to see an article at CBMW as to why interlinears are not good resources? Or perhaps how egal’s are just emotional? Or a declaration of authenteo no matter the researched facts? In other words, is this about background and research for a future defensive action?

    Is there a rear guard action in the works? :o)

    In any event, you have been a prince for allowing this discussion. Am I am indebted to you for it. Blessings to you.

    PS. I think we are getting on John’s nerves. Perhaps he could visit the Vision Forum website for some imbalance. :o)

  • Kathy

    ‘Adam/leadership: Ah, I understand what you mean. I don’t think Adam blithely watched Even sin and then came running up to take a bite (“Alright, she did it first, so now I get to!!!”).’

    Adam was a rebel, and dealt treacherously with God. So to much of my amazment, and probably yours:

    Hosea 6:7

    But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt reacherously against Me.

  • Kathy

    ‘Adam/leadership: Ah, I understand what you mean. I don’t think Adam blithely watched Even sin and then came running up to take a bite (“Alright, she did it first, so now I get to!!!”).’

    Adam was a rebel, and dealt treacherously with God. So to much of my amazment, and probably yours:

    Hosea 6:7

    But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

  • tiro3

    Bonnie said:
    ‘I also think (and please, don’t anybody go ballistic, or at least count to 10 first ) that there is something about Adam being created first (before Eve) related to man (or the husband) being “head.”’

    There is. It’s called ‘source of’, ‘coming through’, being part of. It also has an element of self sacrifice since something of his very flesh was used by God to produce that which the man needed so badly, an “other” equal to him that would provide the ‘help’ of companionship.

  • tiro3

    Lydia 1143,
    “I must admit I am a bit leary as to why you are allowing open and free discussion on this issue. I am delighted it is so but also confused. It is quite rare in the comp world…
    In other words, is this about background and research for a future defensive action?”

    I wondered the same. There are some forums that blatantly tried to egg on egal women into discussion for the express purpose of that and tried to coerce the women into believing that their words could be used any way the hierarchalists wanted because they posted on their website. 🙂

    But if they did so it would expose them in a sad way. Hopefully, that will not be the case.

  • Paula

    Personally, I don’t give a rip if Big Brother is watching and plotting. I will continue to expose their errors and stick to the Word. God has never let his people be extinguished, and woe to those who would try. They can launch all the disinformation campaigns they want; it won’t stop me.

  • Corrie

    Actually, the comp’s/pat’s errors begin in Genesis 1:26. They teach that the man was given the dominion mandate, as if the man alone was told by God to take dominion and subdue the earth. But, when you read that verse you clearly see that both the man and woman together were given the dominion mandate.

    This is one of the first big revelations I had when I started actually reading what scripture said instead of accepting what I was being told as truth.

    When I asked about it, I was told that the man was given the dominion mandate and the woman was created to assist him in HIS calling but that is not what scripture says at all.

    From there, they start to prop up this error with adding words to the Scripture.

    Do comps believe that a woman’s only calling is to marry and have children? This is what the hyper-patriarchalists believe and teach.

  • Corrie

    John,

    “This is ridiculous. I’ve never seen anything like this”

    I am sorry you feel that discussing what scripture says and examing it against what is taught as “ridiculous”. Then you would say that the Bereans were “ridiculous”, too?

    I was under the impression that complementarians value the input of women? Is that true? I don’t get that impression for your comments.

  • Sue

    I am sure that they have plenty of ammunition against me already. Perhaps my intemperate use of expressions like “crap.” LOL.

    Here is something really funny, and it is already on the internet so nothing new.

    Grudem’s book Ev. Feminism and Biblical truth has a review of Catherine Clark Kroeger’s book in it. And the reviewer says that it is “riddled with linguitic blunders.” Then Grudem quotes that phrase again a couple of times throughout the book.

    The linguisitc blunders were in some cases the difference between American and Canadian spelling, but never mind that.

    But later, I said that Dr. Grudem’s book was riddled with errors. This is because he suggests that the name Junias might have existed. Anyway, I just used that expression because it was in his book and I was echoing his book back to him. But he naturally he didn’t like it.

    So, its okay if Dr. Grudem says that Clark Kroeger’s book is “riddled with blunders” but it is not okay if I say that his book is “riddled with blunders.” One of those little rules of life. Its okay if a man does it, but it is not okay if a woman does it.

  • Sue

    I should define “crap.” The Philodemus fragment and the BGU 1208 fragment are both just that. They are shreds of papyri, one with half the words missing and lots of words that are reconstructed.

    The first is untranslatable and even then there can never be more than a 50-50 chance that the word authenteo was in the fragment, and no reason to translate it “those is authority.”

    I just wouldn’t teach a doctrine as a gospel issue on that evidence, and to keep all women from preaching, whew, Catherine Booth and Margaret Fell and Susanna Wesley from teaching a mixed Bible study group in her home. Who would do that and impoverish people like that.

  • Corrie

    “Which is why I asked all those questions about what a proper comp husband is to do with a wife who does not obey him.”

    Paula,

    They pondered this over on the CCC board. Some of the men complained that a police man has more authority over his own wife to make her do what she was supposed to (obey the law) but that he has no such authority that allows him to make his wife obey him. He doesn’t think that this is right and that husbands should have at least as much authority over their own wives as a police man does.

    One man said that he wouldn’t go any where with his wife if she wore pants. He also would only open doors for her and pull out her chair and the other male courtesies for her if she were wearing a dress. If she were wearing pants, he would do none of those things for her. He also threw away any catalogues that had pants in them.

    I can’t remember the other measures of “discipline” a husband could employ with his wife if she were not obeying him.

    As someone else said, there are patriarchal websites (Christian ones) that believe a husband has the authority to spank his wife. This was not so weird some years ago when wife-spanking was joked about and winked at.

    A comp husband can do the same thing any woman can if their spouse is sinning- pray, contact the proper authorities, correct and counsel with scripture, etc. I can’t think of a time where a husband has more “tools” at his disposal?

    I believe I once used the example of a woman with a drunk husband not allowing her husband to have the keys to the car even though he was ordering her to give them to her. She has the ethical and moral duty to take the keys away from him and do all she can to keep him from driving drunk.

    There aren’t too many situations that I can think of where drastic measures like the above would be used to keep a spouse from doing something the other didn’t want them to do.

    One man did say that if his wife were going to get an abortion, he would lock her in a room and keep her from going.

    When the rubber hits the road, there really is no difference in how a husband and wife deals with an erring spouse, is there? I might be missing some situation where the husband has more tools at his disposal for dealing with a erring spouse.

  • Corrie

    ““Why doesn’t Denny just read Philodemus and BGU 1208 online and have a discussion with me about them. We could discuss the structure of the passage in Hippolytus, or Tetrabiblos.””

    What is this and where can I find it? Thanks!

  • Paula

    So Corrie, the bottom line seems to be that the man would ultimately use physical force in some way on his non-compliant wife: lock her in a room (aka my “tallest tower” statement), take things from her, etc. If intimidation and the wrath of God don’t work, use brute force.

    The difference is that no theology ever tells the wife in any way to try to coerce her husband into submission.

    So basically they see the wife as a child, right?

  • John

    I’m not a complementarian, I was just commenting that over 1100 comments on a post is ridiculous and I have never seen anything like it. It absolutely amazes me that most of you have stuck with it. Usually, after 100 I just quietly leave, but this is unheard of.

  • Sue

    There are many ways that a husband can control the wife, mostly by denying things to the children, by sabotaging social events, by controlling money, car, phone, entrance and exit from the house. There are endless ways to control a woman without being physically violent.

    I have put BGU 1208 online on my site.

  • tiro3

    #1157 John,

    🙂 It is interesting isn’t it. Don’t think I’ve ever seen this many comments on a blog either.

    When something is important and it directly affects people lives, as this topic is and does, one is less likely to just say “oh well” and walk away.

  • Kathy

    ‘They pondered this over on the CCC board. Some of the men complained that a police man has more authority over his own wife to make her do what she was supposed to (obey the law) but that he has no such authority that allows him to make his wife obey him. He doesn’t think that this is right and that husbands should have at least as much authority over their own wives as a police man does.’

    W h a t ? I shouldn’t be surprised but it is also so silly that I can hardly stand it? That’s not healthy.

  • Kathy

    ‘I can’t remember the other measures of “discipline” a husband could employ with his wife if she were not obeying him.’

    Can;t wait for the list to start racking up! It’s gonna come! Yikes!

  • Bonnie

    Responding late here to comments from yesterday…

    Brian,

    It seems that if you define headship negatively then it makes it difficult to resolve how the Son willingly serves the father.

    This is true. However, I (and others) haven’t defined headship negatively; I’ve said that it is about source/origin (Eve/woman was made from Adam/man, for him).

    As I’ve said, I believe that “submit” in Ephesians 5:22-24 is about the submission itself – the type of submission – not about an analogous relationship between Christ and man (sans woman). “Head” is about the relationship of Christ to the church, Father to the Son, and husband to wife. “Submission” here is about the church to Christ, the Son to the Father, and the wife to the husband. Christ, the Father, and the husband are not leader of or authority figure to the church, the Son, or the wife, respectively.

    In Ephesians 4 (15-16, which precedes the passage in chapters 5-6) and Colossians 1 (18-19) and 2 (18-20), Christ is described as the head of the Body from which all parts of the Body grow, as well as the beginning, the firstborn from the dead.

    The reason that I don’t believe that the Ephesians passage is about an analogous relationship between Christ and man is that woman is also part of the church of which Christ is head, and because man is also part of the church of which Christ is head – man is sinful (even when redeemed) and Christ is not.

  • Bonnie

    Marilyn,

    My submission frees my husband to listen to me and open himself to me in a way that he was not able to during an earlier period in our marriage when I resisted submission.

    This is indeed the submission written of in Ephesians 5, and it’s a beautiful thing. But it does not require a husband’s leadership, nor that a wife be placed under her husband, nor that he has authority over his wife.

    I believe that the answer to men being responsible to their families is not them assuming a hierarchical position within it, but humbly submitting to Christ and caring for them as he is called to do. Both men and woman must take leadership themselves to do what is right by all those with whom they are in relationship.

  • Bonnie

    Don, not only does the emperor have no clothes, but there is an elephant in the room. Which is, I believe, the fact that the teaching of male authority or leadership over women as a sex or as wives is inherently abusive. It’s not just that it might be mistaken as a license to abuse by those so inclined, but that it is abusive, or at the very least disrespectful and dishonoring, at its core.

  • Bonnie

    Brian, I know you addressed this to Sue but I’d like to respond:

    I think you diminish complementarian women’s lives or simply insult me with:
    “Men do not protect women, they deprive women of a full life.”

    Men should protect women when necessary. But they deprive women of full participation in the marriage and perhaps other things when they believe and do as Ware said in his sermon. It could also be considered insult.

    That women willingly place themselves in a subordinate position to their husbands (as opposed to submit to them as per Eph. 5) doesn’t mean that it’s required of them or even the right thing for them to do.

  • Paula

    More about the Body:

    If a wife must go through her husband to get to God, then isn’t that like the right hand asking the left hand’s permission to do something? Isn’t the left hand thereby playing “brain” to the right?

  • Don Johnson

    If they believe it because they have been taught it, then to act in faith they need to do it, as not doing it means they are not acting in faith.

    This is a reason what the Bible actually does teach is important to teach.

  • Bonnie

    Brian (Another),

    Complementarianism is not arbitrary authoritarian forcing of one’s will. That is absolutely not what is taught. Marriage shouldn’t be degrading or humiliating.

    But this is what the complementarian doctrine offered by Ware and many others teaches, indirectly. It does so, not by telling the husband he needs to enforce this (which would be directly abusive), but to tell the wife she must willingly subject herself to his will. This is the elephant in the room.

    If the wife’s will is subordinate to her husband’s, or a woman’s is subordinate to a man’s simply by fact of her gender, then there is arbitrary, or in this case male/husband, authoritarian forcing of the will. If not by him, then by the teaching of female (or wifely) subordination itself. That a woman/wife may acquiesce in the name of “submission” does not make it not so. This is degrading and humiliating.

    I do agree with you about accountability; it is absolutely necessary. But don’t you see that a wife is the best accountability partner that a husband can have? If this accountability can be overridden by his “authority” or “leadership,” then where is the accountability? Yes, he’s still accountable to God, above his wife – of course. As she is accountable first to God as well. But to suggest that he would need male accountability without also being accountable to her indeed dishonors, disrespects, etc. etc. her.

  • Bonnie

    tiro3,

    the Trinity has only ONE Will, there are not two or three wills. They all agree all of the time.

    Yes!!! This is why the analogy of the Trinity to the husband-wife relationship is faulty!

  • Bonnie

    2 Tim. 3:5 Holding to a form of godliness although they have denied its power…

    This is big!!

    There are several characteristics in that passage which would describe the husband who expects wife-subordination, like the husband described by Ware in his by-now-infamous statement: lovers of self, arrogant, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, lacking self-control, haters of good, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than God. The entire list would apply to those who react abusively.

    (Yes, these indeed also apply to the truly unsubmissive wife; i.e., one who does not see that everything she does serves her husband in some way.)

  • Bonnie

    John,

    I just wanted to let you know that 1000+ comments on a blog thread is not unheard of. I have seen more — over 2500 — to a post at Pioneer Woman. (She has almost 2000 subscribers to her blog).

    One of the beauties of blogging is that it facilitates discussion like this!

  • Egal-eye

    Brian and other male comps, I wonder what your response would be, if you could just imagine for a moment, that the tables were reversed, and now, you were under your wife’s headship, for the rest of your life and in all matters. Now she had the final say. Now you could no longer teach or aspire to teach mixed groups, or be an elder or deacon or door greeter, etc., etc. Now your will and desires and goals for life took a backseat to hers. Now your responses to children might regularly include, “I have to see what your mom decides”, or “Mom said we are all going to move to Phoenix”, etc. Doesn’t that make you feel like a child or a person in some kind of bondage even a tiny bit?

    Now imagine that when you decided to express your feelings, your wife BEAT you or pulled the distributor wire off the car so you couldn’t go anywhere (and you lived in the country and she had taken your name off the checkbook and you had quit working when your first child was born). Imagine that every week you had to ask for grocery money and hope that she would give you some before the food supplies became seriously low and you had tiny ones to feed, but she survived because she had the distributor wire, and the money, and she could get food when you couldn’t. Many other possibilities could be listed. These are just ones I saw happen.

    Or simply imagine that she is very, very nice and always asks for your input first, and then still has the final say.

    Still also waiting for answers to Don’s question #1123 and Paula’s question restated at the end of #1122.

  • Egal-eye

    Today is the fourth of July, and it was on this day-at 2 in the morning, hoping again that the distributor wire had not been confiscated-many years ago that I had to literally escape for my life with an infant and a toddler from a husband who knew the bible well and believed himself to be my head. This is a particularly memorable day for me.

  • Egal-eye

    Yes, it was. To add a bit of humor to what was NOT funny at the time, is that the home I escaped to was just a block away from drug-lord ridden apartment buildings. Sometime around noon, I heard a big explosion and I remember thinking, “Oh great, I just escaped my husband and now I am going to get shot in a drug war! I grabbed my 3-year-old and my 6-month-old and hit the floor. I stayed there for a half hour before I finally had the courage to make for the car and leave the vicinity. That evening, when I heard the sound again, I realized that it was an M80 explosive they had set off for practice, perhaps, as part of a Fourth of July celebration in an adjacent park.

    Don, the thing is, I remember thinking at the time that I was safe, now, and so were my children. I was to realize, over the course of a few months, that I still had much work to do in terms of undoing all the emotional and psychological damage that comes from an abusive situation. If anything, my work had just begun. It can take years to restore what locusts eat. God is very gracious in all this, but it takes time.

  • Don Johnson

    I hope you know that abuse is a Biblical reason for divorce. It is derived from Ex 21:10-11 and neither Jesus nor the rest of the NT denies this, altho they can be taken out of 1st century context and seem to.

  • madame

    I know I had said a hundred comments or so back that I was bowing out of this thread. But I keep coming back to read because I’m getting so much food for thought from it!

    Egal-eye, I am so sorry you have gone through all of that. I hope that your story helps other women to realize they should never get to the point where they feel completely helpless. I hope you make some people think about how they might feel if the tables were reversed in their marriage. I’m sure I wouldn’t like to be the ultimate responsible person, always the one that has to make the final decision, always the one everyone looks at if things go wrong with my family.
    But it’s not meant to be that way. We are meant to carry the burden together. We need to remember that two have to walk in agreement. Two can carry the burden better than one, and we don’t have to do it alone, we can come to Jesus, our ultimate Head, to get wisdom.
    I think the teaching of husband authority over the wife forgets what helper means.
    We could say that Ezer must mean superior because in most instances it refers to God. That would put women in a position of authority over the man, right?
    But the following word, Kenegdo (I think that’s it!) adds the meaning of equality, making a woman the adequate, ideal, perfect helper for the man.

    Bonnie, as usual you’ve made me think.
    I think we are missing what submission means. We’ve somehow mixed it up with subordination or subservience. Right?

    Bonnie, you said

    ” I do agree with you about accountability; it is absolutely necessary. But don’t you see that a wife is the best accountability partner that a husband can have? If this accountability can be overridden by his “authority” or “leadership,” then where is the accountability? Yes, he’s still accountable to God, above his wife – of course. As she is accountable first to God as well. But to suggest that he would need male accountability without also being accountable to her indeed dishonors, disrespects, etc. etc. her.”

    And that disrespect hurts.

    Many women will live with circumstances like Egal-eye described above. They feel they can’t tell people about it, or if it slips in a conversation, they try to cover it up. Then there’s no accountability at all.

  • madame

    ” I hope you know that abuse is a Biblical reason for divorce. It is derived from Ex 21:10-11 and neither Jesus nor the rest of the NT denies this, altho they can be taken out of 1st century context and seem to.”

    Interesting. I looked into that not long ago.

    The thing is, if Christian leaders would teach what is right, not make assumptions when they are laying out doctrine, and if churches would be more ready to help hurting families, you’d have a lot less divorce.

  • Egal-eye

    Don, yes, abuse is a reason for divorce. I wish I had been able to read, back then, David Instone-Brewer’s outstanding book on divorce. You are right, in an earlier statement, that his book is a must-read. I only discovered it a few months ago, but wish I had had it 24 years ago. I did long since divorce that husband. Humbly, yes, but rightly. Instone-Brewer’s book is an excellent example of how MUCH we need to understand what the bible meant to the hearers at the time it’s parts were written. Another of your earlier points, Don.

    Pivotal to resolving this whole issue, as I see it are:
    *Clearly reading and understanding the related Genesis account
    *Understanding Jesus’ teachings per servanthood (notice He never used the phrase ‘servant-leader’)
    *defining and understanding submission
    *defining and understanding the concept of head
    *Grasping that everything post-fall is about true and total redemption of persons and relationships
    *Learning pertinent cultural contextual information
    *Understanding what Christ truly intends for our relationships to be like within marriage, to one another as Christians, within families, and beyond.
    *Truly understanding the second commandment as well as the first.

    I will think of more after I submit this but this is a beginning.

  • Paula

    And these women go to their pastors looking for help, only to be blamed and sent back into danger. It is these pastors who are “misunderstanding” comp teachings! Shouldn’t that tell the comp teachers something? We aren’t talking about Joe Abuser here, but seminary grads who read comp literature. They see the pain and fan it into flame by blaming victims and rarely confronting abusers. They teach male entitlement and counsel accordingly.

  • Egal-eye

    Paula, you comment that these women go to pastors for help only to be blamed and sent back into danger. In my current state, I am very wary (in the Berean sense) of any pastor’s advice and have been told that I am rebellious and not willing to be under godly authority!!!!!! I am more than willing to be persuaded by those, official pastors or not, women or men, whose teachings are sound per my grasp of the bible.

  • Don Johnson

    The way I see it is first everyone needs to accept Jesus as Messiah, however you understand Messian to mean at the time, but at least your savior. Then everyone is to be a servant, everyone. If they are not, then they are not at the servent level yet, they are still at the new believer level. Some servants then go on to become deacons and/or elders, but they do not stop being servants, and more importantly if they stop, then it is back to square 1.

    But this does not happen sometimes when it should.

  • Paula

    *Grasping that everything post-fall is about true and total redemption of persons and relationships

    I’ve seen the illustration of God’s unfolding redemptive plan as like pulling a heavy cart up a hill, by use of a wheel block that keeps the cart from rolling back. The cart is pulled a distance, then the block is set so the ones pulling it can rest.

    So God’s “rules” at various times in history are like the wheel block: they keep us from backsliding. They are not the end, the goal, the top of the hill, but they keep us from sinking too far. That is why God made concessions to human weakness– without it being divine sanction. He was only keeping us to a lower limit for a time.

    But Jesus’ sacrifice was “the top of the hill”; all has been revealed (Heb. 1:2 etc.). He pulled the cart to the top, and now there are no excuses, no appeals to weakness, for our strength comes from Him. No more concessions can be made for things like slavery, lording over, superiority of gender, class, or race.

    And I have to keep asking why, since it is clear from Jesus’ own words that the greatest is the least, that so many men keep clamoring to be —- the lowest! And they are bent on keeping women from this lowest of positions! Utter insanity.

    Egal-eye, you may be interested in some ideas we’ve been throwing around at http://www.fether.net/2008/06/29/be-ware-of-assertions/#comment-306 , starting at about comment #17.

  • Marilyn

    Bonnie,

    You wrote: “But it does not require a husband’s leadership, nor that a wife be placed under her husband, nor that he has authority over his wife.”

    This is where we disagree. I believe that complementarity implies hierarchy. I believe that if my husband is to be held primarily responsible for protecting and providing for me, then he needs commensurate authority to carry out his responsibilities. This is the argument that Dr. Emerson Eggerichs makes in his complementarian book, Love and Respect.

    I also like the anecdote that Rev. John Ensor shares in his complementarian book, Doing Things Right in Matters of the Heart. When women come to him with questions about the need for male leadership, he typically responds by asking whether they want (wanted) their boyfriends (husbands) to propose to them or vice versa. Inevitably, the women answer that it is the man who should make the proposal. Is this initiation/response merely an arcane courtship ritual, or is it a custom that is deeply symbolic of the basic relationship between husbands and wives? I believe that it is the latter. Rev. Ensor again summarizes this nicely with the phrase He Leads/She Guides, a phrase that is also used by secular writer Michael Gurian to describe sociological evidence on how men and women relate to each other.

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    Marilyn, #1186: “I believe that complementarity implies hierarchy.”

    Here’s a posting about hierarchy that may be of interest:

    “A blogger … took issue with the idea that some hierarchies are natural and ought to be respected. “We have matured beyond thinking hierarchically,” she said.

    She might as well have said, “We have matured beyond thinking,” because it is absolutely impossible to reason without ordering principles, and ordering principles imply hierarchy. … Had she said, “We have matured beyond drawing conclusions,” she’d have been not a whit less absurd. Her statement implies hierarchical order, of a confused and inverted sort. She believes that mankind evidently is “maturing,” meaning that it is advancing towards a more finished or fulfilled intellectual state, for which the past, at best, was prologue. She believes that to believe in hierarchy is inferior to the vast intellectual and social leveling which she believes she favors.

    But reasoning is in itself the discovery of order, and order in nature as in abstract thought is inconceivable without rule or law or principle. Ockham’s famous razor — useful in a limited way, but dangerous for the childish and the silly to handle — is a principle to order principles that order. Of two explanations — that is to say, of two sets of ordering principles set forth to define what you are talking about or explain its operation — that one is to be favored, is superior, which avoids multiplying assumptions. Or take mathematics. When my homeschooled daughter and I went over the first couple of books of Euclid some years ago, I saw for the first time the deep identity of simple algebra and simple geometry; we saw it, because it all flows from a few fundamental definitions, whose implications are drawn out as the ramifications of trunk and branches and leaves from the acorn.

    “Perhaps,” you will say, “she was thinking about social hierarchies and not intellectual structures.” If so, the more fool she. First, it is simply impossible to get anything done without hierarchy. Teaching, for instance — implies that there is a thing to be learned, that learning is good and ignorance bad, that there is somebody called a teacher who knows the thing, and somebody called a student who doesn’t. Even moral and epistemological relativists, those nihilists in sheepish clothing, demand hierarchy in the classroom. “All definitions of good and evil are socially constructed,” says the professor, and “All definitions of good and evil are socially constructed” write the students, and God help them if they don’t remember it for the exam. Can you fight a war without hierarchy? You can’t even lay a sewer pipe without it.

    But hierarchy is not only, in its place, a good thing. It is an inevitable thing, and that is something we’d better attend to. Consider the case of a judiciary deciding for us all what kind of society we are going to have — because that’s what it has done, in seizing for itself the supposed authority to determine what shall count as a marriage. That is supposed to be an example of the leveling of hierarchy? Really? A handful of overschooled well-to-do smooth-handed secularist snobs, looking down upon the traditional beliefs of a large majority of their countrymen, looking down upon what everybody has said about marriage from the ancient Romans to the current Pope, looking down even upon those limping and halting sociological studies that get around to discovering that the sun rises in the east and that children really do need mother and father, decide that we are past all that now, and we will have what the court determines, and will eat our peas, too. Yes, master, yes, missus. To hear is to obey.

    You obey, or you obey. On earth there is no third choice. The only question, ultimately, is whom. Christians are called to obey the God whose very commands set us free. The alternative is to heed somebody else, enjoy a petty and temporary license, and clap yourself in irons.

    Read it all at Between Obedience and Obedience

  • Egal-eye

    Don, you are right on in 1184. Here is what I run up against in conversations with pastoral comps per servanthood. They will claim that they ARE being servants, serving the body. Somehow, though, they don’t see, as you touch on, Paula, that they are limiting certain kinds of servanthood (pastor, teacher, elder, deacon, etc.) to men only. Put another way, they are refusing to allow women to ‘serve’ in these ways.

    Per who proposes to whom: many of these things are simply cultural habits, I believe. I know of many couples who simply come to a point in their relationship where they know they are getting married and go from there. A ‘he proposes to she’ scenario doesn’t always take place.

  • madame

    ” I believe that complementarity implies hierarchy. I believe that if my husband is to be held primarily responsible for protecting and providing for me, then he needs commensurate authority to carry out his responsibilities.”

    I disagree (and agree with Bonnie)

    Why does he need authority OVER you in order to provide for you and protect you?
    I believe he has a responsibility towards you, but you have it towards him too.
    We have different responsibilities, but I don’t believe this needs hierarchy.

    Could you explain how you understand this need for authority over you?

  • Don Johnson

    I believe the genders are complementary to each other, but I do not believe in hierarchy in the home.

    I object to the use by non-egals of their invented word “complementarian” as it is Orwellian doublespeak, meant to mislead by not clearly identifying their main claim, which is men are supposed to be on top.

  • Bonnie

    Madame,

    Glad you’re back 🙂

    as usual you’ve made me think.

    Glad to be of service 😉

    I think we are missing what submission means. We’ve somehow mixed it up with subordination or subservience. Right?

    I am not an expert on submission, by any means, and I think that sometimes it does refer to subordination, or “following,” or obedience to someone or something. But I don’t believe that it amounts to subservience, in Christ, because of what Paul said to masters and slaves in Eph. 6. Nor do I believe that, in marriage, or in friendship of any kind, it means subordination.

    Many women will live with circumstances like Egal-eye described above. They feel they can’t tell people about it, or if it slips in a conversation, they try to cover it up. Then there’s no accountability at all.

    This truly is the even darker side of the dark side. I think many times, if a victim of abuse does manage to tell someone, they are not believed, because (as a defense mechanism perhaps) people think, “How could anyone possibly do something like that?” Or, they may think that they themselves are being manipulated by the one telling them (which sometimes is true…a victim “embellishes,” or a non-victim makes up a story.) There is so much ugliness and shame and humiliation for everyone involved.

  • Bonnie

    Here’s another thought I had (for anyone who isn’t tired of hearing my thoughts by now) while listening to my kids’ history CDs (which we play in the car to reinforce what they’ve read):

    The complementarianism espoused by Ware, et al, is a form of feudalism.

    Think about it.

  • Bonnie

    Marilyn,

    I believe that if my husband is to be held primarily responsible for protecting and providing for me, then he needs commensurate authority to carry out his responsibilities.

    He has it, in Ephesians 5:25ff He is held responsible for protecting and providing for you, as your husband. But it goes no further than that. You certainly need not be subordinate to him, nor does your will need be subordinate to his, in order for him to do this. He need not be your “leader” or “authority” in order to do this.

    I do think that male proposal to a prospective bride is proper, because of the fact that woman was made from man, for man. Again, no need to bring hierarchy into it.

  • Don Johnson

    It is older than that.

    NET Est 1:22 He sent letters throughout all the royal provinces, to each province according to its own script and to each people according to its own language,44 that every man should be ruling his family45 and should be speaking the language of his own people.46

  • madame

    Marilyn,
    Another issue I have with male authority above his wife because she needs protection. Why does she need protection and from what? And don’t husbands also need protection?

    I know that I’d need my husband to step in if a man were getting ready to punch me. That’s a typical one.
    In a book I started reading and very quickly put back down, the author said that a husband should take care of matters if an angry neighbor comes over to complain. A wife isn’t emotionally strong enough for that. (author’s argument)

    Now, I believe there will be occasions when I can solve the problem better than my husband can. Why shouldn’t I solve it?

    He also said that a husband has to protect his wife from their children’s disobedience. Basically, he has to be the one who takes care of major discipline problems while the wife only has to enforce his rule.
    If this is true, does he need authority over his wife to do this?

    A great example is Ruth Graham. She protected Billy from committing to too many things while he was at home by being the middle person. In her biography and in one book she wrote, there are quotes from her on how he would have worked himself to exhaustion had she not stepped in in many occasions and “fended off” the people who wanted time with Billy.
    She didn’t need to hold some authority over him in order to protect him. She acted as a helper.

    Why don men need authority in order to protect while women can protect without this authority?

  • Sue

    Great thread and Egal-Eye and Bonnie, thanks for your comments.

    Egal-Eye,

    My heart was pumping as I read your story. 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. And not by other men, but by learning to make adult decisions for themselves.

    In actual fact, I worked as much as my husband, both of us being unemployed, or self-employed from time to time. But we were always co-providers, and co-protectors of the children except that I did not have equal say. So, I had equal responsibility for the family but not equal authority.

    It all unwound in the end. How sad that there was not a shred of proper Christian teaching but just this “wives submit” and “hierarchy is necessary” stuff.

    What a tragedy for anyone in a less than perfect relationship.

  • Marilyn

    Madame,

    I’ll try to explain by using my husband’s responsibility to provide for the family as an example. In using this example, I’m assuming that we’re in agreement that complementarity (with or without hierarchy) implies that husbands are assigned primary responsibility for providing for their families.

    I believe that my husband needs authority commensurate with his responsibilities. He needs to have authority over where we live, because where we live determines where he can take a job. He needs authority over how much we spend on a house, because the size of our mortgage payment restricts him to jobs that provide enough to make the mortgage payment. If he does not have the authority to fulfill his responsibility to provide, his ability to carry out his responsibility to provide is severely limited.

    Now, obviously, my husband’s authority is to be exercised sacrificially. He is to love me as Christ loved the Church. He is to listen to me, to value me, and to give serious consideration to my views. He does do that. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is my submission that frees him to listen to me and to value my views. My submission increases his willingness to listen to me, because my holding a view that differs from his in no way diminishes the authority that he needs to carry out his responsibilities to me. In the countercultural way that so typifies Jesus’ teachings, it is my submission that empowers me because it is my submission that frees my husband to hear me.

    My last post…..I’m off on vacation.

  • madame

    ” I do think that male proposal to a prospective bride is proper, because of the fact that woman was made from man, for man. Again, no need to bring hierarchy into it.”

    24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:29

    No hint of hierarchy, but there seems to be an implication of leadership in it, meaning that a man is the one who should take the first step.

    This verse has kept my mind busy lately.

  • Lydia

    TUAD, I went to the link you gave. Interesting reading. It is the great conundrum in Christian thinking in the West because we have married social politics and our spiritual beliefs. Since Constantine,
    we have interposed the hierarchies of the worldly system onto the Body. But in a representative Republic it is even harder keeping the lines from being blurred between what is Christ’ and what is Caesar’s.

    The difference is that we did not have it imposed upon us, we gladly imposed it upon ourselves.

    This was not a big problem in the 1st Century. When we read in scripture to obey the civil authorites, we forget they had to deal with such men as Nero and Caligula as earthly hierarchies not to mention Herod and the Pharisees.

    What wonderful news to them that Jesus taught: “Not so among you.”

    The Body of Christ is to be different. What functions as authority in the world’s system functions as a true servant in the Body. In the Body, there is only clergy. There is no laity.

    29But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men”

    Acts 5

  • Marilyn

    Sue and Madame,

    Your posts 1197 and 1198 came in as I was drafting mine. Sorry, but I don’t have time to continue the discussion. However, I can’t leave without saying to Sue that my heart goes out to you. Let me reiterate my earlier view that women are not called to submit to the true abuse that you experienced.

  • madame

    ” It all unwound in the end. How sad that there was not a shred of proper Christian teaching but just this “wives submit” and “hierarchy is necessary” stuff.

    What a tragedy for anyone in a less than perfect relationship.”

    Sue,
    That’s so true, and so sad.

    I don’t know your full story, but what I’ve been able to glean from your posts sounds extremely sad.

    It’s good to see people who have gone through hell trying to help women to not step into it. It’s a sign of real concern and love. Thank you.

  • Lydia

    Marilyn, You are assuming many things in your example. Even among Christians, some husbands die young, some wives die young. Things happen. Accidents happen and even some are brought down by terminal illness earlier than expected. Even wars can change the dynamics of husband as provider for the family.

    To make every decision around the husband’s capacity to earn a living, is actually making the ability to earn money and provide the true reason for authority.

    It is the parents responsibility to provide for children. When one cannot, the other does. Surely you do not think my young widowed mother was in sin because she had to provide for us while my father was dying and after he died. Did that make my mother the authority over a dying man? No. There is no authority in that situation even while being the provider. There is only mutual love and submission.

    Thankfully, my mother was a businesswoman who had plenty of experience and her own business. She was not lost in this situation or dependent upon the charity of others. My businessman father had been her biggest cheerleader and silent partner.

  • Don Johnson

    The parents are responsible to care for their kids, how they divide this up is up to them. It is possible to be a househusband the wife work, this can make sense if the wife has more earning potential or just wants out of the house.

  • Sue

    Marilyn,

    In case you drop back in.

    I’m assuming that we’re in agreement that complementarity (with or without hierarchy) implies that husbands are assigned primary responsibility for providing for their families.

    This is absolutely not true, in reality, in ideology or in any way, shape or form in any place in the world. The mother has equal responsibility for the children she has brought into the world.

    This is one of the most disturbing things that has been said in this entire discussion. I believe that you are a compassionate person but this notion is wrong and dangerous.

    Please understand that I am not reacting to you personally, but this is a terribly wrong teaching for any mother. She may not always earn the money, but if the children are not properly provided for, she has equal responsibility before God and the law to see that they are. Where is the natural feeling of the mother in all this, the law that is written in our hearts as parents, as mothers.

  • Don Johnson

    This is a supposed trade/benefit the woman is making in order to be a sub-male, she gets taken care of. She is SUPPOSED to be taken care of, this is true, marriage is a partnership, but the twist that is sold is that somehow that man is more responsible so he SHOULD have more authority.

  • Sue

    I don’t think that it was any sadder than many other peoples. And my ex husband was, in many ways, a valuable person. The details are not edifying but I relate to Egal-Eyes story.

    But certain aspects, my rigid but happy upbringing, contrasted with a secular education, an attempt to make it all normal – for years. The unwinding, as my children grew older, but that is their story.

    And now I have two or three friends, who are on the brink of leaving their husbands after 20 years of covering up. One woman, just the other day, had social services call her and tell her that she had to separate for the sake of her kids or they would act. She is well-educated, has a good job, is a beautiful talented 50 year old woman.

    My own parents and grand parents were happy normal people. Both my mother and my grandmother were as well-educated as their husbands but they did not work outside the home. They ran the home. They were the gentle mistresses and leaders of their own homes, and the deciding parent for the children. They kept the house and home a civilized and hospitable place because they truly were responsible for the tone and atmosphere in their own home. They were the authority in their own home, the last word. The father offered his last word as well.

    I do not remember my parents ever having a serious philosophical difference. They always deferred to each other, depending on who was most involved in any activity.

    Don’t ask me why this worked but the words authority and submission were non-existent in my own home, and things ran perfectly well.

    I am sick of hearing that anything but a hierarchy can run well.

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    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.

  • Sue

    TUAD,

    These are facts. 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.

  • Corrie

    Paula,

    “Note that it is the male who joins to the female. What does that signify?”

    Good question. I have often wondered that, too. You KNOW it would be significant if it was stated that the female shall leave her mother and father and be joined to her husband. A whole doctrine would be built out of it about how this signifies her submission and all the other trappings that goes along with patriocentricity.

    But, since it was the man who was told to leave his parents and be joined to his wife, it is overlooked and downplayed. A meaning isn’t assigned to it because it has no bearing on bolstering the heirarchal position.

  • madame

    Comment 1212, Corrie,

    I sooooo agree!

    If you read over at the Bayly Brother’s blog, you’ll find that they actually believe it’s a woman who leaves her family.

    I did a search on cbmw looking for articles that dealt with the “leave and cleave” and it’s significance, and one thing that jumped out at me was that most writers have no problem accepting mutual leaving and cleaving. The man is told to leave and cleave, but they say “both spouses should leave”.
    This is obvious, of course, but mutual submission is NOT obvious, though explicit in the text.

    Very amusing indeed.

  • madame

    Corrie,
    it annoys me greatly how they gloss over it because I know that lack of leaving is the cause of a huge percentage of marriage strife.
    Nothing like that third person in the marriage, running a young couple’s life.

  • tiro3

    #1171 Egaleye- “it was on this day-at 2 in the morning, hoping again that the distributor wire had not been confiscated-many years ago that I had to literally escape for my life with an infant and a toddler from a husband who knew the bible well and believed himself to be my head.”

    I’m so sorry that you had to experience this. The problem with men whose perception of women is that they need to treat them that way, is that their perception of God is likely as skewed in some way as their perception of women.

  • Corrie

    “If providing and protecting must entail authority over those provided for and protected, then Phoebe had authority over Paul! She is called a prostatis over many including Paul in Romans 16 ”

    Paula,

    Good point.

    Also, don’t forget about the women who traveled with Jesus and supported His ministry on this earth from their own means. Were those women in authority over Jesus and the disciples? After all, it was their money that was bank-rolling their ministry.

    It would also make Rahab an authority over the Israelite spies since she provided for their needs and protected them from danger.

    Protection goes both ways and I believe we all have a duty to protect others in any way we can. Someone who provides protection for another does not equal having authority over the one they are protecting.

    If we look at bodyguards, they are employed to protect those who hire them.

    Is there a verse in scripture that teaches these things?

    Each one of us has a duty to provide protection to others in the ways we are able. As a woman, I do not have the upper body strength that a man has but a baseball bat or shovel comes in very handy.

    Actually, protecting others is just another way to submit to others and serve them.

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    Sue: “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.

  • Paula

    Yes, Corrie, and this “protect and provide” is extended to elders in the church as well. In other words, “If they are not able to protect and provide for their families, how can they protect and provide for the church?” Protection is what shepherds do; the shepherds supports and serves the sheep, they are not to support and serve the shepherd.

  • Don Johnson

    Gen 2:24 was written in a patriachical culture and discusses the man half of a marriage. The reason this is important is if the man stays then he is under his father, to start a new home, he must leave.

  • Corrie

    Madame,

    “In a book I started reading and very quickly put back down, the author said that a husband should take care of matters if an angry neighbor comes over to complain. A wife isn’t emotionally strong enough for that. (author’s argument)”

    I think I read the same book. 🙂

    Actually, it might be better for the wife to talk to the angry neighbor depending up the husband and how he reactive he is and whether or not he has his temper under control. How many of these situations have come to blows because a man is not emotionally strong enough to deal with the situation?

    Really, diplomacy and diffusing hostile situations is a strength of many women as well as many men. There are many women and men who should allow their more diplomatic spouses to handle the angry neighbor.

    How about an example from scripture? Abigail and Nabal. Nabal was a hot-headed fool. Abigail had compsure, wisdom and diplomacy. She knew how to diffuse an angry neighbor who just happened to have been offended by her hot-headed husband. Nabal royaly screwed it up and Abigail fixed the situation. Obviously women ARE emotionally strong enough to handle difficult people. Another example is Esther. She was married to a barbarian who was known for his brutality.

    I am so tired of this “women are more emotional” stuff. So, maybe more women than men cry more easily at weddings, funerals and sappy stories? What does that prove? Even Jesus showed emotion, that is the stuff of being human and it is NOT a sign of weakness. Have people forgotten that anger and lust/greed (for anything) is an emotion that rules the person in its clutches?

  • Lydia

    TUAD, Why don’t you go volunteer in a crisis shelter for women? It would be a real eye opener for you.

    CPS trainers will tell you they get just as many calls from the upper class neighborhoods as they do the lower class ones.

    These are not emotive arguements. They are facts. There is a long time strain within evangelical Christianity of blaming the victim and dismissing facts as ’emotional’ reactions. And even protecting the abuser.

    We have seen this reaction in some SBC churches…one actually protected a pedophile minister because he said he was sorry to the senior pastor! He got to remain in his position until it became public.

    And misinterpreting scripture for the personal gain of authority feeds into the problem. Ware is teaching that men get to decide when the wife is being unsubmissive. Now, that is power.

  • Lydia

    “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.”

    I agree with the highest cause or mortality to infants is abortion. But your stats seem a bit off. Do you mind giving me the source?

    Abortions have been decreasing for quite a few years now in the US.

    We also need to define abortion. Vision Forum Founder, Doug Phillips, believes that the removal of a tubal pregnancy is akin to abortion.

  • Paula

    #1224,

    Not only that, but TUAD’s citation is a red herring. The topic is the safety of WOMEN. By turning it to the safety of babies, it is hoped that attention will be diverted from the actual topic of who is to blame for death and battering of women.

    Fact still remains that male entitlement is being pushed by comp. teachings, and it frequently is cited by PASTORS as justification for male violence and female subjugation. The statistics show this to be resulting in physical harm and death to women. There is no denying this, and we are not so naive as to let this slide just because there are other deaths in society.

    In fact, this very diversionary tactic is the same one used by gay sympathizers. Would TUAD also argue that since other sins are permitted in churches– sins committed by heteros– then homo sin should also be permitted? Same argument– same red herring.

  • tiro3

    1186 Marilyn – “I believe that complementarity implies hierarchy. I believe that if my husband is to be held primarily responsible for protecting and providing for me, then he needs commensurate authority to carry out his responsibilities.”

    Interesting idea but I’ve never seen it in Scripture. Far as I can tell if we want to bless, support, encourage, uplift, or support a person in any way, it is not necessary to take control over their lives to do so. We don’t need to boss them, critique them, control their activities, instruct them, etc in or to assist, help, support, provide for or protect another.

    But I am open to seeing what Scriptures you think show that as a principle.

  • Corrie

    “The man sinned first, he did this when he did not obey God’s injunction to protect the Garden, do not forget the positive commands as well as the famous negative one not to eat from the TOKOGAE.”

    Don,

    I believe that the man sinned first, also, or else the Bible would not say that sin ENTERED the world through Adam. I posted about this early on in this discussion but the Bible is clear that we do not have to act for something to be sin (ie., Jesus talking about the person who lusts after others or hates his brother).

    Colossians tells us that each person will give an account of their own selves and this is right after the commands to husbands and wives.

    This is why a wife canNOT sin if her husband tells her to sin. She, not he, will account for the wrong she does. The husband is not responsible to keep his wife in line nor is he going to be responsible before God for the sins she commits.

    Col. 3:25

    But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.

  • ahunt

    The reason this is important is if the man stays then he is under his father, to start a new home, he must leave.

    This is was the understanding given to us as well. I cannot remember the exact words at our wedding so many years ago, but the message was to go forth and build a home together, so as to grow in God’s “grace” and “live in His honor.”

  • Lydia

    TUAD, thanks for the link. Wonder where they get their stats? I could not find their sources on their site.

    Abortion clinics are not increasing, many are closing all over the US. I think it is strange that this has not been publisized.

  • Lydia

    Anyway, Paula is right. It was a red herring because the subject is abuse not abortion. Sorry I got sucked in! Protecting innocent babies from aborion or abuse is a huge issue for me.

  • Paula

    And if we’re going to chase TUAD’s rabbit trail, we should point out that outside the US, the great majority of aborted babies are female. And why is that? Because of the long history of misogyny; that is “bowing to culture”!

    The abortion industry in the US was begun by Margaret Sanger, who was quite racist. Her intention was to keep the “lower races” from breeding, thus eventually purifying the white race. She deliberately placed early abortion mills in poor neighborhoods for that very reason. The poor, too, were inferior and should be eliminated by those of better stock.

    But whether it’s done out of racism, sexism, or just plain cold-bloodedness, it is sin.

    As is misogyny, no matter how it’s sugar-coated.

  • Corrie

    “I agree with the highest cause or mortality to infants is abortion.”

    I also agree with TUAD’s statement.

    I just wonder what TUAD thinks that has to do with the point Sue was making? This seems like a red herring to get us off the point of what Sue was saying.

    I am against abortion and I am against domestic violence, equally. I don’t throw out domestic violence stats when we are talking about abortion, though.

    Just think if I did that in reverse, I would be accused of being a feminist (not so uncommon) or a man-hater.

    If someone stated that abortion is the highest cause of infant mortality and then I immediately retorted that the highest mortality rate for pregnant women is due to the husband’s abuse, would you think I was trying to get out of dealing with the issue and trying to change the subject and focus of the real issue?

    It is telling to me that whenever the very REAL subject of abuse comes up (and this whole thread is predicated on a statement that Ware made that, in essence, puts the onus of the blame on the victim (“She started it!!!”) ) that some people have a hard time admitting that there is a problem.

    I agree with the suggestion to ask someone who works in an ER. Go volunteer at a home that takes in abused women and children.

    It is a very real fact that victims of violence often go for help in their churches only to be told that if they were more submissive or a better wife or they had been better in bed, their husbands wouldn’t have beat them or cheated on them. I don’t give a rip if the person giving this counsel says that it is a sin for a husband to hit his wife, he still stated that if the wife had been what she was supposed to be, the abuse would have never happened in the first place. This is called blame shifting and, not only that, it is a lie. Abusers don’t need a reason to let the punches fly. They get high off of the cycle of abusing and then making up with their victim.

    But, it seems to me, from my own experience, that the women who are most often abused are the ones who are very submissive and who are not controlling and who try really hard to please their unpleasable, controlling husbands. It isn’t until the women in these situations gets enough courage to leave and forbids that abuse to take place anymore that many of these abusers sit up and take notice because they realize that she will not put up with it. The abuse continues because the the abuser knows he can get away with it. A bully will only beat up on those they know will not fight back or push back. A bully looks for an easy target and a bully will not try and beat up on someone they know will stand up for themselves.

    Really, is a so-called feminist (the kind described in Ware’s sermon who wants to be served and wants her will fulfilled instead of fulfilling her husband’s will) going to sit there and let their husbands abuse them? 🙂 It seems to contradict everything that the comps/pats would have us believe about feminists.

    Egal-eye,

    Happy Independence Day! My dad used to take the distributor cap off of my mom’s car, too. He would leave town and leave my mother no money for food or anything else. He would also come home during the day and insist that a man had been there when there was NO man and there never had been one. He would beat me and my mother when we told him that no man had been there. ( He had multiple affairs throughout his marriage to my mother.) My mother bent over backwards trying to please him and prevent one of his angry and irrational tirades. But, he had a very low view of women and he used to say that they were as stupid as children and my mom, a beautiful woman, would get beaten any time a man looked at her. He had grown up believing that women were not to be trusted. I am thankful that my mother finally got up enough strength to leave him and that she remarried a loving and kind man who has taught me a lot.

    Thankfully, on my father’s deathbed, he accepted the Lord and repented of these actions.

  • Paula

    You mean #1234, but thanks!

    I just hope we can actually change minds and stop the carnage, no matter who it is that’s being killed. What terrible judgment awaits those who have turned a blind eye to the suffering and death of millions!!

  • Sue

    My comment appeared but I am moderated out on another thread. This is what I posted there.

    I would like to draw this discussion back to a focus on 1 Tim. 2:12, the verse which Dr. Moore chose as his text for this sermon.

    Here are the only two pieces of evidence presented here by Dr. Kostenberger for authenteo.

    Philodemus

    BGU 1208

    I would like to make a few comments.

    1. The Philodemus fragment does not have a translation but a brief summary. There is no connection between the occurrence of authenteo in the Greek text and “those in authority” in the summary. The former is in the opening lines of the test, and the latter is in the closing lines of the summary.

    2. There is only a 50% probability that authenteo, the verb, is present in this fragment, since letters within the word are missing. While it may be true that some people think that the verb authenteo is in the word, this can never be proved.

    3. BGU 1208 is also a fragment and has no English translation. It is informal Greek, a personal letter, and contains many contructs that are not in a standard Greek lexicon.

    4. The use of authenteo is distinctive here since it is used with the pronoun προς. This has lead most scholars to agree that it reflects a hostile encounter. It cannot be translated “having authorized him” but must be to “use _____________ against or towards him.” There is also mention of a dispute and insolence. There is no information that the person who is the subject of the verb has any legal authority over the person who is the object of προς. This does not fit the context.

    These facts need to be attended to. There is no evidence so far, that authenteo is something that any NT writer would have condoned for anyone but God, in his three persons. God alone is Lord.

    Maybe it is the number of links. That must be it.

  • Don Johnson

    I do not know what that means. Is a post you made being moderated and possibly not allowed? Are you being banned?

  • Sue

    Not at all. I made a post with three links and it was moderated out. I misunderstood the reason. I apologize to Denny for the misunderstanding on my part.

    I put a new comment, which now has only one link, on a more current thread and it was accepted.

    I am trying to bring the focus back to authenteo but no one seems interested in the actual meaning of the text. Oh well.

  • Kathy

    ‘A bully looks for an easy target and a bully will not try and beat up on someone they know will stand up for themselves.’

    Exactly true!

  • Paula

    I am trying to bring the focus back to authenteo but no one seems interested in the actual meaning of the text. Oh well.

    Autheneo, “not so among you”, kephale,…

    Will they ever just stop doing the twist and accept the truth?

    And yet still once more additionally again I ask: why would anyone clamor for the LOWEST position and keep the other half of the Body from serving at that lowest level? How can that be sane, much less Biblical?

  • Bonnie

    Marilyn,

    In the countercultural way that so typifies Jesus’ teachings, it is my submission that empowers me because it is my submission that frees my husband to hear me.

    Your submission is an attitude, not a placing of yourself in a lower position or under your husband’s leadership or authority in the marriage. The authority your husband has is authority from God to carry out his responsibilities to you, not authority over you.

    What you describe of your marriage seems to me not to be the type I’ve read about at CBMW…in fact, it sounds a lot like mine. Lots of complementary stuff and different roles/tasks going on but not hierarchy.

    The model of marriage in Ephesians 5 is indeed a countercultural one, as is the instruction on submission in general in chapters 5 and 6. Most relationships between non-redeemed persons (non-believers) – as well as many Christian believers – consist of a power struggle, a battle of wills on some level. What is countercultural about Eph. 5 and 6 is that it advocates a different way of relating – of serving in service to Christ, in a healthy, edifying, and uplifting way, finding one’s worth in Christ and in serving him rather than “jockeying for position” or “staying on top.”

    I realize you may not read this, but if you do – have a wonderful vacation!

  • Bonnie

    Madame,

    No hint of hierarchy, but there seems to be an implication of leadership in it, meaning that a man is the one who should take the first step.

    Yes, he takes initiative, but he’s not really leading her – she has no obligation to “follow” (she can say, “No”). And note how he traditionally asks for her hand in marriage: on his knee 🙂

  • Bonnie

    TUAD,

    Regarding your comment #1187, I agree that in many things some sort of hierarchy is necessary. I am not advocating abolishing it. Yet, even within relationships in which there is a boss of some type, or a leader, or ruler, in Christ, the “master” is to serve in good will, knowing that he will answer to God and that the Master of both he and his subordinate is God (Eph. 6).

    A husband getting angry at the so-called threat to his authority in a rebellious wife is not serving her in good will. If he were, he would perceive no such threat, even if he were angered by her rebellion against God. He himself is rebelling against God by seeing her rebellion as a threat to his authority.

    When discussing hierarchy, it is also helpful to specific which type. There are hierarchies of order and organization, or classification, and there are hierarchies of rank and rule. As you say, both types are necessary.

    But I do not believe that we are called to construct our marriages as a relationship according to rank or rule.

  • madame

    ” Your submission is an attitude, not a placing of yourself in a lower position or under your husband’s leadership or authority in the marriage. The authority your husband has is authority from God to carry out his responsibilities to you, not authority over you.”

    Bonnie, I agree with this completely. Do wives have authority to carry out their responsibilities to their husbands? I believe we do.
    I’ll take the example of Ruth Graham. She was often the middle person between Billy and the masses who wanted to see him and spend time with him when he was finally at home with his wife and children. Ruth, as his wife, often sent people away (kindly). She was acting in her authority as his wife. Does that make sense?

    ” What is countercultural about Eph. 5 and 6 is that it advocates a different way of relating – of serving in service to Christ, in a healthy, edifying, and uplifting way, finding one’s worth in Christ and in serving him rather than “jockeying for position” or “staying on top.”

    Thanks for that. It’s the way it reads for me too.

    ” Yes, he takes initiative, but he’s not really leading her – she has no obligation to “follow” (she can say, “No”). And note how he traditionally asks for her hand in marriage: on his knee”

    Ok, take initiative is a better word. I’ll try to explain what I meant by leadership.

    I understand that leading very often means taking the first step, or taking the lead, towards something. People don’t always follow, but if one takes the lead, it’s usually because one expects to be followed.
    In the case of proposing, a man is usually fairly confident that the woman is going to accept his proposal.
    My husband’s proposal was mainly a formality. We’d been talking about marriage for a while already 🙂

  • madame

    Bonnie,
    Your comment 1247 has given me food for thought. I’ve always known that authority can’t just mean “authority over”, implying somehow having the last word or being the boss.
    You’ve explained it very well. Thanks!

    Would you be ok with me borrowing your words for a post on my blog? 😉

  • My 2 cents worth

    RE: Comment 1148

    ” I will continue to expose their errors and stick to the Word.”

    Really it just depends what side of the debate your on. I spent years in a church who’s sole mission was to prove how the church (read main stream Christianity) had gone into apostasy and we were the only ones with the truth.

    So commentator number 1148 are you prepared to repent accept the truth and reject the lies that have been feed to you and reject those who believe said lies. if not that you are in danger of eternal hell fire.

    Remember I’m right and your wrong!

    I spent 10 long years in a chruch like that. Now you understand why I don’t get hung up on debates like this.

    Walk with God and he’ll handle the rest.

  • My 2 cents worth again

    This argument isn’t original with me (it’s far more eloquent than I could manage) but it bears repeating.

    To the modern viewer, slavery seemed to run contrary to the evangelical Protestant faith that most white Southerners shared before the Civil War. In the eighteenth century, however, the most convincing pro-slavery argument for the Southern populous as a whole was biblically based. Many Southern scholars, such as John C. Calhoun, pointed to the Bible as the ultimate justification for slavery.

    No where in the scriptures is slavery condemned, but it does give slaves some entitlements. The Southern theologian Robert Lewis Dabney said that masters attempted in every aspect of their relationships with slaves to exercise the golden rule and Colossians 4:1. ‘Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a master in heaven.'”

    Here’s a bit from The Pro-slavery Argument by William Harper, James Henry, William Gilmore Simms, and Thomas Roderick Dew, published 1852.

    “Aristotle, the greatest philosopher of antiquity, and a man of as capacious mind as the world ever produced, was a warm advocate of slavery—maintaining that it was reasonable, necessary, and natural; and, accordingly, in his model of a republic, there were to be comparatively few freemen served by many slaves.

    If we turn from profane history to Holy Writ—that sacred fountain when are derived these pure precepts, and holy laws and regulations by which the Christian world has ever been governed—we shall find that the children of Israel, under the guidance of Jehovah, massacred or enslaved their prisoners of war. So far from considering slavery a curse, they considered it a punishment much too mild, and regretted, from this cause alone, its infliction.” (page 306).

    The full context can be seen here

  • Bonnie

    Hi Madame,

    I agree with what you say about leadership. It can also simply mean setting an example for others to follow, not being the person that others follow. If we lead others to Christ, we point the way — we show them what it means to follow Christ.

    As to expectation that others will follow, I would say that yes, sometimes there should be one — like when giving directions to your kids about crossing the road and then leading them in crossing it — you expect to be followed, for their safety!

    Yet, when setting an example for others to follow, I would say that “expectation” should rather be “hope.” You hope that others may follow, but don’t expect that they will.

    Actually, the topic of expectations is very relevant to this entire discussion. Expectations can be a tyranny when they are held selfishly, and whole theories of living are built around them — often wrongly. In Ware’s example as quoted earlier, the husband has a ungodly expectation of his wife.

  • Bonnie

    Hi again Madame,

    Also, on expectation — expectations held wrongly are terribly manipulative; in this way they can be tyranny to both men and women.

    On authority — I wrote a few posts at Intellectuelle on this topic in the Gender Issues category, yet, now that I read over them, I see that my thought wasn’t quite developed to where it is now (and will probably continue to develop!) You still might want to look them over, especially where I summarize in a href=”http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/intellectuelle/archives/004247.html”>There is one authority, and it is God’s.

    Sure, you’re welcome to quote my ideas on your blog, yet know that, while they are what I believe, they are not authoritative 😉 — seriously. I welcome correction, and I do appreciate discussion such as this one that, as iron sharpens iron, helps me hone my own thinking.

  • Bonnie

    Oops. Now I know what Sue was talking about regarding links in a comment. this is hopefully a fixed link for the one that didn’t work previously (on the one authority being God’s).

  • Gem

    ” What is countercultural about Eph. 5 and 6 is that it advocates a different way of relating – of serving in service to Christ, in a healthy, edifying, and uplifting way, finding one’s worth in Christ and in serving him rather than “jockeying for position” or “staying on top.”

    That sounds like a great description of how a marriage which is functioning in conformity to God’s Eph 5 design should work. However, getting there does involve a power struggle. If a woman has become more and more powerless (after years of living under the burden of these misinterpretations of scripture- living under the influence of “the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are… always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.” 2 Tim 3:6-7 ), then I think the antidote comes in the form of some rather strident exercising of her authority in the marriage. This will look something like Sarah with Abraham:

    “like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.” 1 Peter 3:6

    to help women to be FREE and to walk in their GOD GIVEN authority and dominion, go deeper into the WORD

    Look at Sarah here:
    Gen 21:9-12

    Exactly how much more authoritative can one get?
    All at once she speaks with authority into Abraham’s life, into history, and right into the Word of God in the new covenant:
    Gal 4:29-31

  • Gem

    I think my links (to bible verses) are holding up a comment for moderation, so I am breaking this into two posts to see if it passes:

    ” What is countercultural about Eph. 5 and 6 is that it advocates a different way of relating – of serving in service to Christ, in a healthy, edifying, and uplifting way, finding one’s worth in Christ and in serving him rather than “jockeying for position” or “staying on top.”

    That sounds like a great description of how a marriage which is functioning in conformity to God’s Eph 5 design should work. However, getting there does involve a power struggle. If a woman has become more and more powerless (after years of living under the burden of these misinterpretations of scripture- living under the influence of “the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are… always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.” 2 Tim 3:6-7 ), then I think the antidote comes in the form of some rather strident exercising of her authority in the marriage. This will look something like Sarah with Abraham:

    “like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.” 1 Peter 3:6

  • Gem

    The whole authority and leadership teaching is not so distasteful if one recognizes that- biblically- a wife too has authority and leadership which should be respected by her husband. If he does not submit to her, he is losing the “help”/ezer which God provided for him.

    I have a comment in moderation (because of links to Bible verses). The biblical role model of submission was well know by any Hebrew readers. They would have recognized that her very name “Sarah” means “ruler” and they would be familiar with her authority in her household

    Here’s some verses without the links:
    Look at Sarah here:
    Gen 21:9-12

    Exactly how much more authoritative can one get?
    All at once she speaks with authority into Abraham’s life, into history, and right into the Word of God in the new covenant:
    Gal 4:29-31

  • Don Johnson

    Sarah means princess, IIRC, and they used royal terms with each other. And if you want to do that with your honey, it is fine.

  • Gem

    Ware mentions male passivity. I wonder if male passivity is Adam’s original sin? The passage in Genesis seems to indicate that he was present when Eve was tempted:

    Gen 3:6 “She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it

    Adam who was charged to keep/shamar/PROTECT the garden (Gen 2:15), stood passively by while Satan deceived Eve. And Paul points out in 1 Tim 2:14, Adam “was not deceived”!

    I suspect that male passivity together with a twisted teaching of “submission” which effectively robs women of their appropriate authority within marriage and the household results in much much passive aggressive abuse of women by depriving them of basic needs. I have a friend right now who is 70 with a furnace sitting in the house uninstalled (for years) but no central heat because she does not feel she has any authority and her husband (“passively”) will not hook up the furnace. She has held a job for years and could even use money she has earned to hire the job out, but she can’t get an “OK” from her “passive” husband whom she believes has the “final decision making authority”. IMHO, she is cooperating in the deprivation of her own basic human need for warmth, which deprivation is abusive on the part of her husband.

  • Don Johnson

    It IS possible for someone to be too passive or too take-charge. The goal is success of the team, with each contributing.

  • Gem

    Sarah means princess,

    right
    and we are too conditioned by disney
    what is a “princess”?
    a princess is a ruler
    a princess has authority
    🙂

  • Gem

    hupotasso- submission
    is to “arrange oneself under”
    that sounds like support

    Would GOD want her “supporting” un-Christ-likeness???

    kephale- head- used of Jesus being the “head of the corner”- cornerstone- the strongest block in the foundation of a building.

    sounds to me like the kephale provides support too!!!

    “unless the LORD builds a house, those who build it labor in vain”

  • Bonnie

    Gem,

    The whole authority and leadership teaching is not so distasteful if one recognizes that- biblically- a wife too has authority and leadership which should be respected by her husband. If he does not submit to her, he is losing the “help”/ezer which God provided for him.

    Very well put, thanks! This is what I’ve been trying to say, though not nearly so well.

  • Bonnie

    Good point also about passive aggression.

    The trouble with the current teaching, which does start with a right motive, I believe (i.e., wanting men/husbands to recognize the authority they have to live properly and courageously) is that it mistakenly tries to give this authority to them in the form of rulership over their wives. But all this really does is give men the green light to be actively aggressive. Not that aggression in itself is a bad thing, but it is when it willfully exerts itself in a harsh, invasive, or hostile way.

  • Lydia

    We never think of why Paul did not tell Philomen to outright free Oni as slave. After all, both were Christians. Anyone want to venture a guess as to why?

    It is the same reason he used a round about way to tell men to submit to others, including wives if believers, in verse 21.

  • Don Johnson

    In Philomen, the subtext is clearly to free the slave. That is, those who meditated on it would get it, but those who did a quick read would likely miss it. So my guess is Paul is trying to avoid censorship, which would result in no letter at all getting thru. The same for Ephesians.

  • Don Johnson

    That is, Paul is subverting the existing world order but from the inside out but using words that appear to support it and the state is looking for sedition, things that would subvert the world order, but they think this can happen only from the outside (Ala “Slaves, disobey your masters!, etc.), so they miss the subtext of Paul.

  • Paula

    Picture this:

    Brother Bob has felt “the Call”; he is sure God wants him in full-time service to the Body. So he goes to those who have been called to such service before him: the Women of God.

    With much passion and conviction, Bob relates his unmistakable calling, his heartfelt desire to please God, and his devotion to seeing the lost saved and the saved discipled. Others testify to his proven dedication and action in other areas, and his lifelong practice of all Jesus taught. He is ready, willing, and able to serve in leadership.

    But the Women of God respond: “You are a male, and God has only ever used female terms for all areas of public ministry. Look at the example of Adam, who refused to lead and protect. All men have shared Adam’s weakness and should therefore never be given such a responsibility. God even predicted that all men would lust for leadership and go against what is so clearly shown in nature. They have a history of violence and passing blame, qualities not suitable for this ministry. God has called you to leave your parent to join to your wife, clearly indicating her superiority. Be happy in your proper role; there are many other areas in which you can serve God, such as fixing things and putting up buildings. Isn’t that enough?”

    Bob is devastated. How could he have been so wrong? And why would God call him to something so clearly yet forbid him to pursue it? Does God really prefer women and “look on the flesh”? After all, it was the woman’s seed that crushed Satan; is it true that the reason is males alone carry the “sin gene”?

    But Bob, being a good solid Christian who wouldn’t think of going against the wisdom of the Women of God, consigns himself to his proper place. He even buys a toolbelt and takes classes in woodworking. He spends the rest of his life building and repairing, but never quite loses that old feeling, that perhaps God really had meant more for him.

  • Lydia

    Paula, Many women have that situation and actually believe it is Satan calling them out of their ‘role’. As if they are to ‘play’ a part. And how well they ‘play this part’ will determine their sanctification, i.e., ‘childbearing’ in 1 Tim 2. A most insidious misinterpretation.

    They think it is a sin to have a desire to teach the Word to ANYONE reqardless of gender. So, they turn away from God and toward their husbands instead of seeking a deeper walk with their REAL Savior.

  • Don Johnson

    Perhaps add something about how it was thru a man that sin entered the world. But it was thru a woman that the serpent would have its head crushed.

    And also that the original man needed help, but God provided for that help thru a woman, it was not the woman who was said to need help.

  • Paula

    Don, yes, I could expand it. This is just something that came to me, with the thought of what it would take for comps to truly understand. It was just a spur-of-the-moment thing.

  • Lydia

    “In Philomen, the subtext is clearly to free the slave. That is, those who meditated on it would get it, but those who did a quick read would likely miss it.”

    I see the text as being even more radical than that. The culture is legal slavery but Paul is suggesting some more radical: Treat the runaway slave as a brother in Christ. An equal, whether you free him or not. Now that is hard. That requires Christ IN you.

    On to Eph. Why would Paul need to tell Christians, in a culture where women are viewed as the property of their husbands, to submit to them? They had no choice in that culture.

    But, what he tells husbands to do is quite radical for that time.

    It was as if he was putting velvet on the hammer. We have verse 21 with mutual submission within the Body (which does NOT exclude husbands)…. then he tells wives, who are now free in Christ, to submit to their husbands (even though in that culture they have no choice) THEN he tells husbands to love their wives in a brand new and deep way that was not the cultural norm.

  • Paula

    Another angle is the “marriage without hand”, documented at http://www.fether.net/Egal/index.php?pager=gender_sum.php . (see footnote 7). Basically, a father reserved the right to take his daughter away from her husband and marry her to someone else at any time; she was devoted to her father, never her husband. In that light, then, Paul would be telling her to support her own husband. But at the same time, the husband did not have free reign to beat her, which was the reason for the “marriage without hand” law in the first place. So since Paul told the wife to support her husband, the husband had to also be told to love his wife. The two go together.

  • Don Johnson

    Yes, I think you have something here. I can just imagine poor Paul looking aghast at some marriages and trying to steer them into the truth.

  • Don Johnson

    On Philemon, the slave was a RUNAWAY slave, such things were not allowed, not with 30% of the population being slaves. Such actions would allow lots of scope for punishment up to a death penalty by the owner, but this would mean the cost of the slave was abandoned. But just because the slaveowner was a believer does not mean that the slave might have some trepidation about what might happen when he returned.

    Yes, treat the slave as a brother means the IN CHRIST there is no distinction between the owner and the slave, which is very radical. The whole society was based on a tiered structure with the possibility of going up or down the levels. Paul is erasing the levels in Jesus. Wow!

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    “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

  • Paula

    Done, tiro3.

    And TUAD has repeated a baseless assertion for the umpteenth time. How surprising. Funny how the male was given church leadership way before there was a church.

  • Don Johnson

    Mary did not even confer with her engaged husband, she made a decision that would bring shame, knowing it was for the glory of God. How amazing is that!

  • Don Johnson

    There seem to still be some who secumb to the temptation to interpret the Bible to give the group they belong to an advantage, but this method of interpretation is suspect and has a bad history, such as the divine right of kings and slaveowners.

    May Godly people resist this temptation!

  • Sue

    TUAD,

    I took Dr. Waltke’s course which he taught from that book and I went to him later and had a discussion about it. He agreed, when looking me in the eye, that sometimes submission is suffering and it is not glorious or meaningful. But the book had already gone to press. I deplore the sheltered lives and blinkered outlook of many theologians. He is a very kind man, and really had simply not thought about it from someone else’s point of view.

  • tiro3

    “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.”

    Bruce Waltke did not prove his assertion. In order for there to be any special meaning for the order in which the first man and woman were created, God had to have mandated it. The ONLY special meaning to the order in which the woman was created was attributed by God to the need for the man to understand aloneness. Woman’s help was to help the man’s aloneness. There is nothing in creation that supports an idea of male leadership over women or as preferred leadership over the community.

    “He agreed, when looking me in the eye, that sometimes submission is suffering and it is not glorious or meaningful.”

    I would agree that submission is sometimes suffering when it is an enforced act of compliance. But when Christians have an attitude of support, encouragement, and doing good toward others any suffering has an unmistakable element of worthiness.

  • madame

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

    Mary submitted to God

    TUAD, why are you double posting?

  • Lydia

    “Mary did not even confer with her engaged husband, she made a decision that would bring shame, knowing it was for the glory of God. How amazing is that!”

    Very true. And very much missed by many who should know better.

  • ahunt

    This is a little OT but I believe, relevant to the discussion.

    When we celebrated our 25th with a blowout party, my old friend and philosophy prof gave one of many toasts, and in his…he explained the “two shall become one” in an amusing way. (roughly paraphrasing)

    Two become one in the sense that one is doubled in the flesh…double the intellect, double the talent, double the energy…and double the opinions, all aimed at the goal of oneness in Christ.

    I truly think many comps too often interpret “oneness” as the vanishing of the woman into the man, instead of the doubling of “one” into a greater whole.

  • Bonnie

    TUAD,

    As madame said, Mary submitted to God. In Luke’s account, after Mary is visited by the angel, we are not told that she discusses it with Joseph (or her father), but that she goes to visit Elizabeth and utters the Magnificat, that exalted ode to God her Savior. It includes these words: “For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave…He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He has brough down rulers from their thrones, And has exacted those who were humble.”

    And she stays with Elizabeth for three months. Then she is married to Joseph, who keeps her a virgin until she gives birth to Jesus (Matthew 1). Before she gives birth, she travels with Joseph, her betrothed, to Bethlehem. Joseph is her husband, but God Almighty is her Lord.

    And, regarding your moniker, “Truth unites and divides,” remember that falsehood also unites and divides.

  • madame

    “Two become one in the sense that one is doubled in the flesh…double the intellect, double the talent, double the energy…and double the opinions, all aimed at the goal of oneness in Christ.”

    That’s beautiful.

    “I truly think many comps too often interpret “oneness” as the vanishing of the woman into the man, instead of the doubling of “one” into a greater whole.”

    Sadly, I think it’s true. I don’t think they set out to do that, but bad teaching can really erase a woman’s personality and everything she could have brought into the marriage.
    It’s sad because everyone loses.

    There are two ways to achieve unity in purpose. One, “I lead, you follow” and the other “come, let us reason together”.
    Which do you prefer?

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    Bonnie: “remember that falsehood also unites and divides.”

    Yes, such falsehood would be egalitarian feminism.

    😉

  • ahunt

    Actually, the falsehood is the comp teaching that “giftedness” falls along gender lines. Such is not the case, and I have a hard time believing God is up there handing out talent for the particular purpose of not having it fulfilled.

  • Gem

    “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.”

    TUAD,

    To whom was Mary replying?
    Did she ever check with her dad or her betrothed husband?
    What risk did she take in so doing? (What did her betrothed husband almost do?)
    Why did GOD approach MARY and not go through Joseph?

    AMEN “May we all learn well to submit” to GOD who trumps ALL the rest of them no matter WHAT they tell you!!!

  • ahunt

    More adjectives? Well Heck, I thought I went overboard on your blog, Paula…your blog being a safe place to express one’s self.

    And Paula…you do realize that your excellent wit is not from God, don’t you? Repent now, because your sense of humor indicates not a gift from God…but rather, rebellion and a broadness of mind that God finds repugnant.

    No really.

    Seriously?

    G’nite Kids. You are brave to keep up the discussion.

    I’m older, and satisfied, and if God has issues with my failure to properly “vanish,” I’m pretty sure I’m the one God will hold responsible. This is how it should be.

  • Paula

    But of course, ahunt… only males have wit, eh? Yes, I must repent immediately of any notion that I may be a full-grown human being in the sight of God. Surely He scowls down upon any woman who dares to teach sound doctrine to men, or worse yet, that she should confront any man for unbiblical words and actions!! How awful! 😛

    I guess all the adjectives in the world don’t matter to those who have an iron grip on rule and privilege. But they who cannot humble themselves will be humbled by God.

    Jesus said that the harvest is plentiful but the laborers are few, but certainly half the Body can do the job alone, right? People being lost for not hearing the gospel must surely be better in God’s sight that to hear a female voice preaching!

  • ahunt

    Finally, Madame…thank you for hearing such tongue in cheek wisdom. I was also over the moon when my old friend went on to cite personal responsibility before God…

    I’m not sure some comps get this. If the vanished woman has no voice on earth, how does she answer to God in heaven?

  • ahunt

    Well, Paula is keeping me up.

    I’ve also always wondered (on online boards) how the doctrine of unilateral female submissiveness with a corresponding lack of personal responsibilty plays out in terms of personal growth in Christ? How does it work? Do women just keep on being ever more submissive, ever more invisible, ever more silent, ever more obedient to their male authorities…progressively less responsible for their choices until they have no choices at all…?

    …How would God perceive this approach as growing and maturing in His Word?

    How does this work?

    Online, no one wants to deal with the question, and invariably I am accused of unbecoming arrogance…

    Offline, from the authorities I trust…I am told that without personal responsibility, there can be no true relationship with Christ.

  • Ferg

    Very entertaining seeing TUAD get absolutely schooled on his example of Mary. It’s wonderful to see her confidence that she didn’t need to discuss with her ‘leader’ Joseph, she just obeyed God period.

    I’m praying so hard that women can be released into the giftings God has given them to advance his kingdom.

    For anyone interested, myself and my wife were prayed over last night by people we do not know and through them God told us to leave our complimentarian church so that my wife can flourish in her gifts that she will not be able to do there.
    That’s all the confirmation and clarity I need on this issue!
    I’m excited…

  • John

    Classic TUAD. He gets schooled and embarrassed and isn’t man enough to respond and defend himself. It’s pretty sad when those of your own ilk don’t even take you serious.

  • Bonnie

    ahunt,

    I’ve also always wondered (on online boards) how the doctrine of unilateral female submissiveness with a corresponding lack of personal responsibilty plays out in terms of personal growth in Christ? How does it work? Do women just keep on being ever more submissive, ever more invisible, ever more silent, ever more obedient to their male authorities…progressively less responsible for their choices until they have no choices at all…?

    I can only answer for what I’ve observed, but I think it’s something like this: a wife’s personal responsibility is to think for herself but also to keep her thoughts, or her will, ultimately, subordinate to her husband’s.

    I agree that sometimes keeping one’s thoughts or will subordinate to another’s is appropriate and necessary, however I do not agree that, in marriage, it is always appropriate that a wife do so to her husband. If, as in Romans 12, we all are to “give preference to one another in honor,” and “not be wise in our own estimation,” then husbands are to do this to their wives just as wives are to their husbands.

    This does not mean, of course, that one must give preference to another in dishonor; when there is a true disagreement, one must stand one’s ground before God, yet in humility, i.e., willing to be found wrong. We all are to offer one other grace. Even when grace is not being offered, we must still offer it ourselves. This is perfectly compatible with Ephesians 5-6, but not with “mainstream” complementarian teaching.

  • Ellen

    Paula, a couple of days ago you asked (something to the effect of) whether a command could be voluntary. (My opinion is) that if you can choose to say yes or no, then obedience if voluntary.

    Since you have made your opinion known of Calvinism on this thread (yet another example of disagreement made known) I believe that your understanding is that humans can say yes or no to God – are we commanded to love God? Or is the command only given to those who already DO love God?

    To the one who commented about Paula’s blog being a “safe place” to discuss this topic…take a look at the number of egals commenting here and take a look at some of the language used. Comparing comp teaching with Islam, “the dark side” and much, much more. How unsafe is Denny’s blog…how much has he allowed this blog to call his personal conviction “abuse”, “evil” and more?

  • Paula

    Ellen,

    I have clearly stated that I cannot communicate with you, and this most recent “shooting the messenger” is one of many examples. You have defamed me personally in other blogs and now here. It’s always you shooting the messenger, not facing all the hard questions that have still gone unanswered in this thread.

    How many comps have even TRIED to comment in my blog? I have never blocked any of them. Not once. And the “language” I use IN MY OWN BLOG is far kinder than what I’ve seen in yours. I find the post here by Denny that prompted all these replies VERY OFFENSIVE, yet I never once chastised Denny for having an opinion I didn’t like. I have strongly disputed the TEACHINGS of comp, not Denny. That is a distinction you have never been able to make.

    My comparisons between comp and Islam are valid; both subjugate women and think them less than men. Both are very LEGALISTIC systems in many ways.

    Stating one’s opinion about a teaching is perfectly legitimate. If you don’t like my opinions, disagree, but you cannot make every blog you post in conform to YOUR personal tastes.

    Again, because you keep focusing on the person and not the argument, I will repeat that I will not capitulate to your demands or stop stating the truth about bad teachings. I answer to God– not to you, nor to any man.

    Rage at me all you like. This is Denny’s blog and he can run it however he wants. You can try to badger him into submitting to your standards if you like, as you’ve done elsewhere, but the truth is that comp teachings have more in common with Islam, Mormonism, and the Talmud than the Bible.

    Now if you don’t like hearing this, don’t keep trying to talk to me.

  • ahunt

    Not to worry, Ellen. I am so grateful to Denny for permitting this discussion on his board, and certainly, I recognize his forbearance.

    Thank you, Bonnie, particularly for the gentle reminder that humility in conviction is that standard we all should follow. 50 years in, and I still struggle with the “humility” part. 😎

  • Lydia

    Ellen, there are many blogs I read but do not comment on. I have found it interesting that on another blog there are other commenters who have also stopped interacting with you for the same reasons as here. They tried, really tried to have a civil discussion, too.

    You make it personal and you change the subject. It is very subtle but it is what you do. And no, I am not going to go back and give you examples. I really am not that interested in trying to interact with you, anymore.

    The bottom line is that a ‘religion’ on this issue has been built on a few proof texted verses. YET, a whole bunch of other verses have to be ignored and misinterpreted in order to keep it up.

    Paula is right to compare it to aspects of Islam. There are tons of rules. When is a boy a man? Can I witness to a man but not teach him? What is the difference? How does one have authority over another in the Body when we are all to be servants? Can a woman point out false teaching to a man? Can she fill the communion cups but not pass them out. If she is teaching a group of women and a man comes in must she stop? Is she allowed to answer a doctrinal question from a man? Why isn’t Elisabeth Elliot considered a feminist? Lottie Moon? Or, Mrs. Criswell who taught a mixed SS class of 300 for many years?

    Oh, the list is endless. And it is insidious legalism. All this over a few proof texted verses and in particular ONE WORD that cannot be completely verified that it means a woman cannot teach a man.

    Satan is delighted to silence half of all believers from proclaiming the Word to ANYONE, if he can manage it.

    This is a checklist, formula religion that focuses on ‘roles’. (Role? Like acting?) Much time is spent debating on, writing about and preaching on the extent of the rules and the ‘roles’in this religion. It is me-centered. Not Christ centered.

    Time that is spent AWAY from seeking the kingdom and being in Christ is spent on perfecting a role. Women have been taught to turn away from Christ and look toward their husbands. After all, she cannot do both well as this means she has 2 masters. This is exactly the consequence of sin after the fall. Women are even taught that childbirth is part of their sanctification!

    Of course, you do not see it like that. But I was in the comp world for a very long time and I know what the focus was. It was talked about more than our Glorious Savior!

    It is quite man centered as it keeps people focused on themselves and each other instead of Christ. And I know what kind of crowds and money it brings in. People love checklists and formulas. Islam and Mormonism are growing among women, even here in the States. Why? Because Abiding in Christ is harder…walking in the light is harder. Satan does anything he can to keep us from Christ alone. It is must easier to be under laws and rules. It is much easier to follow a human being than it will ever be to be guided completely by the Holy Spirit.

    Paul said: To LIVE is CHRIST. Period. That is what it is all about. Period. If women are Abiding in Christ…their husbands will find them there.

    I would rather be called evil, liberal and feminist as I abide in Christ than to look to humans in how to live a ‘role’. Quite frankly, I expect to be called names when I abide in Christ. It comes with the territory. :o)

  • Sue

    It is very clear that the women on this blog are not worldly secular feminists, but women raised as complementarians, who have, later in life, having lived for decades as complementarians, found its teachings not to be comensurate with the scripture.

  • Paula

    Tanx Lydia 🙂

    I once came across a video clip of some Baptist preacher who didn’t seem to know what an idiom is, making up rules from the KJV where it says “everyone who pisseth on a wall”. He said the word “male” is basically a sissy word and should be replaced by “man”, and that you aren’t a real man unless you “pisseth on a wall”!! Yes, he actually taught that men are in SIN if they don’t urinate standing up! And, did you know that Islam has rules on how exactly people must relieve themselves? Hmmm… (I kid you not– check this link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_toilet_etiquette )

    What utter nonsense… and this is what seminaries are churning out. Rules, rules, rules.

    The lesson here is that people can be so legalistic, so woodenly literal, so stuck on chain of command, that the gospel of freedom Jesus paid for is pushed to the fringe. We who take Him at his Word are called “extreme”! (or worse)

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    To clarify, when I said “dark side,” I was referring to that side of human relationships that are abusive, in which evil is perpetuated. The “light side” would be grace-filled relationships, ones marked by good will.

  • ahunt

    Well, not all of us, Sue.

    Some of us are egal in the raising, and upon marriage, paid nominal lip service to soft comp while continuing to live within egalitarian christian principles.

    No tragic story here, Sue…merely the conviction that a rational God would not allocate talent and then require such talent not be used in His service.

  • ahunt

    Also…Bonnie, is it okay for me to copy and paste your fine answer to the question of spiritual growth within the marriage covenant?

    Quite simply, my question has always been a stopper in discussions I’ve had with comps, and I think your response would facilitate dialogue.

    If you are uncomfortable with the idea, of course I will respect that. But I just don’t think I could say it any better.

    Let me know.

  • tiro3

    #1305 “Offline, from the authorities I trust…I am told that without personal responsibility, there can be no true relationship with Christ.”

    Well said ahunt. As parents we control a child’s degree of personal responsibility according to what we perceive is the child’s ability to make mature choices and decisions. We know that to always make the decisions for them prevents them from learning. Yet, hierarchalists would have us believe that married women (sometimes all women according to the father control theology) are incapable of learning to make good, reasonable and proper decisions and choices and must have men make them for her.

    To women who know they have insight and understanding it is hugely offensive to be treated this way.

  • madame

    Lydia,
    1314,
    That was an excellent post!

    Regarding roles

    ” I did an exhaustive study of the word “roles” in Strongs Concordance. It didn’t take long since the word doesn’t exist there or in the Bible.”

    “So, what is a “Biblical Role?” My conclusion is that the phrase is a construct of man.

    The Bible does not speak of roles but tells us that we will be given the heart of Jesus, and with this heart, we will find ourselves compelled to love and serve people in various ways. The Bible says nothing about roles, but it says much about motivation and spirit.”
    (Wendy Francisco, rockymountainministries dot org )

    It makes sense.
    The article is very good, makes sense and is very easy to read.

  • Bonnie

    ahunt,

    Sure, you can quote me. Thanks for asking. I’m humbled by your request, and madame’s…I’ll admit, the attention does make me a little nervous 🙂 But it reminds me to speak with care. And I’m happy that something I’ve said was useful.

  • Bonnie

    Madame,

    “So, what is a “Biblical Role?” My conclusion is that the phrase is a construct of man.

    I am so glad you brought this up. I’ve wondered myself about the definition of “role.” I’ve been leery to use the term, because, without clearly defining just what one means by it, there’s a lot of room for confusion and misunderstanding. It doesn’t have to be a loaded term; it’s just kind of become one because of the way people have come to understand and represent the things they do (plus its being chained to the word “biblical”). I do agree with the piece at RMM that our identities not be understood merely in terms of role, or limited to job roles. However, role language can be helpful; it can help another person understand, generally, what you do.

    And certainly there are roles that are clearly defined, such as job positions, roles on a team, or functions in a group. “Role” here is defined by the actions done in that capacity – not necessarily “playing” a role (as in, acting). And some, such as childbearing, or being a husband, wife, mother, or father, are defined by (or limited to) gender. But otherwise, roles outside of a job description or an assumed or appropriate role in any given situation are not hard-and-fast, or cut-and-dry, nor necessarily limited by gender (although I am not decided on women’s “roles” in the church…just not decided yet, although I am certain they are far broader than many say). A person simply does what is right for them to do in a certain situation, depending on what their capabilities and responsibilities are, and in light of the situation’s needs. “Role” goes so much farther than pre-determined job positions.

    I might be a nurse in one situation, a peacemaker in another, a whip-cracker in yet another, or a coach, a director, a teacher, a listener, an advisor, a comforter, a helper, a facilitator, etc. etc. etc. It just depends! I think we are all like this. So I guess I see “role” in terms of jobs that need to be done, functions performed, or positions filled, according to gifting, responsibility, and availability.

  • Egal-eye

    I have been busy with family over the weekend, but have sneaked moments to check the net for this and a couple of other blogs. I cannot begin to tell you how much a breath of fresh air it is to my soul to just read that others think the same thoughts and come to the same conclusions, and to learn new insights. What a blessing you all are-even those with whom I disagree- because your comments engendered very enlightening or encouraging responses by others. Much fresh water in a dry and parched land!

    Don, I got a kick out of your rhyme. Maybe there is a rhyme book waiting to happen addressing this issue…I have seen other issues like slavery put to rhyme in children’s books. Maybe this is also an issue whose rhyme time has come.

  • Egal-eye

    Oh dear! I did not at all mean to trivialize this whole matter when I suggested the rhyme book! I apologize for that!

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    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.]”

  • Kathy

    On Ware’s point #5

    How many comp men have the courage to actualy go directly to the source (the woman/her words)itself?

    If you cannot prove that her testimony of God’s command is false (which cannot be done) then why do any insist on degrading her character? (Was she an idiot, a liar, deceived?)

  • Kathy

    Why would any believe what any have to say about her over her very own testimony? She said, God said. She is the one who lived in the garden, was a perfect, sinless human being who walked and talked with God, yet sinners claim to know more about what God said, then she? Huh? That is so absurd.

  • John

    In regards to post 1336:

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

    TUAD, you do the kingdom an injustice by your attitude and words. May you come to see the truth very soon

  • Paula

    Ya know, those “please pray for my stupid, dangerous, censored enemy” pleas come across as just a tad insincere… especially when they follow a rabid public defamation of character instead of an actual demonstration of loving presentation of scriptural proof.

    And citing anything by the Bayly Brothers isn’t exactly the voice of reason and fidelity to scripture. I suppose I should say “let’s pray for the Baylys and TUAD”, that God would pry open their welded-shut eyes and break their hearts of stone.”

  • Corrie

    TUAD,

    Tim Bayly will kick off and ban anyone with a differing opinion. It means nothing. He slanderously accused me of saying things that were “so evil in their opposition to scripture” but couldn’t come up with a single thing that I said that fit his own description. The record still stands in black and white and proves that I said nothing of the sort. But, the truth should not get in the way of the Crusade for the Doctrine of Sexuality.

    I am not sure who appointed them protectors of this doctrine but they are merely protecting others from hearing any disagreement concerning their own take on the matter.

    There are many things that the flock needs to be protected from, such as those who climb up over the wall instead of entering through the gate, but no one is doing anything about those dangers.

    I don’t know who you are, TUAD, but it is hard for me to take someone who takes potshots from the shadows very seriously. That seems very unmanly.

  • Paula

    Only now I noticed this post:
    My 2 cents worth Says:
    July 5th, 2008 at 6:54 am
    RE: Comment 1148

    Reply: One of my mottos is “I seek the truth, no matter how painful or unpopular it may be.” That has been my lifelong attitude toward scripture. And that quest is what brought me out of swallowing the lies of comp teachings I had always been taught… and many others.

  • Paula

    You’re right, Corrie. It’s cowardly to snipe from far away, never getting near battle personally. All I’ve seen from TUAD is quoting others out of context, mixing posts from different threads together, personal attacks, and “hit and run”. He’s an embarrassment to his own cause.

  • Corrie

    Okay. Just went to read that thread over at the Bayly’s and it is a hoot! I am never disappointed when I am pointed in that direction.

    Sue’s crime was that she had a differing opinion.

    Sue was accused, by Tim Bayly, of opposing sound doctrine. What was the topic at hand? Tim claims that the Bible forbids women to hold any sort of civil authority (one other time, Tim proclaimed that he would gnash his teeth if a female police officer ever dared to wield her authority over him, a man). Tim used two scriptures to prooftext his point about female civil authority. Neither of the scriptures say anything of the sort.

    He was promoting the documentary “Monstrous Regiment of Women” which is based on Knox’s anonymous letters about female monarchs. Please read Knox’s Blast of the Trumpets against the Monstrous Regiment of Women if you have a chance and see how Knox viewed all women. And this is who these guys look up to as a source for the doctrine of sexuality?

    I came across a comment in that thread by a frequent visitor that speaks of authority and how authority necessarily means that it has the power to compel. This was in response to Sue’s statements about authenteo. I spoke about this attitude a while back in this thread. About how husbands were complaining that their authority over their wives was ineffectual because they had no power to force/compel/discipline.

    Here is another such example of the lament:

    “This rendering not only makes the argument less clear, but it does absolutely nothing to mitigate the un-feminist or patriarchal sense of the passage. You’re saying that, since Eve was created second and was deceived, unlike Adam, the woman isn’t supposed to force the man to do anything, but she can still hold authority over him? Since when does wielding authority not involve compelling people to do things they don’t want to do? That kind of “authority” is impotence. Parents, police, teachers, bosses–all compel those under their charge to do things they don’t naturally want to do.”

    So, how do these men compel their wives to do things “they don’t naturally want to do”?

    And what in the world does that mean?

  • Paula

    Trying to find some crumb of logic in the hard-comp line is like trying to find compassion for human suffering in China. I don’t ask what hard-comps mean by anything; their view can be summed up like this:

    “Thank God that I was born a male, that I will always have someone to wield control over, that there will always be someone to feed my ego and call me ‘lord’. I am Man, hear me roar!”

  • Corrie

    What I want to know as a woman who still falls on the “complementarian” side of the fence, does CBMW agree with Tim Bayly concerning women and civil authority? Do they believe that Tim Bayly is rightly dividing the word of God when he prooftexts the scripture from Isaiah talking about women and children ruling and does CBMW believe that 1 Tim 2 is talking about civil authority, too, when it says that women are not to exercise authority over men?

  • Corrie

    Here is a just a little example of what John Knox wrote about women and this is what Tim Bayly and the rest of the patriocentrists have been applauding and we are to trust their judgment about sexuality?

    “To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature; contumely [an insult] to God, a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance; and finally, it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice.

    In the probation of this proposition, I will not be so curious as to gather whatsoever may amplify, set forth, or decor the same; but I am purposed, even as I have spoken my conscience in most plain and few words, so to stand content with a simple proof of every member, bringing in for my witness God’s ordinance in nature, his plain will revealed in his word, and by the minds of such as be most ancient amongst godly writers.

    [The Empire of Women is
    Repugnant to Nature]

    And first, where I affirm the empire of a woman to be a thing repugnant to nature, I mean not only that God, by the order of his creation, has spoiled [deprived] woman of authority and dominion, but also that man has seen, proved, and pronounced just causes why it should be. Man, I say, in many other cases, does in this behalf see very clearly. [14]For the causes are so manifest, that they cannot be hid. For who can deny but it is repugnant to nature, that the blind shall be appointed to lead and conduct such as do see? That the weak, the sick, and impotent persons shall nourish and keep the whole and strong? And finally, that the foolish, mad, and frenetic shall govern the discreet, and give counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be all women, compared unto man in bearing of authority. For their sight in civil regiment is but blindness; their strength, weakness; their counsel, foolishness; and judgment, frenzy, if it be rightly considered.

    [15]I except such as God, by singular privilege, and for certain causes known only to himself, has exempted from the common rank of women, and do speak of women as nature and experience do this day declare them. Nature, I say, does paint them forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish; and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel, lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment. And these notable faults have men in all ages espied in that kind, for the which not only they have removed women from rule and authority, but also some have thought that men subject to the counsel or empire of their wives were unworthy of public office. [16]For thus writes Aristotle, in the second of his Politics. What difference shall we put, says he, whether that women bear authority, or the husbands that obey the empire of their wives, be appointed to be magistrates? For what ensues the one, must needs follow the other: to wit, injustice, confusion, and disorder. The same author further reasons, that the policy or regiment of the Lacedemonians (who other ways amongst the Greeks were most excellent) was not worthy to be reputed nor accounted amongst the number of commonwealths that were well governed, because the magistrates and rulers of the same were too much given to please and obey their wives. What would this writer (I pray you) have said to that realm or nation, where a woman sits crowned in Parliament amongst the midst of men?

    “Oh fearful and terrible are thy judgments, O Lord, which thus hast abased man for his iniquity!”

    I am assuredly persuaded that if any of those men, which, illuminated only by the light of nature, did see and pronounce the causes sufficient why women ought not to bear rule nor authority, should this day live and see a woman sitting in judgment, or riding from Parliament in the midst of men, having the royal crown upon her head, the sword and the scepter borne before her, in sign that the administration of justice was in her power: I am assuredly persuaded, I say, that such a sight should so astonish them, that they should judge the whole world to be transformed into the Amazons,[17] and that such a metamorphosis and change was made of all the men of that country, as poets do feign was made of the companions of Ulysses; or at least, that albeit the outward form of men remained, yet should they judge their hearts were changed from the wisdom, understanding, and courage of men, to the foolish fondness and cowardice of women. Yea, they further should pronounce, that where women reign or be in authority, that there must needs vanity be preferred to virtue, ambition and pride to temperance and modesty; and finally, that avarice, the mother of all mischief, must needs devour equity and justice.[18] [19]”

  • madame

    Corrie,

    ” So, how do these men compel their wives to do things “they don’t naturally want to do”?

    And what in the world does that mean?”

    And I’d add “who gave them the authority to compel in the first place?”

    I’d rather not dwell upon that….

    Where can I find this?
    “Blast of the Trumpets against the Monstrous Regiment of Women”
    My daughter and I find the title very amusing!

  • Corrie

    What astonishes me after I read the words of John Knox about women (ie., women are blind, whereas men can see; weak, frail, impatient, feeble, foolish, inconstant, variable, cruel, lacking the spirit of counsel, sick and impotent whereas men are whole and strong, etc) is that people are complaining about the “war on men” in this culture when this sort of thing has been going on for thousands of years in regard to women. There is a major disconnect there.

    Do we see anything like the this in regards thoughts about men? People need to stop belly-aching about what a couple radical feminists say and start looking at the words from respected theologians concerning women!

    Men: strong, whole, seeing, constant, wise, patient, able to counsel, kind, sufficient

    Women: blind, not whole, lacking, feeble, frail, weak, inconstant, foolish, cruel, lacking IN SPIRIT to counsel, impotent (I guess the Gospel doesn’t apply to women- “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”)

    Basically, men are good, women are bad and are tolerated in order to procreate with.

    The rank suspicion and ignorance concerning women is frankly mind-boggling. Where does this come from? Genesis 3. God said that there would be enmity between Satan and the woman. Words like Knox’s are proof that this enmity is still alive and well between the forces of evil and women. Satan has used theologians and pastors to teach evil lies about women. Do we really think he has stopped?

  • Ferg

    I don’t know who you are, TUAD, but it is hard for me to take someone who takes potshots from the shadows very seriously. That seems very unmanly.

    I wholeheartedly agree.

  • Lydia

    And a reading of history will show that Knox was only too happy to work with and submit to Eliz 1 to overthrow Queen Mary.

    And a reading of history will show that Knox was one of the plotters to kill Queen Mary’s husband, Lord Darnley.

    Oh, Knox married a 16 year old girl when he was about 50. This last one hurt his reputation as a minister, even in that day and time.

    Nice guy. Real deep Christian.

  • Lydia

    “5. Man (not woman) was given God’s moral commandment in the garden; and woman learned God’s moral command from the man (Gen 2:16-17).”

    Kathy, Scripture is not clear on this, is it? Ware and many others can only read this into it. Eve tells the serpent what God said. That is all we know. She does not say, the man told me. Scripture reads as if Adam was there the whole time, anyway. (Many teach that he was not even there at the time)

    That is what makes Ware and others not to be trusted. They make ‘declarations’ about what scripture says when it does not even say it! It makes me not trust any of their teachings, even on other subjects.

    They HAVE to read into it to get what they want out of it in order to promote their Patriarchal ideas. Not only is it a sin to do this but it is quite sad. It is obvious they have an agenda and it is too bad that agenda looks to be self serving.

    It would be more honest of him to say, we do not know from scripture how Eve knew.

    In any event, it would be just as logical, using THIER logic, which I don’t, to say that woman are more qualified to lead because when deceived in the garden, she was more honest. Whereas the man, sinned on purpose and blamed God and Eve.

    Why did God allow the seed of Messiah to come through woman?

  • Corrie

    Lydia,

    You are right about Queen Elizabeth. But, it seems that Knox’s First Blast against Monstrous Women offended Elizabeth and it is reported that she never forgave him. Basically, in his zeal against the Catholic church, he shot himself in the foot, since it seems he really didn’t have a problem with female rulers, just female Roman Catholic ones.

  • Paula

    There are many skeletons in the closet of Christianity.

    It is misogyny that is the cultural norm, as anyone familiar with history would know. Women have, in this lone century, finally achieved some measure of respect. But seeing this one exception in history, many “Christian” men see it as “bowing to culture”!

    All their lofty words about sin and righteousness ring hollow in the light of this hatred of women. How can the love of Christ live in their hearts? Do they really believe that the apostle John only meant males when he said “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For the person who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.” (1 John 4:20)? Is it okay to hate women?

    I defy them to read the Gospels and think it is; I challenge them to find these charges against women in the pages of scripture. I dare them to claim it is Christian to fail to apply the Golden Rule to all, or that women are simply not included in that.

    And FYI, to any who don’t know, that bit about women ruling being a curse is a filthy lie; scripture says no such thing.

    http://www.fether.net/2008/03/14/leading-women/

  • Corrie

    Lydia,

    “Why did God allow the seed of Messiah to come through woman?”

    Because it was to be so from before the foundations of the world.

    And, it is my belief that Satan knew this plan and that is why he targeted the woman in the Garden. It was NOT because she was weaker than her husband as far as resolve to do what was right. She was just as perfect as her husband was in regard to sinless perfection. There was no flaw in her as some would like us to believe. He knew that she was a very important part of God’s plan to bring a Savior into this world; a Savior that would spell the eternal destruction of his very being.
    So, Satan is going to do everything he can possibly do to make it very hard for the female through whom Christ would come (and through all the females through whom God’s spiritual children would come).

    I think of the parable in scripture about binding the strong man. It tells us that Satan will first go after the strong one in order to get to the rest of the household.

    Hmmm…..makes you think, huh?

    Satan went after Eve, first. Why assume that it was because she was somehow flawed as compared to Adam, especially when the Bible tells us that Satan goes after the strong one in the home to get to the rest of the household. We assume a lot of things that are not even consistent with the rest of scripture. Satan could have very well struck at Eve because he knew God’s plan and he knew how instrumental the woman was to that plan since Christ will come through her and NOT the man. (On another note, if coming “through” or “out of” someone is a sign of authority as Ware asserts, then patriarchy has some major problems since every man has come through or out of a woman.)

    I am not saying that Eve was the stronger one. I believe that both Adam and Eve were perfect and sinless without flaw. I am saying that it is absurd to make so many statements about Eve and the reason why Satan went after her when there is not one shred of evidence for saying such a thing.

  • Corrie

    Lydia,

    Just wanted to clarify that I know your question was one to make the complementarians think about their position. It just was a perfect springboard for my comments! 🙂

  • Don Johnson

    Here is my take on a few hints on reading Gen 1-5.

    1. When we see the woman named Eve/Chavvah/mother of the living, we are to contrast that with the man, who is the father of the dieing, as in Adam all die.

    2. When we see that the seed to crush the serpent is to come thru the woman, we are to look beyond the physical, as physically it could also be said that the seed would come from the man (also). But the woman is noted as making faith statements after the garden episode, while the man is not. In other words, when you put on spiritual glasses, you can see that she was acting in faith in some sense, so it is appropos for her to be the one where the seed that will redeem those in faith comes.

  • Corrie

    Paula,

    Oh my! I am reading your blog post on Isaiah 3:12 and I am dumbfounded.

    The word translated “child” is not even the word for child in Hebrew.

    And, if I am reading correctly, the word translated “woman” (noshim or nashim) has different grammatical markings in the Hebrew and the original word could have gone one of two ways? Is there a manuscript where the word is not “pointed”?

    I also found this telling:

    “See Adam Clarke on the passage. The Septuagint translates: “As for my people, tax-gatherers (praktores) glean them, and exactors (apaitountes) rule over them.””

    This seems to fit, especially because the word translated “child” is really the word for “glean”.

    Also, how can we rectify Is 3:12 when we look at the examples of godly and wise child/woman rulers in scripture?

    Obviously, a child or woman ruling over a nation is not automatically a judgment or curse to that nation.

    And then Mohler’s statement about wanting a translation that the SBC can control. Yikes!

  • Don Johnson

    Yes, with no vowels, there are some verses that are open to different interpretations.
    \
    Mohler was reacting to the TNIV. They had fought against a gender-neutral translation (which I think is a good thing to fight against) and the TNIV people agreed not to do that but when the TNIV people went gender accurate, they saw it as a renege. It was not, but they saw it that way.

    My take on the TNIV is that it is more accurate overall than the NIV, but it still has some glitches, as to be expected. But the HCSB and ESV were made from a non-egal viewpoint; that is, whenever there was a choice that would conform to non-egal thinking, that was what was made.

  • Lydia

    Corrie, Look up Psalm 68:11 in an interlinear. :o)

    Also, I hope those reading realize that I am in no way wanting to elevate women above men. That would be insidious and a lie. But, it is sad that even if one points out scripture interpretations that show women as equal before God in all respects, one is called a feminist.

    (Yes, I know CBMW says women are equal and this is a far cry from what was taught before the 70’s in Christendom but one cannot be equal yet have unequal ‘roles’ for all time. That is no different than the ‘separate but equal’ slogan we tried to pass off. Funny how history repeats itself)

    Corrie, they already have a translation they control: ESV. See Genesis 3:16 and the footnote they ADDED. And this is supposed to be the most literal translation.

  • Corrie

    Lydia,

    LOL!! What do they do with that one?

    Psalm 68:11

    [bbe] The Lord gives the word; great is the number of the women who make it public.

    I am only beginning to be aware of the ESV (I own several of this translation) and those behind it.

    I am concerned that they would footnote Gen. 3:16 and ADD on the word “or against” in place of the word “for” and this shows great bias and agenda on the translator’s part.

    Does the Hebrew word for “for” mean “against”?

    I am not so sure what is so dangerous about changing some pronouns and making them inclusive using English words when the Greek/Hebrew word meant both males and females. That is not subtracting from or adding to scripture. That is just making it more clear of the original intent.

    But, this? This is changing the meaning and intent of what is being said.

    I think the BBE translates Gen. 3:16 with the original intent/meaning left in place:

    To the woman he said, Great will be your pain in childbirth; in sorrow will your children come to birth; still your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your master.

  • ahunt

    I’m not sure what to make of the Baylys. From what I can glean, much of the “teaching” is extra-biblical, and in fact, contradicted in scripture.

    I am not a scholar, and one more time, I’m deeply grateful for this discussion, though I will never be able to contribute in terms of scholarship. But I do think I can recognized distorted teaching when I read/hear it.

    If I’m understanding Bayly, ANY instance of women at large exercising authority over men is sinful? Please correct me if I’ve misread.

    If so, then by Bayly’s lights, I should fire roughly half of my employees and replace them with women? Am I sinning by owning a business that puts me in authority over men? Or should I simply not own a business and not contribute financially to our household? What if my husband insists that I maintain my business career? Is he sinning? If so, would I be sinning by submitting to his sin?

    I’m sooooo confused. No really. 8-*

  • Don Johnson

    Gen 3:16 bears looking at an interlinear, simply because many translations garble the order of the words, apparently to make it all bad things, when it is not all bad things.

    One is at scripture4all.org.

  • Corrie

    “If I’m understanding Bayly, ANY instance of women at large exercising authority over men is sinful? Please correct me if I’ve misread.”

    ahunt,

    You are correct. Any woman exercising authority over a ma, even in the civil sphere, is against their doctrine of sexuality.

    Tim wrote about how it is an occasion for a man to gnash his teeth if a female police officer exercised her authority to give him a ticket.

    I believe Light once asked Tim about a widowed female ranch owning relative who had male ranch hands (employees) and whether this was wrong of her to exercise authority over these ranch hands. I think he kicked her off or accused her of being of the devil but he never answered the question.

    Like I said, it doesn’t take much to get kicked off of the Bayly blog or accused of being of the devil. I am just glad that we no longer burn people at the stake for daring to disagree with the self-appointed powers that be.

    The Baylys came against CBMW a couple of years ago with a public resignation letter that was not sent to the board of CBMW, first.

    I wrote to CBMW about it and the response that I was the only one who wrote them, thus far, and that they had had one phone call telling them of this public letter.

    Here is a quote from Tim on his blog at wordpress:

    “Defeating feminism within the Church requires vision, faith and a willingness to endure opprobrium. Feminism’s sinfulness must be thoroughly comprehended and God’s truth maximally declared rather than mincingly. Patriarchy must cease to be a religious four-letter word. The tender feelings of nascent feminists must no longer determine the contours of discourse.”

    Endure opprobrium from feminists? LOL! That is the pot calling the kettle black!

    And talk about tender feeings! I have never met more tender feelings than I have in the patriocentrist movement.

  • Corrie

    http://www.baylyblog.com/2005/09/its_time_for_th.html#more

    I find the following pretty ironic when looking at this discussion and the whole movement.

    This was written by David Bayly:

    “CBMW’s positive work was largely concluded with the formulation of the Danvers Statement and the publication of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Those were worthy initial steps. But it is now time, I believe, for CBMW to consider whether it has become an impediment to the cause of Scriptural truth. I suggest this for the following reasons….

    Ten Failures of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW)…

    1. Its name is false and self-serving. The one thing CBMW has never been is a true ecclesiastical council. Instead, it’s a self-appointed, self-referential group of individuals, the vast majority of whom cannot speak authoritatively for a particular church, let alone the Church.

    2. It’s ashamed of Biblical language. Instead of using the natural biblical term for the principle of father-rule, ‘patriarch’ (from the Greek, patria or father, plus arche or rule), CBMW manufactured the term of equivocation, ‘complementarian.’ How much better it had been if CBMW’s patriarchs had not rejected the Biblical term, ‘patriarch.’ Who has ever questioned the reality that the two sexes complement each other? Even feminists still need men to become pregnant. But how they complement each other–that’s the question. Sadly, it is precisely this question which CBMW’s founders have carefully begged.

    3. CBMW steadfastly refuses to engage culture with Biblical principles of patriarchy. Instead, it speaks only to the Church and the home. Where is its statement on women in the military? Where is its statement on father-rule in society? On this, CBMW lacks the courage of John Knox’s pinkie.

    4. CBMW refuses to see this as a battle for the souls of men and women. Academic collegiality rules all CBMW says and does. Within CBMW’s culture, the ultimate test of a prophet’s faithfulness is if he’s able to go out and sip a cup of tea with his opponent following the dialog.

    5. CBMW should not have women on the council. What council seeking to pronounce an authoritative word to the Church of Christ has ever included women?

    6. Rather than a cross to bear or a hill on which to die, the Biblical message of father-rule has too often been a means of personal advancement for CBMW’s founders.

    7. CBMW has carefully tailored its message and publications for an audience of scholars. Whenever CBMW has come close to addressing the average Christian, Council members have fled and leaders have sought to distance themselves and the organization from conflict.

    8. In consequence of CBMW’s self-referential nature, her leaders have refused to acknowledge the significant and faithful work of others in this battle. It would be hard to imagine a more significant book promoting father-rule than Doug Wilson’s classic, Reforming Marriage. Pastors across the country have turned it into a best-seller by their constant recommendation of it. Meanwhile, CBMW seems unaware that it exists, and senior CBMW leaders have consistently opposed utilizing Wilson, a champion of father-rule, in any CBMW venue.

    9. CBMW refuses to declare that evangelical feminists deny the authority, not to mention the inerrancy, of Scripture. No matter how tortured the exegesis or twisted the hermeneutic, CBMW will not seek to cast the wolves out. In fact, CBMW’s leaders seem not to believe in the existence of wolves within evangelicalism.

    10. CBMW has no doctrine of sexuality. It has many exegetical defenses of specific passages having to do with sexuality. It has many thoughtful points about sexuality. But it has never given itself to the development of a theology of sexuality that starts with the archetypal Fatherhood of God, working its way down to the universal patriarchy written on the heart of His Creation.”

  • Corrie

    “The Baylys came against CBMW a couple of years ago with a public resignation letter that was not sent to the board of CBMW, first.”

    I misspoke.

    I believe it was not the actual resignation letter but the 10 reasons why CBMW needs to “close up shop” that I posted above.

    I apologize for my error.

  • Corrie

    That was written over 2 years ago. Do you know if CBMW is caving to the pressure to become more patriarchal and more true/honest to what they really believe?

    Don,

    How do you mean they are correct about #2 and #3? I don’t disagree with you but I would like to know if you are thinking the same thing I am.

    Thanks.

  • Don Johnson

    On #1, I do not think they call themselves an evangelical council or a church council. So they are a (mere) council of self-appointed people. It may be a little ostentatious, but it is not a falsehood.

    I agree that CBE’s name is made of simple and straightforward words and so seems better to me from that perspective.

    I would expect any group to forward the aims of that group and so be self-serving.

  • Lydia

    LOL, Corrie. I forgot about their 10 Failures of CBMW. But, I do think that Russell Moore, Ware and others are leaning toward the Baylys’ dream of more Patriarchy.

    And I agree with #6

    This issue has made a lot of money in Christendom. It also advances careers in many sectors of Christendom.

    It is basically the ‘self help’ section of the proverbial ‘Christian bookstore’ with formula’s and steps for people to follow. People eat this stuff up.

  • ahunt

    Oh Dear…

    Corrie, I’m floored…and yes, I found the quote online.

    it is an occasion for a man to gnash his teeth if a female police officer exercised her authority to give him a ticket.

    And this is where complementary theology descends into comedy…honestly…my sense of humor too often gets the better of me, but the scenario Bayly invokes here really is priceless.

    Female Police Officer: Sir, are you alright? You appear to be in physical distress.

    Bayly: Not at all. I am gnashing my teeth at your depraved sinful exercise of female authority over my Godlike Manly self.

    Female Police Officer: I see. Well, just make sure that your Godlike Manly self pays the fine of $95 before the date indicated. If you wish to dispute the ticket, I believe the sitting traffic court judge is the Honorable Mrs Martha Josephs, whom I am suuuuure will be sympathetic to your objections. Have a nice day.

    Seriously, I believe that Bayly undermines the credibility of evangelicals with such pronouncements, inviting ridicule, instead of people, into the body of Christ. Sad.

  • Lydia

    ahunt, ROTFL.

    It is a good think the Baylys are isolated in their ivory steeples as Patriarchs who paid by the sheep to teach such nonsense. They would not last 10 min in the real world.

  • Paula

    What’s really bad is that when the US capitulates completely to Islam as Europe is doing, the Bayly’s will be happy as ants at a picnic.

  • Brian (Another)

    Bonnie (#1169): You said the comp. teaching is that men should enforce his will. I disagree with this (I know, you are surprised ;-)). I willingly submit myself to laws of the land (as called by Romans), to my elders (Heb 13….and yes, I know some disagree with NASB, etc. on this), etc. I don’t think that degrades me or humiliates me at all.

    Re: Accountability, a wife is a wonderful accountability. You (as a husband, not specifically you) should be accountable first and foremost to your wife.. But I fear that if you are going to betray someone, having them as an accountability partner isn’t quite plausible. I don’t think that is what you meant (solely to your wife), though.

    Egal-eye (#1173): Re: men/women tables being reversed: Of course, you and I know that is essentially an unanswerable question on my part (I would venture, especially given the second part of your question, that you have a “right” answer to that regardless of my comment), however, I’ll answer anyway. If the tables were turned, then I heed God’s word. Just because something my heart says I want it some other way does not justify my action of saying “it must be wrong”. Does it make me feel like a child or less of a person? No. Or I would assume not. In the same way I’m not humiliated or degraded by Hebrews or Romans (as above). Regarding taking it to the side of sinfulness, then I would view my wife beating me as a sin. As would I the rest of the actions listed (distributor wires, etc.). I understand it’s difficult (to impossible) to separate the sinful way your husband treated you with the way that headship (and submission) should be lived out. Regarding the anniversary, it is a hollow feeling of a sort of congratulations. I am joyful that you escaped such savagery and at the same time I am saddened that there are those such as your husband perverting the complementarian teaching.

    On that note, there was a comment made some time back and I questioned the use of the word “boss”. Headship is not a taking. It is not a power of supremacy. It is not a dictatorship. As many have stated, taking and lording power is a sinful way to apply biblical headship. Complementarian teaching does not teach or condone demands. Complementarian teaches a model we are to follow. In application, Dr. Moore mentioned that marriage is modeled after the trinity. While being in one, Christ clearly willingly submits to the father (not my will, but yours be done). That is the model after which complementarians should follow. Our heavenly father does not demand, force or trick us into following His will. It is our voluntary submission. To stop the thought now, no, husbands (and men, in general) are not The Father. Marriage is modeled after that. It is a wonderful application. Christ leads the church and yet served His apostles. His apostles willingly followed Him (well, eventually ;-)) to the death. That is servant-leadership. Men are not Christ (no claim of such), but are to model this. I think it’s been mentioned, but as husbands, we cannot get caught up in Eph 5:22, 1 Pet 3:1, Col 3:18, etc. First we must love our wives and sacrifice for them.

  • Brian (Another)

    And Sue, I think the answer to the authenteo proposal is that, whether you agree or not, translators still translate authenteo in a positive manner. I know you are questioning the fragments that were found but even so, at this time, it seems like no, the translators (some, most, a few, etc.) do not find it convincing enough. Denny, for one, stated that he did not find the evidence convincing (back at #24, he stated as much). As for why would the word authentin be chosen here, I don’t know. One thought is that using the other authoritarian words would have connoted something sinister (allow men to be justified slave-like “ownership” of women) or alluded to men incorrectly (i.e. God’s authority that would somehow equate them as such). I am no Greek scholar (as you are). Heck, I’m not even a student. To leave with a quote from #20 above, “It’s not that no one has ever refuted arguments that Sue makes. This is well-traveled territory in the literature, even though many who are reading these comments may not be aware of everything that has been written on this topic.”

    I hope everyone had a great holiday! Have fun trying to reach 2,000!

    PS: I would offer that the seed coming through woman was an indication that the messiah would not bear Adam’s sin. He would be fully human (through woman) and fully divine (His Father was God, not man). But what do I know, I’m just a begonia?

  • Don Johnson

    On #7 I think the opposite is the case, they attempt scholarship, sometimes succeeding and sometimes not, but they also put out lots of info trying to get individual churches, meaning some individuals at those churches when decisions are made, to see things their way.

    That is, they try to have ready made responses to typical egal claims that someone who has not studied this area can present as evidence for masculinism.

  • Sue

    The important reason why CBMW is a part of this thread is because Bruce Ware has written their summary statement. He is not an incidental writer on their website.

    Summaries of the Egalitarian and Complementarian Positions on the Role of Women in the Home and in Christian Ministry

    This is not an argument against all and every complementarian. By no means. This is against the teaching that the wife ought to seek the will of the husband, and that any deviation on the part of the wife from fulfilling the human will of the husband can be understood as leading to a response of abuse or passivity by the husband.

    Many complementarians would want to repudiate these teachings.

  • Don Johnson

    If a husband breaks ties, how is it not a dictatorship, albeit prettified? The husband gets the final say and that is that, according to the non-egals.

    Yes, the man Jesus did the Father’s will while on earth. After he went to the Father things are different.

  • Don Johnson

    On 1 Cor 11:3, does a non-egal agree that “every man” includes women?

    After all, this is a plural group and a plural group in Greek uses the masculine even when it includes females, even if the group has just one male.

  • Paula

    The context of 1 Cor. 11:3 is typically not translated “husband” and “wife”, and again, the Trinity is not in view at all. Where is the Holy Spirit?

  • Sue

    #1385And Sue, I think the answer to the authenteo proposal is that, whether you agree or not, translators still translate authenteo in a positive manner. I know you are questioning the fragments that were found but even so, at this time, it seems like no, the translators (some, most, a few, etc.) do not find it convincing enough. Denny, for one, stated that he did not find the evidence convincing (back at #24, he stated as much)

    To refer to a group of 20th century translations for authenteo is much like trying to decide if Junia is a man or woman based on the number of 20th century translations which present her as male or female. It is simply not useful.

    I am not questioning the fragments. I agree with the fragments. These fragments were not easily available to translators until very recently. We see some translations, like the TNIV, which accord with these fragments. The Vulgate, Luther and the KJV also agree with the evidence that authenteo means to “be the lord of” or “dominate.”

    I am sure that Denny will respond when he finds the time.

  • Paula

    Also the word “pater” (Father) is not in that verse, so you could say the Trinity is there. But that means Christ is subordinated to the entire Trinity, not just to the Father.

  • Brian (Another)

    Sue (#1393): OK. I just read in the flurry of posts (somewhere) that you were keeping a post “alive” until you got it answered. And I’ll definitely let Denny speak for himself. Just didn’t want you to keep a post going anticipating something immediate (when to me it seemed stated that this is something that won’t be decided upon in a singular blog entry). I hope you had a superb weekend (and all you ‘mericans had a safe 4th celebration. We had 7 drownings (sic) on local lakes here. Sad.).

  • Sue

    #1391 On 1 Cor 11:3, does a non-egal agree that “every man” includes women?

    After all, this is a plural group and a plural group in Greek uses the masculine even when it includes females, even if the group has just one male.

    This is a very interesting point. It says aner, so most people assume that it means “men” males. However, Chryosostom believed that it excluded non-Christians. He thought it referred only to believers. Did he mean male believers? He did not specify. He did say that the metaphor cannot compare God to Christ in the same was as Christ to believers. The metaphor must be held loosely. I have not read this portion in Greek, so I can only say that this would be a matter of investigation.

    Cyril of Alexandria held that aner (pantos andros) was in this case adam or humanity. The truth is that native Greek speakers did not assume that this passage was a chain of command, even though their overall framework was patriarchal. They did not necessarily derive patriarchy from this verse. Patriarchy was a part of their culture, and they did not have to defend it as vociferously as those today.

    Many believe that this chapter should be taken together with chapter 15 about adam, who is humanity.

  • Sue

    Thanks, Brian. I am not the only one keeping this thread open. For some of us, it is a good place to encourage each other.

    Where are you, Brian. You speak of drownings.

  • Lydia

    “In application, Dr. Moore mentioned that marriage is modeled after the trinity. While being in one, Christ clearly willingly submits to the father (not my will, but yours be done). That is the model after which complementarians should follow. Our heavenly father does not demand, force or trick us into following His will. It is our voluntary submission. To stop the thought now, no, husbands (and men, in general) are not The Father. Marriage is modeled after that. It is a wonderful application. Christ leads the church and yet served His apostles. His apostles willingly followed Him (well, eventually ;-)) to the death. That is servant-leadership. Men are not Christ (no claim of such), but are to model this.”

    So, if husbands are not like the Father and are not Christ…how is it a model? What do wives model? If Christ, then which part? Who, in this scenerio, is to model the Holy Spirit? You can’t forget the Holy Spirit.

    Seems to me there would be more than ONE passage to allude to this model if it was so important. And not in a passage dealing with headcoverings. :o) God is very clear on such things and tends to repeat them several times when of great importance to how we live.

    So, if they can take one verse..3..and use it as a model for marriage with husbands in charge.. even though Kephale is debated…then why can’t I take verse 5 and show that women CAN preach in the Body?

    I mean, after all, Paul is only discussing the covering of women’s heads while praying and prophesying in the Body. He does not say they should NOT pray or prophesy here. He does not rebuke them for the praying and prophesying in the Body. hmmmm.

    5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.

  • Don Johnson

    The question is HOW is the Messiah the kephale/head of EVERY man or (much more probably) EVERY human? Many people could not care less what Jesus said. So what can head/kephale MEAN that makes the phrase make sense? Jesus even said many would call him Lord, yet he never knew them.

    My take is it means source. The Word was at Creation and so can be said to be the source of every human.

  • Don Johnson

    My take on 1 Cor 11:4-6 is Paul quoting some from Corinth, which would have been recognized by the original readers, the Corinthians. This makes the whole passage make sense with no added words in 1 Cor 11:10, the infamous “symbol of”. Paul thoughout the letter states something that he is going to correct and I think he is doing this here also.

  • Corrie

    “This is not an argument against all and every complementarian. By no means. This is against the teaching that the wife ought to seek the will of the husband, and that any deviation on the part of the wife from fulfilling the human will of the husband can be understood as leading to a response of abuse or passivity by the husband.

    Many complementarians would want to repudiate these teachings.”

    Yes!!! Thanks, Sue, for reminding us of what Ware actually stated. I am wondering if we can get agreement that this is what he stated in his sermon? It has been downplayed but that is exactly what was said. If that is not what he meant (sometimes we say things and they do not convey the meaning we wanted so we have to go back and explain in more detail), then he has a duty, as a teacher to God’s children, to clarify what he really meant.

    I am quite concerned about the seeming lack of duty concerning the teachers who will be held to a stricter judgment per the book of James.

    I know I would bend over backwards and twist myself into a pretzel to try and make clear something that caused confusion.

    And I am a nobody.

  • Don Johnson

    Paula,
    Yes, pretty impressive what you have done. I like it. You get a star. EVERYONE should do what you have done and make the Bible their own and be willing to tweak it as we learn more.

  • Brian (Another)

    Sue (#1397): Just north of Dallas, TX. Yea, 7 people in North Texas lakes drowned over the weekend. And surprisingly, alcohol was not suspected in all of them, just some. Very, very sad. I live near what many people consider the most dangerous lake in the states, Lewisville Lake (I think that is hyperbole, but the lake definitely has a number of boating accidents.).

    Sorry to be off topic, folks. Go about your, uh, commenting.

  • Lydia

    Another question on 1 Corin 11..

    “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”

    If this means ‘authority over’, why is God last? That is not very ‘Greek’ of Paul. ;o)

    Wouldn’t it be: God-Christ-Man-Woman?

  • Paula

    Tanx Don. 🙂

    Yes, going through all the NT letters via an interlinear is quite a project, but I can’t tell you how rewarding it is; I learned a lot. It forced me to examine everything, not just women’s issues. Highly recommended study method.

    Anyhoo, mainly I just am glad I’m not the only one who thinks Paul was quoting the Corinthians there.

  • Don Johnson

    The other alternative is Paul is simply confused and I do not buy that, especially under the inspiration of the Holy Spirt.

  • ahunt

    Brian, our prayers go out to your community. We also live in a public natual rec area, and while all of our lakes were crowded, injuries were minor.

    When I read the finer points of scholorship on this board, I am struck by the notion that hard comps/patriocentrics (new word, BTW) are essentially arguing that scripture does not apply to women unless it is specifically spelled out.

    This is a radical and fundamentally flawed departure from any understanding of the OT-NT that I’ve ever come across, and so, Lydia:

    …it is indeed a good “think” that such teachings have no rational application in the real world.

  • Paula

    ahunt,

    As I’ve seen it put elsewhere, the hard comp. rationale goes like this:

    Men can do anything unless they are specifically prohibited from doing it.

    Woman can do nothing unless they are specifically permitted to do it.

    We call this “the Blue and Pink Hermeneutic”.

  • Don Johnson

    And if you do not believe “aner” when plural and sometimes singular includes women/woman those verses are few.

  • Corrie

    “Ten Failures of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW)…

    1. Its name is false and self-serving.”

    Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black?

    I mean, assuming the title “patriarch” isn’t self-serving and false? Where does the Bible call a husband a “patriarch”? Are we actually to believe that every man is a patriarch according to scripture? Why wouldn’t the Bible say this instead of calling men married to women “husbands”?

    ahunt,

    I love your SNL-esque skit. 🙂 That is what I think when I read some of their writings. It really is the stuff of comedy. I especially love how the female police officer stays in control as she writes the out of control man a ticket. And the twist at the end is great! A female judge tops it all off nicely.

    Now you must read how a would-be suitor needs to battle with the woman, her father and carry her off, away from her home, subduing her and breaking all natural bonds, in spite of the fact that it tells a man that he must LEAVE his family and cleave unto his wife.

    “But though a potential bride may be deeply loved, she’s also at some level the foe. To achieve victory the young man must not only win her, he must defeat her and her family, snatching her from their bosom, converting her to himself, breaking her natural bonds with father and mother, brother and sister, nurse and friend, dog and home. There’s little that’s tender about it. At funerals we cloak harsh reality in kind words and soft colors. So too, at weddings soft words and vibrant colors disguise a bloody truth. The wedding ceremony is really a mini-Versailles, an Appomattox-in-a-nutshell of capitulation and triumph, the surrender of one woman to one man, the victory song of groom over both bride and family.”

    http://www.baylyblog.com/2007/11/wooing-as-warfa.html

    I am thinking Monty Python.

    And then there is the question that is on everyone’s mind. When Jesus comes back, what will every man do when He asks them whether or not they “sheathed their swords from their lover’s wombs”. Yes, read between the lines and you will understand what he means by “sword” [shudder].

    As you can see, marriage and sex are really not about love but about war and swords and conquering of women and bloody truths!

  • ahunt

    Bad Paula…bad, bad. You know I am prone to sinful humor, and you lead me astray! Clearly, an example of why women may not teach, or speak, or do much of anything, absent supervision.

    Actually, I have other questions…but duty calls…er at one of my stores…

  • Paula

    My humblest apologies, ahunt. You know how we are, and how the serpent still beguiles each and every one of us. It… it was that MAN God gave us!!

  • Sue

    As you can see, marriage and sex are really not about love but about war and swords and conquering of women and bloody truths!

    Because women, as we all know, are constantly “resisting,” “fighting,” “chafing” and “bucking” against male authority.

    Aner or pantos andros is in the singular genitive. It is simply noteworthy that native Greek speakers thought it meant humanity and not the male. It is hard to get anyone to consider this.

    To tell you the truth, I don’t know the answer, but for many people this kind of question cannot even be asked.

  • Corrie

    Don,

    Good question.

    The thing that troubles me is that these guys go unchallenged by fellow comps/pats.

    I have to wonder why, if complementarianism is about being manly and taking responsibility and guarding the Church/Bride, then why am I not seeing it being lived out?

    I feel that I, as a woman, am at the mercy of any rogue that claims to be ordained or a teacher appointed by God.

    I have had them claim authority over me and that they were going to silence me for my own protection but never bothering to answer a simple and straight forward question.

    I really am tired of watching these ridiculous teachings enter into the church and no one challenges them except for feminists and loud-mouthed bloggers (another name that is called).

    As a woman, I have no “weapons” of warfare to unsheath or sheath as I see fit. As a woman, I am made for the bloody truth that a man will wage velvet-gloved violence upon me, the foe, because that is what marriage is all about. A man penetrates and inseminates and a woman’s job is to surrender and capitulate as he sings his victory song of triumph over me?

    Gads.

    And all God’s people said……….nothing.

    Except for the feminits and the loud-mouthed bloggers.

    I would love to see some accountability among the complementarians.

  • Don Johnson

    Yes, I read it as humanity. I think it makes the most sense to go with the primary meaning in this case.

    I find it amazing that ANYONE would make the charge of “muting the masculinity of God’s words,” this just shows a fundamental misunderstanding at the most basic level (1st semester) of grammar and lexicons. It is a self-repudiating statement once you know how translation happens.

  • Don Johnson

    I think we all know that there can be an aspect of conquest by the male over the female in sex, but this is normally seen as being a cad, at the very least. To see it trumpeted as God’s will just blows my mind.

  • ahunt

    Oh good heavens…may Denny have patience and forbearance, as we are about to engage in low farce.

    but though a potential bride may be deeply loved, she’s also at some level the foe. To achieve victory the young man must not only win her, he must defeat her and her family, snatching her from their bosom, converting her to himself, breaking her natural bonds with father and mother, brother and sister, nurse and friend, dog and home. There’s little that’s tender about it. At funerals we cloak harsh reality in kind words and soft colors. So too, at weddings soft words and vibrant colors disguise a bloody truth. The wedding ceremony is really a mini-Versailles, an Appomattox-in-a-nutshell of capitulation and triumph, the surrender of one woman to one man, the victory song of groom over both bride and family.”

    Moi, prenuptuals, down at the target berm in the lower twenty…with the future BH:

    “See Honey, my preference for revolvers is genetic. Daddy and Mom (Demolay instructors) appreciate firearms technology, but when it gets right down to teaching their youngest baby girl self defense skills, the infallible revolver is what they insisted on. Wanna give it a shot…or fifty?

    Future BH:
    So, in order to defeat you and your formidable parents in ugly, bloody battle for your hand in marriage, it would probably be a good idea if I were to develop some skill with firearms, in the event that your expert marksman, purple heart-four oak leaf cluster decorated Colonel father decides I’m unfit to marry you?

    Moi: Precisely! Though you probably have more to worry about from my Mom…buuut, I really wish you would get a move on with the conquest-victory here, as this whole “conjugal relations” thing is profoundly interesting to me, and we’re wasting time. Now just sight down the barrel, and remember to squeeeeeeeze.

    Please Corrie, enlighten me further. This is good stuff.

  • Paula

    Whaddaya say, girls… CompLampoon.org? I mean, they’re feeding us such good material, it’d be a shame to waste it. And ahunt’s on a roll! (or is that “role”?)

  • Don Johnson

    I think it is time to lower the dosage on whatever mind-altering substance those guys are taking. Maybe it’s some kind of ‘roid rage.

  • ahunt

    And I think I know what aner really means

    Paula!? Do NOT go there!

    Anyhoo, I’m wondering if there are any readings on how the hardcomp?/ats think their severe circumscribing of what women may do can:

    1) be played out effectively in modern civil society and…
    2) actually be achieved absent civil revolution and…
    3)deal with the women who simply say no.

    What’s the plan?

  • ahunt

    DJ, not in your class scholastically…but re: “roid rage”, do you think it is possible that the Baylys are taking their theology from Bodice Ripper novels, and ingesting appropriately?

  • Don Johnson

    She found she was drawn to the lusty pirate, he had a strange compelling air about him. But what really surprised her was when he crossed swords with her father, she was secretly rooting for the pirate!

  • ahunt

    Oh geez, I just realized how offensive my remarks could be to someone unused to me, and unfamiliar with me.

    Denny, if I have taken your tolerance too far…please know that the spirit is not mean…just spirited.

  • ahunt

    Paula, the material writes itself, but I’m happy to take it elsewhere…

    Denny has been remarkable, and I do fear crossing his line. We are now preaching to the choir…and while I am learning a great deal, and have been totally surprised by very much…specifically the wildly radical interpretations of scripture…I would not insult Denny.

    Please, please let me continue to cut loose, but on YOUR blog. Corrie, meet me over there, and continue to educate me. The goal is reconciliation and cooperation in Christ, and I do believe I owe Denny respect for that purpose of his blog.

    And Denny…you need to weigh in.

  • Sue

    Denny,

    You really ought to respond to the evidence on authenteo. It is your personal choice to preach on 1 Tim. 2:12 as a verse, and present it as a truth. You need to get it right. You did say, “Let’s get technical.” I offered you the evidence itself.

    What do you think of it? I still remember that you have used your understanding of this verse to advise women friends on career choices.

  • ahunt

    Paula:

    How about “Exercises in Eisegesis,” or “How I Quit Worrying and Learned to Love The Lord.”

    Showing my age but you do remember… how-I-quit-worrying-and-learned-to-love-the-bomb-Ok-maybe not.

    Sounded good at the instant.

  • ahunt

    Well done, Paula. Let us take our laughter in the Lord to an appropriate venue…

    Again Denny, it would distress me to think that I have offended you. This is your show, and I would not have you criticized or misrepresented elsewhere by what you have permitted on THIS blog.

    I fear harm for you personally and professionally. Think of me as a freshman in one of your intro classes, and spell it out…

  • Lydia

    “DJ, not in your class scholastically…but re: “roid rage”, do you think it is possible that the Baylys are taking their theology from Bodice Ripper novels, and ingesting appropriately?”

    TUAD, Where are you? See what you have started with quoting the Baylys? Had you no idea that they are the Benny Hinns of the Patriarch movement?

    (I must say though, ahunt, you have nailed it here. Bodice Ripper novels! LoL!!)

  • Sue

    Looks like it is only me left. I want to introduce the seed of doubt that God does not allow women to do the things that they are gifted by him to do.

  • Paula

    Aw, Sue, we’re all still here. We’re just taking our fun elsewhere so it doesn’t ruin this one.

    Really, I’d like to see those questions answered too.

  • Light

    errr……uhh…..that should be feminists not feminits.

    Aren’t feminits those little female eggs that lice lay?

  • Sue

    Right. I am a loudmouth feminit for sure, but you see from Tuad that it is no use my taking my fun conversation elsewhere. We met online a few months ago and he has been keeping track of me ever since. I am a bit flattered. It is as if he is mesmerized by me.

    I wonder if he is single.

    Denny,

    Congratulations. I always hope that someone young and bright like you might one day realize that God did not say that a woman shall not be a Christian leader.

    And, no we are not responsible for our own abuse. Dr. Ware needs to repent.

  • Paula

    Sue, you may be on to something. It’s gotta be tough for a manly man to find suitable dates, especially when he shows up at the door with a knife. But hey, you’ve been noticed! (Or is that called stalking?)

  • ahunt

    Sue, we do not know one another, and you are way out of my league. My concern is for Denny, but I am eager to participate here, absent my frequently disrespectful sense of humor. Due large to what I have learned from you and others here, I truly believe that discussion is critical, but honestly, all I have are questions.

    All we meant to do was take the potentially disrespectful off of Denny’s board.

    Please know that your serious scholarship is necessary, respected and appreciated.

  • ahunt

    Light…as in Bayly Blog Light?

    If so, you do need to take it over to the irreverent blog. I am so pleased to meet you, but would prefer to speak without fear.

  • tiro3

    “Aren’t feminits those little female eggs that lice lay?”

    Too funny. Good humor.
    I should know where Corrie’s Blog is but lost all my bookmarks from Firefox when it quit on me. 🙁

  • ahunt

    And in the interests of getting back on track:

    I’m wondering if there are any readings on how the hardcomp/pats think their severe circumscribing of what women may do can:

    1) be played out effectively in modern civil society and…
    2) actually be achieved absent civil revolution and…
    3)deal with the women who simply say no.

    What’s the plan?

    These are fair questions, and they deserve responses.

  • Egal-eye

    Wow, you feminits and malenits are on a role!!! (thanks, Tiro 3)

    Begonia, I think you might get a better idea of the frustration women feel under what the comps propose if you had a definite gift and calling, very definite to you, and were denied its expression because you are male. Let’s say, for example, that you had doctorates in classical Greek and Hebrew, you became a Christian some years after getting your doctorates, and found yourself regularly attending a church and listening to the women preach and realized they were teaching basic errors due to their lack of knowledge about the Greek and Hebrew languages. Then imagine that you offered to teach classes on the two languages and were told you couldn’t because you were a man. Well, you could teach, to the other men and children, but not to the women who alone were allowed to preach to the congregation and teach the mixed bible classes.

    Paula, your point about women being allowed to do only what is explicitly stated and vice versa for men is is true…good thought for which I want to maybe list or at least track down as comparitive examples.

    Don, per your #1399, that is another amazing gem! I had not seen that yet. If that doesn’t nail the coffin shut on the whole head debate I don’t know what does!!! Paula, add that to the ‘book’!

    This weekend I have had intense discussions with ‘Mine Comp’ and realize how much I have learned by following these blogs and exploring verses via the interlinear. These discussions are vital and crucial.

    I need to also fess up, since I don’t want to intentionally mislead, that I am the same as Truthseeker on Paula’s blog and on Cheryl’s and Equality Central. When I went on this blog, I decided I wanted to change my ‘name’. If I have broken some unspoken blogger’s code of ethics in so doing, by all means, let me know. Meanwhile, I will change my name on those blogs as I figure out how to do so. (Probably very simple but I can goof simple things sometimes.)

    Paula, per 1451, a list of questions would be great. It is on my list of things to do when I can get to it.

  • Sue

    Just to keep things going, I found this passage in Ev. Fem. and Biblical Truth,

    “The highest human leadership among God’s people in the New Covenant is simply not egalitarian. Even in the age to come, Jesus said, there will be a place of high authority for His twelve apostles. “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twleve thrones, judging the twleve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28). And in the heavenly city we will see a permanent reminder of male leadership among God’s people, for “the wall of the city had twelve foudations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Revelation 21:14) …

    The most unique, foundational, authoritative leaders in the church were all men. At its very foundation, the church of Jesus Christ is not an egalitarian institution. It has 100 per cent male leadership.” page 172

    Just for those of us who have had enough of male leadership on earth, there is an entire eternity of male headship, of as Ware calls it eternal functional subordination.

  • Sue

    Here is something odd. Have you ever seen this?

    If you follow the links beneath the picture, then go to the ESV blog and read the comments, and then follow the link back to Denny Burk’s blog and read the comments, and then follow the link back to the BBB blog, then you will find that I interviewed Dr. Packer to find out if the ESV really meant to say “men” males in 2 Tim. 2:2 and he said he thought it meant “men” males, but Denny said “men” meant people and only feminists think that “men” means males.

  • Sue

    I put the wrong link in the last comment. Here is Purgatorio

    Start at Purgatorio, go to the ESV blog, then to Denny’s blog, and then to the BBB and then you will see that I went to Dr. Packer to ask why he translated 2 Tim. 2:2 as “men” and not people, and he said “we thought it meant men.” That is how Bible translations come about.

  • Egal-eye

    Sue…since you are still awake…Don mentioned, in 1399, that 1 Cor. 11:3 says:…the head of every man is Christ…” Mine Comp lately has challenged my references to the original meanings of things since I don’t know Greek and Hebrew. Is there anything you know of that solidifies that ‘every man’ means every man and not just every Christian man, which is what I imagine I will be challenged with.

  • Sue

    Egal-eye,

    That is the problem. It could mean,

    1. every husband
    2. every man (male)
    3. every man (human)
    4. every Christian

    There is absolutely know way to tell.

    I’m in a late time zone, so yeah, I am still up.

  • Egal-eye

    Sue, thanks. What is your understanding of the phrase ‘the childbirth’ in 1 Tim 2:13? I have heard it explained as referring to the salvation provided via the birth of Jesus (though it is via His death that we are saved) and also explained as the Christian ‘raising’ or maturing of a specific woman.

  • Sue

    These passages are basically mysteries of the ages. 1 Tim, 2:15,

    1. Some think that women will be preserved (kept healthy and safe) through their childbearing, JN Darby

    2. some think that it is about Mary giving birth to Christ (see Gen. 3 for the context), Ben Witherington

    3. some think that women have to have babies to get to heaven (if they possibly can) Ware

    4. some think no birth control allowed, Doug Wilson

    5. some think that women just have to do the things that are centred around the home, that is stay within the boundaries of the domestic, Kostenberger

    6. some think that it means that women must demonstrate submission to male leadership in everything they do. Dan Wallace

    Sort of gives you some insight into how men think about women.

  • madame

    If I may add some questions to the list:

    – Why are men fighting so hard to stay on top?

    – Why is Ephesians 5:22-33 considered “God’s blueprint for marriage”, when there are loads of other passages that have a lot to say about human relationships? Shouldn’t we be looking at a broader selection of Scriptures?

    – Where/when did God ever command men to have the upper hand in marriage?

    I’d love to have those questions added to whatever list.

  • Kathy

    Lydia said,

    ‘“5. Man (not woman) was given God’s moral commandment in the garden; and woman learned God’s moral command from the man (Gen 2:16-17).”

    Kathy, Scripture is not clear on this, is it? Ware and many others can only read this into it. Eve tells the serpent what God said. That is all we know. She does not say, the man told me. Scripture reads as if Adam was there the whole time, anyway. (Many teach that he was not even there at the time)

    That is what makes Ware and others not to be trusted. They make ‘declarations’ about what scripture says when it does not even say it! It makes me not trust any of their teachings, even on other subjects.

    They HAVE to read into it to get what they want out of it in order to promote their Patriarchal ideas. Not only is it a sin to do this but it is quite sad. It is obvious they have an agenda and it is too bad that agenda looks to be self serving.

    It would be more honest of him to say, we do not know from scripture how Eve knew.

    In any event, it would be just as logical, using THIER logic, which I don’t, to say that woman are more qualified to lead because when deceived in the garden, she was more honest. Whereas the man, sinned on purpose and blamed God and Eve.

    Why did God allow the seed of Messiah to come through woman?’

    You made alot of good points, Lydia. None of which I disgree with. What I do see also is that there are so many errors compiled together to the point of being just ridiculous. It’s not like we have Ware making 1 false point, he makes 2 false points in #5, which can only be done by leaving out much that is said in Gen. Because of this ‘mess’ his conclusion or point is not even reasonable.

  • Paula

    Sue,

    Again, they fail to note that not only were the 12 men, they were also Jews. Why doesn’t that fact require all Christian leaders to be Jews? As foundations of the New Jerusalem, does it not signify eternal Jewish primacy? Why is only their maleness stressed, and not their ethnicity?

    Also none of them were slaves. So what does all this mean in light of “In Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female, for you are all one…”?

    Which reminds me, as I bolded above: What significance is there, if any, in the different paring for the last one? The first two say “not or”, but the last says “and”?

  • Don Johnson

    On 1 Tim 2:15, my take is Paul is using words that were used wrongly in Ephesus to show they can be used rightly, however this makes it oblique as to exactly what he is talking about. My take is that he is talking about THE childbirth, namely Jesus, as this at least syncs best with the normal way to be saved.

    On man AND female, my take is this is a ref back to the garden. But it is a good catch to notice the difference, as many translations do not.

    Be aware that when someone or ourselves reads INTO the text, they/we may not even be aware they/we are doing it. It is as if what is not there IS there and they/we wonder why others do not see it.

  • Don Johnson

    On Eph 5:22-33 being “God’s blueprint for marriage” this section is not even a complete pericope, so it is just a fragment. One always needs to take the whole teaching.

    My take is the pericope is AT LEAST Eph 5:15 to 6:9 and includes Paul’s gloss on Aristotle’s Household codes. If you do not know the codes, you do not know the 1st century context that Paul is writing into. And if you do not discuss the whole pericope, you risk missing the immediate context, which includes slaves. Taking verses out of context is not advised.

  • Paula

    The problem I have with “the childbearing” being Jesus’ birth is that it will depend upon what the woman and man do, namely, to **continue** in faith…

    Also, this would be the only place in the writings of Paul (to my knowledge) that referred to Jesus’ birth in regards to salvation, instead of to his death and resurrection.

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    1 Tim. 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”

    “Christina is American by birth, but a member of our General Synod, and chairwoman of Women and the Church (Watch), which struggles to free the Church of England from patriarchal prejudice.

    “I had scrambled peacock eggs for breakfast,” said Christina, over her shoulder, as she stepped inside. “I need all the primal peacock energy I can get, to do battle with the bishops!”

    And within an hour, turbo-charged by egg power, she’d explained the Anglican Communion to me, unravelled all its competing theologies, and made it appear suddenly quite clear that despite his recent nod in the direction of the conservatives, the Archbishop of Canterbury will eventually have to go with the liberal flow, to follow in the wake of America and embrace not just women bishops, but actively gay clergy as well.

    Christina knew better. She picked up a cat from between her sandals, and said: “You want to know what the headlines will be on July 10?” Yes please. “They’ll all say the same thing: ‘C of E votes for women bishops!’ So hooray! It’ll be a wonderful day and a step towards redressing the great mistakes that were made in the first few centuries of the Christian Church.

    What mistakes? Christina looked surprised. “The suppression of women, of course. The early Christians were so keen to separate themselves from Goddess worship that they began to treat women as inferior. It was something Jesus himself never, ever intended.” So Jesus would have wanted women bishops? “Absolutely.” And actively gay bishops like Gene Robinson, would he have minded them? “No, not if they were in a faithful relationship, of course not.

    For Christina Rees and Bishop Jefferts Schori, perhaps for Rowan Williams, the ordination of women into the episcopacy and the ordination of gay priests are connected in a very basic way. At the heart of the matter is the liberal Anglican idea of who God is and what He wants from us.

    “Come on! God is Spirit! So how do we know how He wants to be worshipped? We don’t.”

    It is true that in my part of London, a nice lady priest and her girlfriend run their parish side by side, and in the next-door church, a gay priest and his partner do the same.”

    Excerpted from: Coming very soon… women bishops

    Egalitarian feminists are joyfully celebrating.

    I, Russell Moore, Denny Burk, and Pastor Tommy Nelson will observe from afar and affirm Tommy when he preached: “the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church and that egalitarianism is Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

  • Don Johnson

    Paula,

    I like what you did, but I would go even further ala the Transline Bible (Outline form). There are 8 examples of supporting/submitting following Eph 5:21 and I think it is important to show those as examples. It makes it easier to see the whole structure.

    P.S. Where did you get the paragraph numbers?

  • Don Johnson

    TUAD,

    I realize you are quoting, but there cannot possibly be anything of a peacock egg, as a peacock is a male, a peahen is a female. So a peacock egg is like hen’s teeth, it does not exist. I am not sure if the author of that UK piece knows that.

    Yes there are some who want to do anything they choose perhaps influenced some by the Bible or tradition or whatever; this says NOTHING about those who want to use the Bible as the canon for faith and practise. They are simply different groups of people.

  • Paula

    I only numbered paragraphs for easy reference. That’s right, I made ’em up– just like chapters and verses were made up.

    Sometimes I started a paragraph only because it would otherwise have been excessively long for readers of English, but for the most part I tried to use paragraphs to contain complete thoughts or points. Nothing formal and probably not entirely consistent; it really is a first draft.

    Wish I could see that Transline Bible, but I don’t have that kind of money to get one.

    And, true to form, TUAD blathers on about nothing of importance or relevance. How cute.

  • Corrie

    “Egalitarian feminists are joyfully celebrating.”

    Really? Where?

    “I, Russell Moore, Denny Burk, and Pastor Tommy Nelson will observe from afar and affirm Tommy when he preached: “the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church and that egalitarianism is Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

    It sounds like you are initimately familiar with Moore, Burk and Nelson? Who are you? Do you have a blog? Are you a pastor of a church? Do you write books? Are you a speaker? Are you on the CBMW board? Is that how you know these men?

  • Don Johnson

    Paula,

    Amazon allows you to look inside the Transline to see an excerpt. It is the NT translated in outline form. The outline is intended to show the Greek grammar implications, the main point being the subordinate clauses.

    See I can use subordinate in a good way.

  • Don Johnson

    He goes to some deep levels of nesting sometimes. What he does not do is show the chiasms, instead he makes them outlines. So there is something missing but it is still useful.

    Also, it is HIS translation, sometimes very insightful, sometimes less so.

  • Egal-eye

    Sue, thanks, it was two in the a.m. and I went to bed before I got to read your last response.

    Paula, I think your ‘childbirth’ theory does make sense, IMHO, because of the continue-in phrase. Their ‘saving’ or ‘maturing’ is conditional upon how they continue to run the race.

    Don, would your view make sense if one believed that salvation could be lost? That is, she shall be saved through the birth of Jesus (which ultimately led to/is linked to the death and resurrection of Jesus) if she continues in the faith and practice of Jesus’ teachings? It does seem that it is connected to false teaching, so using an understanding of ‘saved’ to mean restored, possibly, makes sense, too.

    Here’s a thought per Adam’s sin of not guarding or keeping the garden thus it possibly referring to letting Satan in whence Satan was then able to tempt Eve and influence Adam: If Adam was to ‘guard’ the garden, yet he had not yet sinned at the time he began his guarding/keeping responsibilities, and thus his eyes were not yet open to knowing good and evil, how would he have known ‘evil’ entering the garden so that he could guard against it? I realize that discernment can simply be a funcion of knowing what is good, so that everything that is measured against good either lines up or is alien and thus evil. Would that capacity to discern good and evil not somehow make one knowledgeable of both good and evil?

    Paula, I like your list in Ephesians-it does clarify what is related to what there.

    Don, what is the distinctive of the Transline bible?

  • Paula

    Egal-eye,

    I don’t think it would be necessary for Adam to “know” good and evil before being able to guard. To guard is to keep out that which is not already in, and the guard wouldn’t necessarily have to know or care what kind of external entity is seeking entrance.

    Surely also Adam “knew”, at a theoretical level, that it would be bad to disobey God, even before having the direct knowledge gained from the tree. In other words, I think the fruit of the tree would be to experience this knowledge, to introduce that “duality” we all experience.

    Just a theory. 🙂

  • Corrie

    The thing about the passages in Ephesians 5:22-25 is that people zone in on those two verses to the exclusion of all that comes before. It is dangerous to do that. What other teachings would we do that with? When do we pluck teachings on the end times out of the whole and build huge doctrines upon a couple verses to the exclusion of the whole? We don’t. Only with the “submit woman” verses do we do that with.

    In the first 4 chapters Paul is telling all believers how to live. All, as in male and female.

    In Eph. 5:1 he tells people to imitate God and to walk in love as Christ who gave Himself for us.

    “Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.”

    So ALL people, both men and women are to imitate God and to walk in love as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us.

    He also tells all that they are to submit to one another in the fear of God.

    So, both male and females are given the instructions to love sacrificially and lay down their lives and to submit to one another.

    Are people claiming that the other commands and exhortations found among these verses only apply to one sex or the other?

    As in, walking circumspectly, redeeming the time, not getting drunk, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns, not being deceived, no fornication, course jesting or foolish talking?

    Which ones are for the girls and which ones are for the boys? How is it that the verse on submitting to one another in 21 is only the only one plucked out of the whole bunch for the girls but the rest (v. 1-20) are for both boys AND girls? Does that even make sense?

    This just strikes me as elementary school type thinking.

    “Ewww! That is for the girls!”

    If submission is such a great thing, such a “godlike” thing, something to be embraced, then why aren’t men embracing it? Why do they give the impression that they are too good to submit themselves one to another?

    Also, the whole phrase “one to another” necessarily means that submission goes both ways, no?

    If it was supposed to be only one way, wouldn’t it have been phrased differently? “Some of you submit yourselves to others” or something like that?

    When we use “one to another”, it gives the idea of a two-way street, not a street that only flows in one direction.

    Eph 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

    So, does this verse mean that only some will be kind to others and that there are those who do kindness and those who receive kindness but the ones that receive kindness are not to be kind to those that show them kindness? Is this kindness not reciprocal?

    “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.”

    So, when it says “all of you be subject” it really only means some of you?

  • Don Johnson

    On salvation, my understanding is 3 parts: justification, sanctification and glorification. Sanctification is the day to day working out.

    I am not OSAS, I believe one can walk away and keep walking and God will let us; God never violates our will.

    What did “the knowledge of good and evil” mean to the original readers. I think it meant everything. There are some things we are not to know, such as the details of sin.

    The concept of needing to guard the garden means that there needs to be some threat to the garden.

  • Don Johnson

    Eph 5:18-21 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery,
    but be filled with the Spirit,
    A addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
    B singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,
    B’ giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
    A’ submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

    Not sure how the above will format, but we are to see the chiasm, the ABB’A’ structure.

    Just as one to another we sing songs,etc. IN THE SAME SYMMETRICAL WAY we are to submit to one another.

  • Brian (Another)

    Egal-eye (#1452): So, if I have a gift, if I don’t use it in exactly the manner I want to, it is not glorifying to God? So, then, similarly (only as an example), if I have a gift of, say, leadership and organization skills. I’m well liked within the church, my community, I don’t drink (by choice). But my wife left me for another man. I cannot be an elder or deacon in my church. Would that be the same frustration? I have a gift and I am being limited in my use of it. As far as the doctorate, many comps hold this to teaching spiritual matters and shepherding a flock (spiritually)/church. I don’t see an issue in an academic setting that you described.

    And there’s an internet blogger’s code of ethic? I think they need to see that at some of the blogs I’ve visited!

    Sue (#1443): Dr. Ware did not say women are responsible for their abuse. He said a sinful way a man can behave is to react and abuse (or passivity).

  • Egal-eye

    Paula, I see your point. Perhaps an experiential awareness vs. an intellectual or academic awareness? I wonder then, because (in Gen. 4) “the Lord God said that man is now like one of us, knowing good and evil,” if it means other than experiential since God would not have experienced evil, just known of it? So in actually sinning, Adam somehow reached a level of knowing good and evil like the Lord God, though the Lord God of course did not sin. Maybe Job is a kind of clue since he was a blameless man yet lived within the sinful world and was aware of what sin was because he interceded for his children in view of their partying and the possibility of their having thus sinned.

    Don, I am not OSAS either, so in that light, your understanding of the childbirth issue would make sense.

  • Brian (Another)

    Re: Baylyblog or whatever it’s called. After hearing about what Bayly (Bros., is it?) is writing, I doubt I would find much edification or enjoyment from visiting. I try to limit what I read (only so many seconds in a day). Additionally, if I were to post, it sounds as though I would be banned for holding a heretical view anyway (not patriarchal enough). I like to try (in vain sometimes) to, as Dr. Mohler would say, engage in intelligent Christian conversation. By and large that happens here……with some exceptions. That is why I have enjoyed the last several days with this thread. I don’t know TUAD personally nor do I know what blogs he frequents (other than the ones Sue does, it sounds ;-)). I would say that I am guilty of using a quote that succinctly phrases my thoughts, but perhaps the author doesn’t present my overall viewpoint very well or even at all. Not saying that Sue’s comments should be taken down, though. I don’t think that (nor does Denny, I would venture). I’m simply saying that a quote from a blog doesn’t necessarily frame someone’s complete viewpoint.

    As far as the comments thrown about, I would offer a word of caution. Even if you (vehemently) disagree with someone’s position or thoughts, mocking them (especially mocking in sarcasm) is rarely edifying and, I would say, never beneficial (to the conversation). I know there are certain boundaries, of course (say, for instance the feminit comment……which is funny). And, to paraphrase Paul, I am the chief among mockers. It is a sin with which I struggle and, given the pseudo-anonymity of the internet, all too easy to do. I suppose just one life lesson for anyone who is bored this morning.

    Back to work….

  • Egal-eye

    per 1490, Brian, I actually meant the doctorate scenario within the context of a church as some churches have their own bible institutes (as does my husband’s) where they train folk to plant churches, to teach within the church, to become pastors, missionaries, etc. Women may take all the classes except the sermon-preparing class, yet may not teach any of the classes unless only females are present as students.

    Per your being excluded from being an elder or deacon due to a wife who left you: my husband is in that situation, and since he married me, they consider him to no longer be the husband of one wife (his ex-wife is still living) so he, too, cannot be an elder or a deacon. I differ since I do not see him as having two wives any longer. He has a former wife and a current wife. Interestingly, they allowed him to lead the nursing home ministry, to preach at nursing homes, and organize others to do the same. I wondered if that somehow made the old folk sort of sub-parishioner in a sense. They contended that he wasn’t pastoring them, so it was ok. He was just preaching to them. Seems like a hair is beginning to be split there somewhere…Because my husband agrees with their thinking, it doesn’t bother him. I think it is inconsistent, however. (They do not allow a woman to preach to these old folk, though. The women who go along get to hand out song sheets, play the piano, and ‘minister’ afterwards in prayer and conversation with the attendees. More hair-splitting potential…)

  • Don Johnson

    Brian,

    If I was attending a church that forbade me, a male, to teach/be an elder due to divorce or drinking alcohol on occasion, I would ask them why and discuss these verses with them, since my understanding of these verses differs from theirs.

    They have the right to their understanding and if we could not agree, then it would be perhaps a time for me to move on, depending.

  • Paula

    Let me clarify…

    Obviously Adam experienced evil when he disobeyed, but he understood it was wrong before he did it, or God would not have charged him with sin. And just as obviously, God never experiences evil, but he surely knows it thoroughly. So I don’t equate God’s knowing evil with experiencing it. Adam, before sin, knew what God meant by “do not eat of it”, but after sin, he had a much deeper understanding of it. This is how his “knowledge” was like God’s.

    Hope that helps!

  • Paula

    Brian (Another),

    We don’t need more rules. What we need is more people following the examples of Jesus and Paul– who, when necessary, used mockery, insult, and crudity against the legalists. We need to stop this infernal push to make males play the part of ruling God to females’ submissive Jesus. This insidious doctrine is tearing the Body of Christ in half.

  • Egal-eye

    Paula, yes, that makes sense-thanks!

    Don, I agree with your #1494. David Instone-Brewer’s book on divorce gives good related teaching on that. If we can be permanently disqualified from Christian service due to certain past sins (divorce, etc.)then it seems we begin to set a dangerous precedent for a caste system of lesser Christians and greater Christians. I understand the need for time-outs to get straightened out on an issue, but for all time? Christ came to set captives free and I think that means free, not partially free. I recognize some issues would tug at hearts more than others, for example, if a person were rightly convicted of being a pedophile, one might not be comfortable for a very long time placing that person in charge of a sunday school class, etc.

  • Don Johnson

    My take on Instone-Brewer is that if you do not take his teachings into account on divorce, you are almost certainly taking some things out of 1st century context. It was his book that showed me I could be so wrong in some things and eventually got me on my current path. It was eye-opening.

  • Egal-eye

    Don, I agree per Instone-Brewer. It has made me want to learn more about the culture of the biblical times. I like what Ray Vanderlaan has done with this in his Follow the Rabbi dvd series. He has a website as well. Ray has extensive training from very pertinent institutions as well.

    What are some of your favorite resources for learning more about cultural context of the N.T. era?

  • Egal-eye

    Begonia, (and I will quite with the Begonia thing now; it just makes me chuckle) it is my understanding that sarcasim means to tear flesh. I agree that it should be used very judiciously, and I am still in the self-wrist-slapping phase of my training. I have to keep in mind what an ambassador of Christ should be like, yet I know that Jesus said some very strong things at times. “Whited sepulchres” is certainly not a wimp of a statement.

  • Don Johnson

    On the NT, I am into Hebraic Roots of Christianity. Of course, they are all over the place also, so one needs to discern. But the basic idea is that Jesus, the 12 and all the authors of the NT except perhaps Luke were Jews and thought like Hebrews, not Greeks. So us today, mostly Greek-thinkers as I am, can (mis)read the Bible similar to Euclid’s Elements (ala proofs in geometry), which it most certainly is not.

    In other words, a Bibical worldview is Hebraic for the most part, but this is not typically how we think. Note that an Hebraic worldview is not necessarily Biblical. There are some parts of the Bible written to Greek thinkers, some of Paul comes to mind, but the vast majority is not.

  • Corrie

    Brian,

    I appreciate your warnings about mocking. I really do.

    It is just that sometimes these teachings are just so horrendously frightening when you really sit and process them that the only outlet, at least for me, is to laugh.

    But, I am taking your words to heart.

  • Egal-eye

    With respect to the difference between thinking like a Greek vs. like a Hebrew, Ray Vanderlaan, on Followtherabbi.com, has a link that gives a good initial explanation by way of examples. Go to the site’s main page, go to ‘A place to start’ and below that is a brief paragraph called ‘Think Hebrew’. It contains only one link which takes you to the examples. It’s quite good, I think.

  • Don Johnson

    Yes, I think it is quite good.

    Here is a classic case of MY reading into a text, until it was pointed out to me.

    Mar 7:18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,
    Mar 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

    I used to read this and think food means MY food, so Jesus is saying I can eat anything. (This is what many teach, BTW.)

    The mental konk is that it simply cannot mean that. Food to a Jew meant kosher and the whole discussion is about washing hands before eating, which was a Pharisaical tradition but adds to Scripture. So I was totally misreading this verse every time I read it, due to my preconceived ideas about what it meant and my worldview.

  • Egal-eye

    Don, it is imperative that we understand the thinking of the recipients of the NT letters. I didn’t realize, until the Follow the Rabbi series, that sitting at the feet of a rabbi was customary for his disciples. So Mary sitting at Jesus’ feet has more significance than I thought. I never paid any attention to that aspect before. And, if Ray V. is correct, rabbis chose their disciples. It wasn’t a random Pied Piper kind of process where the rabbi just trudged along a dusty path and people glommed on, wanting to be disciples. All the more significance then when we see women being disciples of Christ if He followed that pattern.

  • Don Johnson

    One aspect to realize is one needs to learn before you can teach and the males had a huge advantage in this area, which Jesus started to change. But that does not mean you make a teacher out of a learner immediately.

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    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)

  • Don Johnson

    Yes, we are to see our potential to act like the woman, the man and even the serpent in the garden.

    We do see later that the woman made faith statements honoring God in Gen 4 and that the seed which will crush the serpent comes from the woman, so there is hope for us all.

  • Egal-eye

    Don, 1507, yes, and Paul advocated women learning which is all the more profound when you know that it wasn’t customary for women in that time.

  • Brian (Another)

    1) I by no means was singling out anyone on the sarcasm (hence the chief comment). That being said, yes, some teachings are horrendously frightening. My guess (without going to the site) is that BBlog is one that falls into that category.
    2) (Don #1494): My alcohol qualification was just an unquestioning application of 1 Tim 3. It doesn’t say abstinence, just didn’t want to get into that by leaving no question. The question was not do you agree with it (husband of but one wife). I brought it up as a response to being asked (very much a paraphrase here) if I had gifts and were not allowed to use them, would I feel frustrated. I agree to the teaching of husband of but one wife (i.e. a divorce) would be a point of exclusion. I find it neither frustrating nor, combined with Heb 13:17, humiliating.
    3) While we disagree with one another, Complementarianism is not insidious. We spurn those who would use any reading of the bible to condone or suggest abuse (and no, Complementarianism is not abusive). By the same token, I personally agree with the impact Tom Nelson (and others) cites about the pleasant yet incorrect/misguided doctrine of egalitarianism. I hold to the biblical application of complementarianism found in 1 Pet 3, Eph 5, Col 3. I fear that we are at an impasse. But the discussion has definitely directed me more to my bible (sometimes this is something I don’t do enough) and has definitely been a blessing! I truly appreciate it!
    4) Sue, I hope Dr. Grudem, or whomever, can one day adequately respond to your request.
    5) The begonia is from an old Doonesbury cartoon. I always laugh about it. Wish I had the patience to dig it up, my description just wouldn’t do.

    Blessings to all!
    B (A)

  • Don Johnson

    I also hold to the Biblical application of the genders complementing each other found in 1 Pet 3, Eph 5 and Col 3.

    On “husband of but one wife” this is not a literal translation as there is no “but” there. Furthermore the term is idiomatic for being a faithful spouse, which any gender can be and does not even refer to any possible previous divorce.

    This is what becomes problematical with some interpretations, they become human inventions (this is what I think it means, so it must mean that), allowing what God disallows and disallowing what God allows.

  • Paula

    I think I’ve seen it done somewhere before, but we really need a comprehensive guide to idioms used in the NT. Got anything on that, Don?

  • Don Johnson

    There are studies that discuss some idioms. Mostly I have read a paper about 1 and then see if I agree, most of the time I do.

    For example, binding and loosing are rabbinic terms for forbidding and permitting.

    When Jesus in Matthew 5 sermon on the mount says “You have heard it said…” he is referring to the so-called oral law, as this is how it was discussed.

    In Mat 19:3 the Pharisses are asking if Jesus agrees with the Hillel “Any Matter” divorce. And if you do not understand the question, it is a safe bet you do not understand the answers.

  • Lydia

    So Tim Challies is a great theologian but Sue can’t be right about Greek. What are Tim’s credentials? He agrees with the big names in comp/pat land. Those are his credentials. And it has been quite profitable for him.

    TUAD, Try some examples from those who do not make a living from their beliefs. Who have nothing to gain nor lose.

  • Bonnie

    TUAD,

    I don’t believe Satan tempted Eve to focus on what she couldn’t have; he tempted her to think that it was okay to partake of the forbidden thing. Which was, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He got her to mistrust God’s direction about life “You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die,” and thereby lose her innocence. She partook because Satan fooled her into thinking that, because the tree was good for food, beautiful to look at, and desirable to make one wise, it was okay to touch and eat.

    He caused her to focus on desires of the flesh rather than God’s directions.

  • Bonnie

    BTW, it’s a fallacy to think that an egalitarian is simply caving to “the culture”…there are “yes” men (and women) of every persuasion. Someone in a strict comp. church who isn’t convinced of the truth of its doctrine is caving if he or she simply goes along rather than questioning, as is someone in an egalitarian church who isn’t convinced of egal teaching but goes along anyway.

  • Paula

    Speaking of culture, history shows misogyny to be the cultural norm. So it is in fact egal that goes against culture, and patriarchy that caves in to it.

  • madame

    I find it amusing and frustrating when people embellish stories from the Bible to make them support a point they are trying to make.
    Amusing because you can see the machinations of their minds behind the embellishments and the resulting story.
    Frustrated because people will actually believe that’s what the Bible says.

    It’s sad and it has to stop.

    Don’t add to it and don’t take from it.

    You know? Satan is deceiving men into believing that their desire to dominate is a God given duty. It’s not. Wake up. Smell the coffee.

  • Don Johnson

    If I can sanctify my sin (in my mind) I get to do it AND feel good about it. It’s a double whammy.

    And when the sin is about power over another, it becomes a triple whammy as the other is simply in rebellion to my interpretation.

    At what point does a child point out the emperor has no clothes?

  • Sue

    Brian,

    You wrote about Dr. Ware,

    He said a sinful way a man can behave is to react and abuse (or passivity).

    The operative word is “react.” If you know anything about abuse, you would know that the abusive person does not need something to react to. They create scenes to react to.

    First, the man asks the wife to be ready on time or he won’t go out. When she does that he asks for her to have the kids ready ahead of time. When she does that he complains about the clothes the kids are wearing, clothes that he helped to buy, of course. When she changes that, he complains about how the kids hair is brushed. When she wets down and combs the hair into a part, he complains that when the hair dries it pops up again. The hair that he cut, because he would not allow his children to go and get a regular store bought haircuts.

    This is real. There is no action of non-submission on the part of the wife, but the bar for submission goes higher every day, to keep the woman in a state of non-submission, and continual deserved reaction and punishment by the husband.

    Needless to say, that boy did run away from home. Dr. Ware needs to know that an endless number of women live like this.

    Dr. Ware is feeding his audience false teachings about the nature of abuse.

  • Sue

    I would like to explain a few things about Tim Challies and Bruce Ware here.

    The first commenter wrote,

    One powerful example that Bruce Ware pointed me to in a discussion about translations is Romans 4:5. Check out the comparison:

    “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (ESV)

    “But people are counted as righteous, not because of their work, but because of their faith in God who forgives sinners” (NLT)

    What happened to the word “ungodly”? To the Jew, soaked in Jewish tradition, this is one of the most shocking statements they could possibly here—and it’s so central to Paul’s whole argument! The word is there! Why would it be removed? It’s removed because they wanted to use “people” so that they could use the gender-neutral “their faith” instead of the generic-masculine “his faith”.

    So, in this case, a powerful, essential biblical word is dropped because of a linguistic-philosophical presupposition that masculine gender pronouns are bad.

    The second commenter wrote,

    I have some thoughts on the post as a whole, which I will post later, but I wanted to respond to Julian’s comment regarding Romans 4:5.

    The NLT does indeed translate the word asebe, using the word “sinners.” The sentence structure of the NLT varies from the Greek, not to serve a gender-agenda, but to clarify meaning

    I seriously hope that Tim Challies and Bruce Ware are not making the mistake that the commenter made. However, they are certainly creating a climate of misunderstanding and disrespect about Bible translation.

  • Corrie

    Sue,

    #1523

    Exactly! The operative word is “react” and your story illustrates very clearly how an abuser does indeed create things so he/she can react with abuse. Nothing is ever good enough and a person can’t jump high enough for an abuser.

    To say that a man abuses or becomes passive because of his wife’s sin is absolutely WRONG and this is exactly what Ware stated. We can sit here and split hairs and say that isn’t what he meant but he did. A man abuses BECAUSE of his wife’s insubordination.

    The problem I have is the same one you pointed out, Sue. It is the fact that men who abuse see insubordination when there is none. EVERYTHING becomes a reason to lash out- from lasagna that has too crusty of edges to his socks not being properly put into his drawer. He will see anything that bugs him (and abusers have a HUGE list of things that bug them) as a threat to his authority.

    If men are passive, maybe it is because they are passive?

    If men abuse, maybe it is because they are a hot-tempered, impatient person?

    Was it Abigail’s fault that Nabal was an angry fool? Well, Bill Gothard states that Nabal’s blood is on Abigail’s head and that he died of a broken heart because she did not submit to him!

    I have seen enough passive and abusive men to know that they are not reacting to their wives.

    Why does everything have to boil down to “the woman You gave me”?

    And comps/pats need to stop trying to have their cake and eating it too.

    If women respond and men initiate then why is it always the woman initiating the response of the man?

  • tiro3

    1525, Corrie…

    “Was it Abigail’s fault that Nabal was an angry fool? Well, Bill Gothard states that Nabal’s blood is on Abigail’s head and that he died of a broken heart because she did not submit to him!”

    Perhaps Gothard should read the whole story in CONTEXT. He seems to have missed the fact that Nabal, Abigail and their entire household would have been dead at David’s hands (to his shame) were it not for Abigail’s intervention. Abigail saved more than her own or her household’s skin. She also saved the reputation of David and even of her husband. Its bad enough that he was known as the town drunk (Nabal means ‘fool’). He could have been further known as the idiot who caused the deaths of his whole household and caused David to tarnish his good name.

  • ahunt

    Brian,

    re: mockery

    Please permit me to point out that we caught ourselves, and took it elsewhere. And honestly, elsewhere, I’m not sure a little mocking humor isn’t appropriate, especially when one is responding to the ridiculously funny, or the ridiculously offensive. Keyword here is “ridiculous.”

  • Ellen

    …What are Tim’s credentials? He agrees with the big names in comp/pat land. Those are his credentials. And it has been quite profitable for him.

    TUAD, Try some examples from those who do not make a living from their beliefs. Who have nothing to gain nor lose.

    I guess times have changed. The last I heard, Tim Challies had written one book (with pretty mixed reviews) and made his living as a web designer.

  • Sue

    Corrie,

    (and abusers have a HUGE list of things that bug them)

    The list is infinite and covers involuntary actions on the part of the victim, ie spilling tea, coughing too frequently, needing to go to the bathroom to frequently. These are key aspects of elder abuse also. Very, very dangerous.

  • Ellen

    Ahunt…since I just saw you comment…a little bit of old business…

    Thank you for understanding the intent behind my comment on Sunday (or whenever it was). Looking at the last 50 posts or so, I have a difficult time thinking that anybody could think this blog was an unsafe place for egalitarians. Everybody seems to have a pretty free rein.

  • Corrie

    Tiro,

    Good points about needing to look at the whole story.

    Another thing that Gothard claims about Abigail is that Nabal would have changed into a good man if she had been submissive.

    Another thing Gothard teaches is that Tamar was responsible for her rape because she should have seen the warning signs and if she were alert to these signs that her brother was secretly plotting with his servants to rape her, she could have kept her purity. Another thing about Tamar is that Gothard claims she did not “cry out” and that is why she was raped.

    People really need to stop adding their own prejudicial (against women) bias INto Scripture (Madame really stated it very well a few posts back.)

    I have been listening to these teachings for far too long and I am getting tired of those who claim to be the gatekeepers of sound doctrine doing nothing to counter these horrendously BAD twists of Scripture.

    Where is this war on men when we have a war on women going on right in our midst?

  • Ellen

    Can I get a link to the Gothard teaching? I’m sure the quotes are accurate (or the gist of it if there are no quotes)…it would be nice to have links if there are any. (meaning that sometimes these teachings are not available on line)

  • Lydia

    “I guess times have changed. The last I heard, Tim Challies had written one book (with pretty mixed reviews) and made his living as a web designer.”

    Guess you are out of the loop. :o)

  • Ellen

    Yeah…I guess I am.

    His website still says, “I am a Web designer by trade. Though I graduated from McMaster University with a degree in history I quickly found that there was not much work for an aspiring but not-very-motivated historian. I worked my way into the computer world and after being laid off one time too many I started Websonix. So now I spend my days sitting in a home office creating Web pages. And writing. I can hardly think of a better life.”

    Ah well…

  • Don Johnson

    Gothard has some incredibly strange ideas about gender relations, from what I can tell. He totally faked me out at first by stated everything with 100% assurance, when things are not like that.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    Tim Challies has a following and reputation, especially as a blogger, based largely upon the doctrine he espouses. It’s not unreasonable to surmise that he has a bit of a personal stake in toeing a certain party line.

  • ahunt

    Indeed, one cannot mention Bill Gothard and not shift my sense of humor into overdrive.

    Extra-biblical does not even begin to cover his interpretations of scripture.

  • Ellen

    Bonnie, I understand the reputation. However, TUAD was told, “Try some examples from those who do not make a living from their beliefs.”

    Challies, while he may experience a fall out of readership, would not suffer financially (at least much)

  • Bonnie

    Ellen, point taken. However, Corrie also said, “Who have nothing to win or lose.” Challies does have something to lose, perhaps even some of his livelihood, as I believe he gets some of his business from those who agree with him, including promotion of his book.

  • Sue

    It is pretty well known that a lot of the gender books are subsidized by CBMW. I will try to track down a link for that. But the person has a position as a prof and need to publish for their job, and then they get paid on top of that to write a book about gender and everyone thinks it was a sacrificial act.

    Challies attends conferences and live blogs the manhood conferences. He also reviews a lot of books. Hmm.

    Some authors get only the royalties from a book – not so much. This is why it is so unfair of seminary professors to say to a woman “you can write a book.” Because they get a living from being a prof and then revenue from writing pro-institutional stuff, to meet certain goals.

    This is why I won’t write a book. I am too poor. I can’t afford to.

    So how did Tim Challies write a book? Well, I won’t invade his privacy.

  • Sue

    RBMW is “supported” by CBMW and Discovering Biblical Equality is “supported” by CBE. So, there is is, you can believe everyone or no one.

  • Lydia

    Do these professors get paid for preaching/speaking at these conferences? If so, Do they keep the money or does it go to the seminary? The reason I ask is because the SBC CP program funds a huge part of the SBC seminaries such as professor salaries.

    The SBC is a cooperative entity. The semiary presidents are ultimately accountable to the churches who give the money.

    Anyone know how it works for SBC seminary professors who go on the speaking circuit?

  • Sue

    Everybody has to live, I guess. Just don’t know why some people get paid to tell women that they are abused because they are rebellious, instead of telling them the truth, that they are abused because they are remaining in a bad situation longer than they should. There is nothing like the truth.

  • Bonnie

    Ellen,

    I’m not sure how we got from questioning whether or not Tim Challies had anything to lose, either reputation or financially, from not toeing the complementarian party line, to suggesting that no one ought reference a book that someone made a profit from…?

  • Paula

    Besides following the money, we also need to follow that other basic human trait: prestige. Even if no money were involved, people still guard their careers and often will stop at nothing to squelch the truth if it might mar them.

    Take the example of the Pharisees: they knew Jesus was more than just another rebel, but they ultimately plotted His death for one reason: “we will lose our place”. They had status with the Roman government and their own people, and Jesus was getting in their way.

    So it is today with evolutionism, politics, and complementarianism.

  • Ellen

    TUAD, Try some examples from those who do not make a living from their beliefs. Who have nothing to gain nor lose.

    Bonnie, TUAD was told to try some “examples” from those who do not make a living from their beliefs.

    Bonnie, do you think that we should try to use examples of teaching from people who do not make a living from their beliefs?

    Kevin Giles? Cheryl Schatz? Both are egalitarians who

    Cheryl Schatz was present on this post, commenting about her DVD. If she is referring people to her own DVD (which is available on Amazon) does that make her more or less credible?

    I do not think that we should write off authors because they make a living from their writing (and Challies does not even do that).

    Or, if we do write off authors who make a living from their writing, at least be consistent and doubt authors from any side of the aisle on any issue.

    (BTW, I don’t think that Cheryl Schatz is more or less credible because she sells her DVD and goes to other places mentioning it. She is a good example of somebody with a sincerely held religious belief who sells her product – if she donates the proceeds, that information is not “front and center” and I did a site-search for “donate” and “proceeds”. If we do not discount her, we should not judge the motives of other “people groups” in their writing and discount them based on whether or not they profit from their beliefs)

  • Don Johnson

    I am not sure why profit got involved in the discussion. There are some teachers who fleece the flock, but if you are not doing that I do not see a problem.

  • Truth Unites... and Divides

    Re: #1508 and Tim Challies (but which is painfully quite evident throughout much of the egalitarian reactions to complementarian arguments in this and other threads), we see the following fallacy:

    “An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

    Person A makes claim X.
    Person B makes an attack on person A.
    Therefore A’s claim is false.

    The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).”

    Unfortunately, Tim Challies is not the only one to have his arguments endure the ad hominem fallacy.

  • Paula

    And, somehow, branding all women as deceivable, and all egals as on a slippery slope to ordaining homosexual pastors, and all the strong rebuttals to comp lunacy as “reactions”… isn’t ad hominem.

  • Paula

    … and guilt by association, and red herring, and tautology, and…

    If I added up all the logical fallacies I’ve seen comp use, it would take a year.

  • Ellen

    ad hominem:

    “Try some examples from those who do not make a living from their beliefs. Who have nothing to gain nor lose.” (my reading – if a person gains or loses by a doctrine, they should not be used as examples)

    ad hominem. We should not use Cheryl Schatz (or Tim Challies or any other person) as a resource because they “gain” from getting their opinion out there. Whether or not a person gets money may have nothing to do with whether their belief is right or wrong.

  • Ellen

    If I added up all the logical fallacies I’ve seen comp use, it would take a year.

    I think that it is that way in many conversations, on both sides of any issues. Most times the participants genuinely do not realize what they are doing.

  • Ellen

    No one should use such tactics.

    Don, you are correct – but it happens and I believe that many times it is unintentional. I know that I (personally) get off on tangents, see a different question than what the author intended, or get personal and not even know where. I may use a logical fallacy and not realize it.

    Most times (with most people), being gently and specifically pointed to the fallacy (or other fault) can bring the conversation back to civility. (Not pointing here – I’ve seen conversations way more heated than this one)

  • Don Johnson

    In the world, there is a justification that goes like, “you did it to me, so I can do it to you” but such is not in the Kingdom.

  • ahunt

    Ellen makes a good point that we ought not to dismiss potential resources because of the profit angle, but frankly, I just cannot get very excited about anything that is “new.”

    There is a quality of “faddishness” to various modern Christian movements, from Promise Keepers to Bill Gothard’s IBLP, to the Patriarchy/Quiverful phenomenon…I could go on.

    My point is that these movements seem to reach some critical mass, and then collapse into themselves. Neither PK nor Gothard exercise anywhere near the influence of even a decade ago.

    While, I do not think that PK suffered from excessive legalism, I do believe that the flow and DECLINE of modern movements is the product of the ever more legalistic, tedious, petty and basically irrelevant restrictions on what people may and may not do. It is as if the leaders of these groups have nowhere else to go, once the initial message has gotten out.

    So whenever an excited friend or acquaintance hands me the latest in “literature,” I invariably think to myself: “Oh Dear, what fresh sin am I about to discover I’ve been committing for my fifty years on this earth?”

    This is why I find online discussion much more interesting, productive and enlightening, and particularly in terms of the actual scholarship rendered comprehensible on blogs like this.

  • Paula

    I agree, ahunt. Jesus came to lift off the heavy burden of laws and rules, and replace it with freedom in love.

    If you love your neighbor, you will not seek supremacy over them, or to rule, or to restrict and control. Point out sins if necessary, but first make sure it really is a sin and not human tradition. Disagreement over anything outside the gospel and the law of love is not sin; it’s just disagreement.

    And that is the crux of the egal/comp debate. Comp calls egal sin; it lays rules upon women that are not also put upon men; it invents “roles” in an effort to call inequality equality, to call domination a form of submission; it ignores “not so among you”. But egal seeks no restrictions beyond the law of love; it never calls preaching the gospel sin; it never calls teaching correct doctrine sin; it lays equal rules on all.

  • Ellen

    And that is the crux of the egal/comp debate. Comp calls egal sin

    And vice versa. I would ask (not in any way attempting to take any authority) that it be noted (again, merely asking) that there is “sin-calling” on both sides.

    it lays rules upon women that are not also put upon men

    I believe that the whole counsel of Scripture shows us a pattern of male leadership and authority in the church and home. Any “rules” that we believe are Scriptural and that we hold as a sincerely held religious beliefs, we also believe are put into place by Scripture and thus, we should learn from them and follow them as best we can, as humans.

  • Paula

    To clarify:

    Comp calls A WOMAN PREACHING TO MEN sin. It calls A WOMAN TEACHING SCRIPTURE TO A MAN sin. It calls A WIFE DISOBEYING HER HUSBAND sin, while not calling it sin when the husband disobeys the wife.

    Contrast:

    Egal NEVER calls anyone preaching the gospel a sinner; egal NEVER calls anyone teaching correct doctrine a sinner. Egal NEVER tells one spouse to obey another.

    Both sides disagree; we know that. The problem is that in an egal church we wouldn’t care about the flesh; it’s all based on gifting. But in a comp church, women cannot preach the true gospel; they cannot teach correct doctrine to men; they must learn a myriad of often conflicting RULES on their limits.

    Believe what you want, but don’t force it on others. That’s the difference; comp restricts and controls, while egal frees and does not look on the flesh.

  • S E Parker

    Wow. I found this site through Ethics Daily’s information re: the sermons on women’s submission. Reading these posts, I am reminded again of where the real problem lies, and that is in having a view of God as male. As long as people make an idol of God – and men – by attaching maleness to God, this problem will persist. If humans were truly made in God’s image, male and female, then God is not limited to maleness. Unfortunately, Hebrew does not have a neuter construct, so a gendered term had to be used. However, scripture describes God in metaphors that encompass all of creation, not just humans, and not just male.

    The real sin is in our having created God in a male image.

  • Don Johnson

    Hebrew and Greek (and many other languages) have a concept of grammatical gender that English does not have. A main use is to match pronouns with nouns.

    The Holy Spirit in Hebrew is grammatically feminine and in Greek is grammatically neuter, but this does NOT mean the Holy Spirit is female in the OT and an it in the NT.

    Spirit is not gendered.

    God the Father is never said to have male genitals but IS said to have a womb and breasts, so obviously metaphorical language is being used. Jesus goes out of his way to map God and himself to male and female images in his parables.

  • Marilyn

    Sue #1198 and #1207,

    Right before leaving for a short vacation, I expressed the view that complementarity implies hierarchy. I didn’t have a chance to answer your reply, which (if I’m reading your two posts correctly) is to advocate a model in which there is co-nurturing and co-providing. Since this thread is still open, I would like to give a delayed response.

    I don’t see the Bible as supporting the position you advocate, and I also believe that the sociological evidence is consistent with my interpretation of Scripture. When I read passages in the Bible on marriage, I’m always struck by the gender distinctions that are made. The commands explicitly addressed to husbands differ from those explicitly addressed to wives. He is to love her; She is respect to him, etc. God didn’t just create people; He created men and women (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 5:2, Matthew 19:4). We may debate whether complementarity implies hierarchy. But, I don’t think that Scripture supports a debate over complementarity versus androgyny.

    Why are androgynous roles in marriage wrong? Jesus commands us to love God and to love others as we love ourselves. In a marriage with complementarity, a spouse learns to love the “other”. In a marriage with androgynous roles, a spouse looks at his beloved and sees not a complement, but an image of himself. That’s narcissism, not self-sacrificing love. We are commanded to love the “other”, not to make the “other” like us.

    But, narcisissism isn’t the only problem in marriages with androgynous roles. Sexual passion thrives on complementarity and diminishes as androgyny in romantic relationships increases. One flesh unity declines, too, because there is less interdependence in a marriage with androgynous roles. If I’m a co-provider, I don’t need my husband to provide. If he’s a co-nurturer, he doesn’t need me to nurture. Finally, research has shown that the marriage is much more inward-focused, because of the constant need to discuss whether the co-sharing of roles is truly occurring.

    Now, I may be overstating the case. Perhaps you didn’t mean to truly imply co-sharing of nurturing and providing roles?

    But, I did not mean to imply a complete separation of those roles, either. Obviously, the wife is not 100% in charge of nurturing, nor is the husband 100% in charge of providing. I find the phrase “primarily responsible” to be descriptive. And, I’m the first to acknowledge that I don’t think complementarians have done a good job of addressing the meaning of complementarity in the current economic context. Too often, complementarians legalistically translate a husband’s role as primary provider into an Eleventh Commandment that I can’t seem to find anywhere in the Bible – “And the wife shalt not work outside the home.” Given the post-Industrial Revolution context in which productive activity occurs primarily outside the home, I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that all wives will be in the private sphere, all of their lives.

    (Aside: Lydia, in post #1205, you interpreted my earlier posts as implying an opposition to women working outside the home. That’s not what I said, but in light of typical comp writing, I can see why you came back at me the way that you did. For the record, I’m married, and I work outside the home. So, I’m the last person who is going to label as sinful, a widow’s working to support her children!)

    But, I also don’t think that egalitarians have done a good job of addressing the issues that arise in egalitarian marriages. I think it is safe to say that in egalitarian marriages, there tends to be more of a blurring of the roles than in complementarian marriages. I am not aware of a single egalitarian book or blog that addresses the issues that secular research tells us to be prevalent in marriages that trend towards androgynous roles. In contrast, there are dozens of great complementarian books addressing issues that arise in complementarian marriages.

    (Aside: it could be that I haven’t come across the right egalitarian materials. If someone is aware of such books, please let me know.)

    (Aside: the five complementarian books I’ve found to be the most helpful are:
    Each For The Other by Bryan Chappell (based on the sacrifice/submit couplet)
    Love and Respect by Emerson Eggerichs (based on the love/respect couplet)
    Feminine Appeal by Carolyn Mahaney (advice to wives on how to honor husbands)
    Sacred Influence by Gary Thomas (advice to wives on how to honor husbands)
    Sacred Marriage by Gary Thomas (advice to spouses on how to sacrifice & submit))

    I’m not saying that the issues in egalitarian marriages can’t be addressed. For example, spiritual accountability between the partners would seem to be one way of dealing with the lack of interdependence and true unity that arises as roles become more androgynous. My guess is that this is a much more critical component of successful egalitarian marriages than of successful complementarian marriages. Also, what mechanisms do egalitarian couples use to address the fact that an inward-focus on divvying up role assignments seems at odds with the Great Commission? I just don’t see issues like this acknowledged or addressed.

    Finally, without meaning to incite WWIII (but perhaps in the interest of carrying comments through to #2000!), I think the androgyny issue is a big part of why folks like Wayne Grudem view egalitarianism as a slippery slope to homosexuality. Complementarity without hierarchy drifts toward androgyny. Once roles are androgynous, there is then a greater tolerance for homosexuality, because it is the ultimate in androgyneity. I’m not saying that this is what must happen. But, I believe it is very legitimate to argue that this is a significant danger to an egalitarian perspective.

    My plan is to not do a point-counterpoint about this post. (But, if there are responses, I do look forward to reading them!) I don’t yet have the spiritual maturity to engage in a rapid-fire back and forth without being uncharitable. If this thread is still open in a couple of days (ha! ha!), I’ll try to reply then. However, if these remarks offend, please let me know. I am trying to grow in my ability to communicate my views in a manner befitting a Christian!

    P.S. Finally, an aside on the various posts about legalism in complementarian teaching. I’m an accountant. Right now, there is an accusation from the international community that U.S. accounting standards are too legalistic. The solution, say some, is to move to International rules, which are based on general principles, as opposed to specific rules. A common example to support the argument from the International community is a recent U.S. accounting rule on derivative securities. The rule was 130 pages, and the interpretative guidance issued in the following months was over 1,000 pages! Some say this is lunacy. But, a thoughtful commentator recently pointed out that there are over 10,000 companies using U.S. accounting rules. In contrast, at the time of the critique, only 50 companies were reporting under International rules. Are U.S. rules too legalistic? Or is the seeming legalism simply a response to the fact that 10,000 companies are requesting guidance on how to apply the rules to their specific situation? I think there is an analogy here to legalism in the complementarian world versus the seeming lack of legalism in the egalitarian world.

  • ahunt

    Well yeah, folks do get a mite tetchy over doctrinal differences, especilly as it pertains to salvation questions.

    And yes, I HAVE heard it said that denying gifts on the basis of gender is sinful…not often, but the sentiment is out there.

    And Ellen, you might relate to this…and as Bonnie clarified upthread…

    …I too often find myself responding with the sharp edge of my tongue in civil discussions with loving comps WHEN my egal practice is described as sin. Tetchy, tetchy. As Bonnie noted: that when there is a true disagreement, one must stand one’s ground before God, yet in humility, i.e., willing to be found wrong. We all are to offer one other grace. Even when grace is not being offered, we must still offer it ourselves.

    Ironic that I am inclined to sin when being accused of sin…as humility and grace usually take a powder.

    That said, my sense is that comp teachings are more likely to lead to the excessive legalism that “deters” rather than “welcomes,” with interpretations becoming oppressive instead of liberating, dulling the mind and spirit, and costing the Body of Christ talent, energy, wisdom and inspiration.

  • Paula

    Marilyn,

    When I read passages in the Bible on marriage, I’m always struck by the gender distinctions that are made

    But the important issue is **why** those distinctions are made. Nobody is arguing that there are no distinctions between men and women, but that there is **mutual submission** between them. Those distinctions are not clearly about male superiority at all when one looks at the Greek grammar. Are you aware of the Roman law of the time called “the marriage without hand”? This would have a profound influence on how we understand Paul.

    But, I don’t think that Scripture supports a debate over complementarity versus androgyny.

    Who is advocating androgyny? This debate is **not** between comp and androgyny at all. It’s between hierarchy and mutual submission. This fundamental misunderstanding of our argument leads to further error:

    I think it is safe to say that in egalitarian marriages, there tends to be more of a blurring of the roles than in complementarian marriages

    There shouldn’t BE roles. This isn’t acting, it’s life. Women are fully human, fully grown, and made in the full and direct image of God. Egals are not androgynous or confused about sexuality; we happen to like the other to be what they are in the flesh. But the flesh is not the sum total of our being, and not the most important quality of a person. It’s just the package we came it. Does God look on the flesh or not? Is he a respecter of persons? That is not androgyny but simply humanity. People are people; some come in a male body and some in a female body, and we like it that way. 🙂

    Please do not confuse personality with sexuality. Please do not call what God has ordained, mutual submission, as androgyny. It is these sorts of mischaracterizations that fuel the debate.

  • Paula

    I defy any comp to look at my egal marriage and have trouble figuring out which of us is the male and which is the female.

    If some comps want to call such a marriage “same sex” that’s their problem.

    Why, why does any believer want to be in charge of another adult believer? Why won’t any comp answer my very first question: how does hierarchy fit into “not so among you”?

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    The Gothard teachings concerning Abigail and Tamar are not on the internet but found in his materials (Character Sketches).

    I believe that the teaching on Tamar comes under the chapter on Alertness. Tamar should have been more alert that her own brother, her own flesh and blood, that is supposed to protect her was going to plot to rape her. Also, she was obeying the instructings of her father, David, but that never seems to get brought up in the sketch. It seems that David is the one who should have been more alert.

    And in the sketch about Abigail, the focus is on how she ruined her own house with her own hands and that if she were more submissive, her husband would have come around and been a godly man and that Nabal’s blood is on her head because he died of a broken heart.

    Typical calling good evil and evil good.

    I think I have the Sketches still down in my library. I can look them up and send you a pdf, if you like?

  • Don Johnson

    It is the whole concept of “roles” that is part of the question. In egal there is not a blurring of roles, there are no pre-set roles. If it makes sense for a family to have a stay at home househusband, that is the couple’s choice, they simply do not have to worry about doing something they are not supposed to do, they are free to choose what works best for them.

    But another concern is that the non-egal marriage has a supposed final decider or tie breaker or dictator, however one terms it, nicer or not nicer. This is so contrary to other Scriptures it boggles my mind that it is actually presented as Biblical.

  • Sue

    Marilyn,

    You seem to work fulltime. What do you mean by saying that you are not a co-provider?

    Do you really find that a husband making all decisions and a wife making none is more sexually stimulating than extreme reciprocity?

  • ahunt

    My problem, Marilyn, is that the Better Half and moi share more strengths than weaknesses, are frankly more alike than we are different, and as intelligent, competant adults, we are pretty much capable of stepping up to the plate in any given circumstance. These days, who does what is a wash…we act not in terms of specific roles, but in the interests of what needs doing when, how and why.

    We are much less complementary, and far more unified, and life is simpler, happier and infinitely more organized with the approach.

  • Ellen

    from answers.com

    To say that a culture or relationship is androgynous is to say that it lacks rigid gender roles and that the people involved display characteristics or partake in activities traditionally associated with the other gender.

    A role (sometimes spelled rôle) or a social role is a set of connected behaviors, rights and obligations as conceptualized by actors in a social situation. It is mostly defined as an expected behavior in a given individual social status and social position.

    When we speak of “role”, we speak of an expected behavior – gender roles speak to the behavior one expects (in general) from males and females.

    When we speak of androgyny, we speak to the blurring of traditional gender roles.

  • Don Johnson

    Note that egals do not deny that a wife is the only one of the 2 who can birth a child, but this is an attribute of being female, not a role. That is the physical is just the physical.

  • Sue

    I talked to a woman on Sunday who has cared for her invalid husband for 10 years as a faithful and caring provider and nurturer. Is there a line between the two and if so, why in the NT do women do all the providing and men all the nurturing?

  • Sue

    When we speak of androgyny, we speak to the blurring of traditional gender roles.

    Maybe the gospels promote androgyny. The word for virtue and courage was andreia, “manliness” and it was used in every way as an honourable description for women.

    Men as nurturers and women as providers is what the gospels were all about.

  • Paula

    Perhaps an illustration:

    A box has three dimensions: width, length, and height. The height is not the length and the width is not the height. All three things are needed to form the box, yet all three things are distinct. And none of the three is more important or foundational to the others.

    In a marriage, there is a male and a female. Both are needed to form a marriage. The male is not the female and vice versa. But beyond the physical, there is no necessary distinction. Beyond the physical, there is personality, gifting, disposition, skill, etc. These are human traits, not sexual traits. To put those human issues into the sexuality box is truly a case of confusion; it cannot distinguish between the physical and the non-physical.

  • Sue

    Marilyn,

    I will drop out for a bit. Your comments about complementarity as hierarchy and hierarchy as sexually attractive have caused me to have my usual PTSS. I’ll have to take a long break or I will say some really tragic and regrettable things. I can only say that the damage is extreme.

  • Ellen

    Why, why does any believer want to be in charge of another adult believer?

    Because we believe that hierarchy is Scriptural and that the whole counsel of Scripture gives us a pattern of male leadership in the home and church.

    Why won’t any comp answer my very first question: how does hierarchy fit into “not so among you”?

    In a very Scriptural way. We see elders and apostles with authority. We see wives submitting to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.

    It is just as some say about “the woman” who exercises authority in Paul’s writing…the problem is not the authority, the problem is how it is exercised.

    Complementarianism teaches leadership in love, not oppressive compulsion.

    The men that Christ told “not so among you” were the same men who governed the infant church.

  • Ellen

    The question is not what Answers.com says but what the Bible says.

    Just so. I do find it helpful when everybody uses the same definitions though. Are you the same way?

    My first question (for this comment) is: Does the Bible speak to wives (when it speaks to wives directly) differently then it speaks to husbands (when it speaks to husbands directly)? If the answer is “yes”, then we need to look at the differences.

  • Ellen

    These are human traits, not sexual traits. To put those human issues into the sexuality box is truly a case of confusion; it cannot distinguish between the physical and the non-physical.

    However, if Scripture (when it speaks to husbands and wives directly) instructs them in different ways, then we need to look at the differences and what those differences tell us.

  • Paula

    I guess the ideal comp man is a hairy-backed, knuckle-dragging cave man, dragging his wife by the hair.

    The ideal egal man is like Jesus: soft-hearted, nasty with the legalists, not afraid to cry in public, and really good in a debate. Smart and witty, too. An egal man is too busy doing what he’s good at and caring about his spouse and kids to be afraid of losing any imaginary manly privileges. He doesn’t fret about who is dishonoring him (as the Muslims and hard comps do), but who he can help. He is more concerned about whether the Gospel is being preached than who’s lips it comes from.

    And Marily, you did to Sue what another comp did earlier: you caused pain. In public. It doesn’t matter how nicely the pain is caused. There is simply nothing nice about equating a woman’s sexuality with being a man’s underling. Think hard about what you just did to her with those nicely-worded daggers.

  • Ellen

    I guess the ideal comp man is a hairy-backed, knuckle-dragging cave man, dragging his wife by the hair.

    That would be your stated opinion. It is neither my personal opinion, or the teaching of most complementarians.

    The ideal egal man is like Jesus: soft-hearted, nasty with the legalists, not afraid to cry in public, and really good in a debate. Smart and witty, too.

    Actually, that sounds very much like the (complementarian) man I very fondly call my “gentleman caller”

  • Paula

    In a very Scriptural way. We see elders and apostles with authority. We see wives submitting to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.

    You see nothing we’ve ever said.

    There is simply NO way to reconcile hierarchy with “not so among you”. Jesus said to be the servant of all, not the authority. No elders and apostles ever held PERMANENT AND INVOLUNTARY authority over anyone. And Phoebe was described by Paul as one who was a provider and protector (the actual greek meaning) of him!

    No student should remain forever in class; no child should forever remain under their parents’ authority. And no elder or apostle is ever said to exercise such permanent control or rule over any believer. Comp teaching, in stark and unbiblical contrast, puts one human over another for life, based entirely on the flesh.

    But I know I am wasting my time again.

    The men that Christ told “not so among you” were the same men who governed the infant church.

    Governed?? They started it, they gave people the words of Jesus. There was never a single “leader of the church”, anywhere. And Paul mentioned many women as CO-WORKERS and described them in exactly the same terms as he did males doing the same thing.

    But again, it’s a waste of time.

    Go read http://www.fether.net/Egal/index.php?pager=gender_sum.php .

  • Paula

    “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served…”

    “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

    Comp men expect to be served. They demand it. They say it’s scripture.

    Either the Bible contradicts itself, or comp teaching is in violation of the most basic teachings about relationships between believers.

  • Don Johnson

    Here is how I see it. The NT in the Bible DOES speak to wives and husbands in the 1st century using some different words. It is imperative to understand the 1st century culture to see the effect of those words. This is what the non-egals seem to miss, they just want to take the words directly, as if they were spoken to people today. This bypasses the original reader and the question of application for today.

    What did “Wives, submit to your husbands …” mean in the 1st century? It did not mean much, as that was already expected by the patriarchical culture. Also, the key word “obey” was NOT used and this is a HUGE departure from Aristotle, in this case the silence shouts, as Paul did use obey with kids and slaves.

    But the guidance to the husband was nothing short of revolutionary, Aristotle put NO limits on the husband’s power, there is a famous letter from the time where a travelling father ORDERS his wife to keep the child if it is male and abadon it (to kill it) if it is female. The wife could not even bring her husband to court and if she had 3 kids only then she could select someone other than her husband to represent her in court.

  • Ellen

    Paula, I will continue to address the content of what you are saying. I see what you are saying…I disagree.

    And no elder or apostle is ever said to exercise such permanent control or rule over any believer.

    Where are term limits defined for elders in Scripture?

    There was never a single “leader of the church”, anywhere

    You are correct. Even today we have boards of elders (in complementarian churches a group of men; in egalitarians churches a group of men and women) who govern the flock.

    I have not said that there is a single leader of the church, anywhere.

  • Sue

    Then Ellen, Christians need to put a moratorium on hierarchy between men and women as having anything at all to do with sexuality. It was clear that relations were to be mutual. 1 Cor. 7, yes, for both, the man could not force the wife or deny the wife and vice versa.

    Touting the power of a man over a woman as sexually appealing is criminal and belongs somewhere else entirely. Anyone who is a victim of male violence has to get up and leave the room, as I left complegal.

    If Christianity is about men having their way with women who are bucking and resisting as Grudem and Ware say, then they are appealing to the very basest of human emotions, a fascination with being the perpetrator or victim of violence. This is extremely disturbing. I read these men and the women who support them as violators of those who are physically weak, that is those women who are strong enough to fend off this incredible evil.

  • Corrie

    Marilyn,

    ” I think it is safe to say that in egalitarian marriages, there tends to be more of a blurring of the roles than in complementarian marriages.”

    What do you mean by “roles”?

    “I am not aware of a single egalitarian book or blog that addresses the issues that secular research tells us to be prevalent in marriages that trend towards androgynous roles. ”

    What is an “androgynous role”? As in a man who changes diapers, washes dishes, makes dinner? I guess I don’t understand how androgyny and roles go together? How do egals blur these so-called roles? What does that look like in practical terms?

    Maybe they don’t view the typical marital problems as a problem with people playing a proper “role”? Maybe they view them for what they are- sin (selfishness, self-centeredness, neglect, abuse, lack of forgiveness, etc)? IMHO, marital problems don’t have much to do with playing an assigned role. It has to do with not obeying the “one another” commands in scripture. That is sin not androgyny.

    Do marital problem boil down to people not playing their proper role or people acting sinful and demanding their own way and not putting the other person above their own self?

    I really don’t think playing a role has anything to do with having a good marriage or addressing normal marital problems.

    Take marital intimacy. How does playing one’s role figure into that problem? The Bible teaches that the wife has authority over her husband and vice versa when it comes to the bedroom. I have heard comps teach women to submit to her husband and his sexual needs but I have never heard a comp teach that a husband is to submit to his wife and her sexual needs. Marital intimacy isn’t cured by playing a certain role but by putting the other person above our own interests.

    “In contrast, there are dozens of great complementarian books addressing issues that arise in complementarian marriages.”

    Yes, this is true that there are many comp books on marriage. Frankly, quite a few of them cause the very problems that they supposedly address.

    (Aside: the five complementarian books I’ve found to be the most helpful are:
    Each For The Other by Bryan Chappell (based on the sacrifice/submit couplet)
    Love and Respect by Emerson Eggerichs (based on the love/respect couplet)
    Feminine Appeal by Carolyn Mahaney (advice to wives on how to honor husbands)
    Sacred Influence by Gary Thomas (advice to wives on how to honor husbands)
    Sacred Marriage by Gary Thomas (advice to spouses on how to sacrifice & submit))”

    Haven’t read Chappell’s or Mahaney’s book. I have heard good things about Thomas’ book but haven’t read them. I do not care for the “give to get” cycle in “Love and Respect”. We give because we are told to and there are way too many marriages where one is always giving and they need to not give in order to get because they are setting themselves up for heartache.

    “I’m not saying that the issues in egalitarian marriages can’t be addressed. For example, spiritual accountability between the partners would seem to be one way of dealing with the lack of interdependence and true unity that arises as roles become more androgynous.”

    How do you know that egals have a lack of interdependence and unity in their marriages? From what I have read, it is the exact opposite. They stress unity and interdependence.

    In fact, the poisoning of the well in many comp teachings does not lead to unity, either. When a person teaches that a wife has a desire to rule over her husband but he must rule over her, that is not going to lead to unity but to suspicion and domination.

    “Also, what mechanisms do egalitarian couples use to address the fact that an inward-focus on divvying up role assignments seems at odds with the Great Commission? I just don’t see issues like this acknowledged or addressed.”

    I am not following. It seems to me that the patriarchal model is one of inward-focus. It is patriocentric, focused on the father to the nth degree. Everything revolves around his calling, his vision, his desires, etc. The patriarchalists are some of the most inward-focused people I have ever seen, almost to the point of obsession.

    What is the Great Commission (making disciples of others?) and what does it have to do with proper role assignments? How is egalitarianism at odds with the GC but patriarchy is not?

    What is a divvying up of role assignments? What does that mean?

    Like, who does the cooking and wash and who mows the lawn? Shouldn’t a marriage be two people working together, getting done what needs to be done for the good of the family?

    I have a “traditional” marriage. I do all of the housework and cooking and such. I also take out the garbage, mow the lawn and do general maintenance. My husband works and does what he can. I do a lot of “blue” “role assignments” because I want to bless my husband and free up his time when he is not working. I really don’t look at my household responsibilities as my role assignment. I don’t see where the Bible charges me with the sole responsibility for laundry, cooking, cleaning and child care.

    This is what works for my family but is this how it is supposed to be for every family? What if a husband wants to cook and he enjoys cleaning? What if the husband does the laundry for the family?

    “Finally, without meaning to incite WWIII (but perhaps in the interest of carrying comments through to #2000!), I think the androgyny issue is a big part of why folks like Wayne Grudem view egalitarianism as a slippery slope to homosexuality. ”

    I still don’t see any androgyny. Maybe I need to know what you all mean by making that charge and some proof to back it up?

    “Complementarity without hierarchy drifts toward androgyny.”

    Really? So, hierarchy is there to make sure women stay women and men stay men? What about the master/slave hierarchy? Does that also protect against adrogyny?

    “Once roles are androgynous, there is then a greater tolerance for homosexuality, because it is the ultimate in androgyneity.”

    So, egals have a greater tolerance for homosexuality becaues they, themselves, are androgynous?

    “I’m not saying that this is what must happen. But, I believe it is very legitimate to argue that this is a significant danger to an egalitarian perspective.”

    It is only valid if there is some proof for such an assertion.

    Homosexuality was rampant in HIGHLY patriarchal/hierarchal cultures. Sodom and Gomorrah are one such example. if hierarchy protects against toleration of homosexuality then what went wrong in Sodom? Could I not make a reasonable case that hierarchy and patriarchy led to the problem of homosexuality and perversion in Sodom?

    How about Rome? It seems that Paul was talking about a problem of homosexuality in a VERY patriarchal, patriocentric and hierarchal culture. Why would there be a problem when everyone is playing their assigned roles?

    I could very well do that using the same argument that Grudem and others use to “prove” that egals are slipping down the slope to Gomorrah.

    Also, androgyny means to be partly male and partly female or of indeterminate sex. The egals I have met are all very feminine, they don’t look androgynous at all.

    When I think of androgynous I think of Pat on Saturday Night Live. I have met people where I didn’t know if they were male or female. Are you saying that egals are like Pat on SNL?

  • Ellen

    The NT in the Bible DOES speak to wives and husbands in the 1st century using some different words. It is imperative to understand the 1st century culture to see the effect of those words. This is what the non-egals seem to miss, they just want to take the words directly, as if they were spoken to people today. This bypasses the original reader and the question of application for today.

    I understand what you are saying. If Paul had compared a Christian marriage to the culture of the day, instead of the Christ and the church, I would give the argument more weight.

    But the comparison was not to the culture of the day, it was to Christ and the church. And that will stretch into eternity.

  • Ellen

    Comp men expect to be served. They demand it. They say it’s scripture.

    Comp men also are taught to serve: (from CBMW):

    Responsibility #3: Serve your wife.

    According to the New Testament, being head of your wife does not mean being her master, but her servant. Again, Christ is our model for this type of leadership. Jesus did not just talk about serving; He demonstrated it when he washed His disciples’ feet (John 13:1-17). Christ, the Head of the Church, took on the very nature of a servant when He was made in human likeness (Philippians 2:7).

  • Corrie

    “But again, it’s a waste of time.”

    Paula,

    Not for me. 🙂

    I am learning a lot and I totally concur with what you are saying about “not so among you”. This is what He said. He told them that He came to serve not to be served. Comps/Pats teach the opposite- that women came to serve and husbands came to be served.

    Christ chose the lowest of all slave jobs to perform for His disciples and then He told them to imitate Him. Being a slave is necessarily to be submissive to others but I get the distinct impression that submission is only something women and slaves and children do. Was Jesus only setting an example for women, slaves and children and not for the privileged men who are exempt from being a slave?

  • Don Johnson

    But with non-egal, who gets the final decision on whether it is time to serve or time to lead? It is always the man. Do only egals see how any sinner can get corrupted by such power?

  • Ellen

    Touting the power of a man over a woman as sexually appealing is criminal and belongs somewhere else entirely. Anyone who is a victim of male violence has to get up and leave the room, as I left complegal.

    Sue, if a comp is teaching that hierarchy must be present in sexuality, I would ask that person to reconsider.

    If stating an opinion, then we need to accept that everybody has an opinion and on sexuality, that opinion happens to be all over the map.

    I (personally) find male strength very attractive. Would I prescribe that? No. Would I state my own opinion and preference? yes.

  • Ellen

    But with non-egal, who gets the final decision on whether it is time to serve or time to lead? It is always the man. Do only egals see how any sinner can get corrupted by such power?

    As far a examples go, I can only relate what I see personally.

    The most selfish women I know call themselves “egalitarians”.

    The most caring men I know would describe themselves in the way that I see CBMW describing the responsibility of husbands.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    Why does Ware seem to be teaching that it is a wife’s job to serve her husband and not the other way around? He seems to be saying that the expectation of service rendered by the husband is what makes husbands feel “threatened” as far as their authority is concerned and it makes them lash out in one of two ways- either passivity or abuse.

    In order to be a servant, one must submit to the person they are serving.

  • Corrie

    Sue,

    “I talked to a woman on Sunday who has cared for her invalid husband for 10 years as a faithful and caring provider and nurturer. Is there a line between the two and if so, why in the NT do women do all the providing and men all the nurturing?”

    Did she look like a man? Did she act like a man? Was her husband effiminate? Did he look like a woman? Could you tell who was the woman and who was the man in that marriage? Do they promote homosexuality?

  • Don Johnson

    In being caring or selfish, anyone can hide behind any label. What you are talking about is Christian maturity, which is different than being egal or non-egal.

    I have stated that with very mature believers, a non-egal marriage can be fine, but it is fine to the exact extent each lays down their life. But many believers are not mature at all and in this case, watch out.

  • Ellen

    In order to be a servant, one must submit to the person they are
    serving.

    And the Prince of Peace, King of Kings does this how?

    He seems to be saying that the
    expectation of service rendered by the husband is what makes husbands
    feel “threatened” as far as their authority is concerned and it makes
    them lash out in one of two ways- either passivity or abuse.

    Actually, at some point way earlier in this thread, I took apart Ware’s quote line by line. Comment #680. I said: (Ware’s words in bold)

    “Let’s take apart Ware’s description of the woman that “is not in sin”.

    want instead to have their way

    Does that not sound a little selfish?

    , instead of submitting to their husbands

    Hardly the fine example of “submit to one another

    to do what they would like to do

    ME FIRST! ME, ME, ME

    , and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them;

    Even in an egalitarian marriage, are you all supposed to serve each other, instead of wanting to be served?

    Do you think that the example of behavior that Ware gives here is the example of Christian you would want your children to follow?”

    (end quote of comment #680)

    If we give Ware the grace that we would want given to us, we might see a reading that the wife is (by her selfishness) is in sin. Even if Ware’s hypothetical husband does serve – even in an egalitarian marriage…the women (by her selfishness) is still in sin.

  • Marilyn

    From Paula’s post (and Sue’s post that she was hurt by my post), I can tell that I misled readers by my use of the term androgyny. So, let me jump in to clarify. Thanks, Ellen, for helping me out here! You picked up on exactly what I meant.

    Let me try again. Sociologists typically define egalitarian marriages using the following criteria: a) the spouse who devotes the most time to child care contributes no more than 60% of the total child care; b) the spouse who works the most hours outside the home works no more than 60% of the total hours the couple works; and c) the couple is committed to shared decision making. In other words: co-nourishing, co-providing, and no hierarchy.

    In such marriages, research shows that at least three issues arise: a) narcissism (because roles are so similar); b) inward focus (because of the need to constantly negotiate who does what at home); and c) a decrease in sexual passion (because passion thrives on role differentiation). These are not arguments I made up. This is what the research says. See, for example, Peer Marriage: How Love Between Equals Really Works. The author, Pepper Schwartz, is a sociologist at the University of Washington. She is committed to peer marriage for exactly the reasons that the egals posting to this thread criticize complementarian marriage – the power differential/abuse issues. She is in a peer marriage. However, she is quick to point out that there are problems inherent in the peer marriage model.

    Sue, I apologize for using the word androgynous. I didn’t realize how it would be perceived. Here’s where I was coming from. Egalitarians have repeatedly raised the abuse issue. It’s worth also examining the problems that arise in marriages with a) no hierarchy; and b) blurred provider/nurturer roles.

    Why do I raise these issues? Why did I originally post to an egal list a few months ago? I work outside the home. I see the potential for these problems. I thought egals would have thought about them. I do owe everybody a huge apology for not being more humble in how I presented the post. I positioned this as a critique of the egal model, as opposed to an issue that all two-wage earner couples struggle with to some extent. (I do seriously want to learn how to communicate more graciously.)

    I don’t claim to have all the answers. For a variety of reasons, I don’t think the answer is to tell women they shouldn’t work outside the home. But, aren’t we better off if we acknowledge that a blurring of provider/nurturer roles presents problems and then discuss how a Christian couple should deal with those problems, as opposed to pretending that the blurring of the roles doesn’t present a problem?

    Here’s the complementarian solution that my husband and I have worked out. We have concluded that a wife’s submission with respect to family finances is the critical component in making a two-career marriage work. Why did we conclude this? Schwartz shows that in peer marriages (as defined above), working wives spend a disproportionate share of the family’s disposable income. Why does she conclude that they do this? They are inherently wired to see the husband’s income as provision for the family. So, they view their income as disposable. As a result, they spend more than their fair share of disposable income. Until they’re presented with the data, they’re unconscious of this bias. When I looked at my spending habits, I saw this to be true. Even peer-marriage Schwartz cautions working wives to monitor their spending! This was a hugely helpful takeaway for me! I’m an accountant, so not surprisingly, I handle our day-to-day bookkeeping. My husband and I used to have a model of his providing general guidance (i.e., this is how much to save, how much to tithe, and how much to set aside for anticipated major expenditures). I think this is the typical of comp marriages – he delegates day-to-day authority over finances to her. We have moved to my husband doing a line-item review of monthly credit card statements with me. We’ve been doing this for four years now.

    Egals, I’m asking for some grace in your responses. Please don’t write that a wife who allows herself to be accountable for every penny she spends is allowing herself to be treated like a child. Please don’t blast me because I have disposable income and some two-wage earner families do not. Please don’t get angry simply because you don’t like the results of the research.

  • Ellen

    Did she look like a man? Did she act like a man? Was her husband effiminate? Did he look like a woman? Could you tell who was the woman and who was the man in that marriage? Do they promote homosexuality?

  • Paula

    Comp teaching insists that “having the final say” is “serving”.

    Baloney.

    Bossing is bossing; final say is rule, not service. Domination is not another form of submission; that’s doublespeak. To ALWAYS be in charge FOR LIFE over another adult based on THE FLESH is SLAVERY.

    Gift-based service means whoever has the gift leads when that gift is needed; it is not flesh-based. When a man with one set of gifts marries a woman with another set of gifts, the two of them make a great team. Each leads when it is appropriate, and the other follows that lead.

    I can see no way for abuse to arise from gift-based service, especially combined with Jesus’ strong words against hierarchy.

    A Christian leader does not consider themselves to be superior or to have permanent authority over other believers. They do not bark orders and tell others to line up behind them. They do not serve themselves but the others. A cornerstone is in the basement, not the attic; it holds up the rest of the building. That’s service; that’s Christian leadership.

    Any believer who expects to be obeyed by other adult believers is unfit for the job. Leading is not ordering, it’s inspiring.

  • Paula

    narcissism (because roles are so similar); b) inward focus (because of the need to constantly negotiate who does what at home); and c) a decrease in sexual passion (because p

    Christian Egalitarianism is the farthest thing from narcissism. It is comp teaching that makes the husband narcissistic. He is focused on HIM. That is self-centeredness to a T.

    We do no such thing as “constantly negotiate”. We worked all that out a long time ago.

    Credentials or not, the research you cited is nothing like a Christian egal marriage. Decrease in sexual passion??? Pul-eeeze!

  • Ellen

    Paula, there are disagreements in whether or not the comp camp or the egal camp is closer to Scripture.

    I understand what you are saying. I disagree.

  • Paula

    Please don’t write that a wife who allows herself to be accountable for every penny she spends is allowing herself to be treated like a child.

    Which means, please don’t tell the truth. If a woman did this to a man, he’d say he’s being treated like a child.

    Please don’t get angry simply because you don’t like the results of the research.

    I’m all in favor of ACCURATE research that applies to Christian egals. I haven’t seen any.

    And as Don pointed out, we’re here to find out what the Bible says, not the world. The question is not how perfect egal marriages are, but whether comp teachings are dangerous and against the “one anothers” of scripture.

    God is not an accountant or a lawyer looking for infractions. He is not a Pharisee looking for ways to burden people with rules. All he wants is people who love Him and each other, and love “does not demand its own way”.

  • Ellen

    My own personal experience in an egalitarian marriage was not so rosy. The typical response was “I’m not your boss; do what you want” – which did not actually lessen the scorn and anger when I did what I wanted and it didn’t match up with what he wanted.

    My personal opinion is that narcissists (like abusers) will be narcissists, no matter what situation they are in.

    In an egalitarian marriage they will bully and in a complementarian marriage, they will bully.

    Egalitarianism in no prevention against narcissism. I was married to one.

  • Paula

    I’m done trying to reason with comps. Egals or undecideds I’ll be happy to talk to, but not here.

    Now all the comps can have a nice party. “Ding, dong, the witch is gone…”

  • Sue

    Let me be explicit,

    Marilyn wrote,

    I expressed the view that complementarity implies hierarchy. …

    But, narcisissism isn’t the only problem in marriages with androgynous roles. Sexual passion thrives on complementarity and diminishes as androgyny in romantic relationships increases.

    She is directly saying that hierarchy of male over female increase passion in marriage. This is a terrible and violent thing to say.

    She continues,

    I didn’t have a chance to answer your reply, which (if I’m reading your two posts correctly) is to advocate a model in which there is co-nurturing and co-providing.

    Yes, I believe the Bible teaches reciprocity in healthy sexuality.

    This has nothing to do with finding male strength attractive. It is attractive and should be. It is the connection between the hierarchy of male over female, male authority over female matched with male strength that makes a mix that is violent for many women.

    The word androgynous does not offend me. The notion of male authority in marriage is incredibly destructive and violent. How dare some woman with a full time career and resources not understand that there are women who live as a violated underclass b beneath vicious male power. But Christians don’t care about that.

    This is far too disturbing so the answer is no, I have not read most of the last few preceeding comments.

    Of course, male strength is attractive but it becomes evil if not submitted to women in sexuality. If you don’t have a strong man, then sure I can see how you might want one, but you would not want him to be the authority in your life.

  • Ellen

    The question is not how perfect egal marriages are, but whether comp teachings are dangerous and against the “one anothers” of scripture.

    Why? Maybe that’s the question of some, but others here wonder which method lines up better with Scripture and that requires looking at both. (just my opinion, of course)

    Abuse is always sin.

    (Is it okay if I quote CBMW teaching on the topic of the man focusing on himself?)

  • Sue

    “I’m not your boss; do what you want”

    Is somewhat safer than “I am your boss and don’t you dare to disobey me.” You really can’t imagine what one person can deprive another of.

    Egal marriages are no magical event. But they don’t take away your right to be a human being.

  • Ellen

    Is somewhat safer than “I am your boss and don’t you dare to disobey me.” You really can’t imagine what one person can deprive another of.

    That is why CBMW condemns abuse as sin. Abuse is always sin.

    Egal marriages are no magical event. But they don’t take away your right to be a human being.

    Nor do complementarian marriages. Abusive marriages (whether comp or egal) attempt to undermine humanity. This is always sin.

  • Marilyn

    Sue, I want to make sure that you know I did not mean my post #1592 to be a statement about you! Rather, I thought we were in the middle of a debate about “complementarity with hierarchy” versus “complementarity without hierarchy.” I addressed my post to you, because I read your posts #1207 and #1198 as wanting to shift the debate to the merits of “complementarity with hierarchy” versus “no complementarity in provider/nurturer roles and no hierarchy.” I don’t like the model that I thought you were advocating and was simply trying to open up a discussion of the model. I addressed you, because I thought you were the one wanting to advocate the alternative model. I did not realize you would personalize my comments. Could you please let me know if there is some way that I could have framed my remarks that would have not been insulting to you? Please know that my intent was not to hurt you. I do thank you for letting me know that my words did hurt you. If you could be more specific about what I’ve done, it would be beneficial to me.

  • Don Johnson

    From an egal perspective, non-egal is (incredibly) like a master/slave relationship. No matter how nice it is, there is still a fundamental flaw. There can be house slaves and field slaves, but they were all slaves. And most people do not want to be slaves.

  • Ellen

    Don, (incredibly) most women in complementarian marriages would not agree.

    Slavery, Islam, Mormonism, abuse, complementarianism.

    Might I gently suggest (and this is only a suggestion) that this type of rhetoric is not helpful?

  • Don Johnson

    If the woman makes a free will choice to be non-egal, I have no problem with it.

    If she is coerced into it, which is what I see the non-egal teachers trying to do, I do not like that.

  • Marilyn

    Rather than having everybody else sign off, it seems more appropriate for me to sign off and apologize for an inflammatory post. Egals, I appreciate your taking the time to share why you objected to my post.

  • Ellen

    Don, I haven’t seen any stools and capguns.

    Frankly, that goes both ways. Most egalitarians are not about leaving complementarian churches alone. they are not about “holding the line”.

    They are about eradicating complementarian teaching.

    They are about getting rid of gender roles in the home and church – and forcing their views on complementarians.

    If egalitarians would let complementarian churches alone, I would be okay with that. If I could find a complementarian church that would hold the line – I would go there and stay there.

    But that is not the intent of egalitarians.

  • Ellen

    Marilyn if you would email me, that would be nice.

    Don, let me ask…do I strike you as the kind of woman who would want to be in a marriage such as the extreme caricature that you all have set up?

    Slavery, Islam, abuse?

    Seriously…do I strike you as that kind of woman?

  • Lydia

    “But the comparison was not to the culture of the day, it was to Christ and the church. And that will stretch into eternity.”

    That is exactly what Mormons teach about marriage.

  • Ellen

    Lydia, do you believe that Christ and the church will end on judgment day?

    I would again beg for at least a slight let up on the inflammatory rhetoric. (or not)

  • ahunt

    We do no such thing as “constantly negotiate”. We worked all that out a long time ago.

    Yes. Thirty years later, it is more the case of “checking in” with one another: As in: “Honey, do you need anything while I am out?”

    Marilyn, do you know if the cited research studied secular peer marriage, Christian egal, or a combination of both? Interesting stuff and good to know the questions are being explored.

  • Don Johnson

    This egal wants everyone to make free will choices on how their marriage is to be.

    It is the non-egals that claim one has to do it their way or the highway. And when you find them reading into Scripture, adding words, this self-repudiates their teaching in my book.

  • Ellen

    Yes. Thirty years later, it is more the case of “checking in” with one another: As in: “Honey, do you need anything while I am out?”

    Sounds like my (complementarian) mom and dad.

  • Ellen

    Don, this thread has taught me one thing. I no longer have faith that most egalitarians give a rodent’s behind what most complementarians actually teach and believe.

    Do I strike you as the kind of woman who would be in the caricature that you create?

  • Ellen

    It is the non-egals that claim one has to do it their way or the highway.

    Really. There is somebody here who would like to see the other side’s teaching made illegal.

    And it’s not a comp.

  • Don Johnson

    I do not compare Islam or Mormons to believers. A believer is to marry another believer.

    I believe that if both believers are very mature believers, it does not matter which marriage model they use, they will both lay down their lives for the other. The problem is what happens with less than very mature believers.

  • Ellen

    I would also add that if Denny had a “my way or the highway” attitude, he would have shut down comments roughly 1600 comments ago…

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    Don Johnson: “If the woman makes a free will choice to be non-egal, I have no problem with it.”

    A woman who most likely made a free will choice to be a non-egal: “In feminism, women are allowed to blame others – either a specific male, all men in general, or patriarchy – for their own sinful actions. Even though we women are easily deceived, we are still responsible and guilty before God for what we do that is contrary to His revealed will.

    Sinful women are also saved by Christ’s finished work on the cross. If we as women were not all that sinful or responsible for our own behaviour, then we would not need such a strong Saviour, would we? That is the main point of Paul saying that in Christ there is no male or female. All who come to Christ are reconciled to our Father in the same way.

    So, talking about the origins of evil [See comment #1508] is not tangential in the least. It is right on target, actually. Does the Bible present patriarchy as the source of all human suffering in the world or not? It does not.”

    Excerpted from Wife abuse: evangelical feminists’ useful lie…

  • Don Johnson

    On making something illegal, I think there are some here that have been abused. They wish to see the chances of such abuse lessened.

    There have been non-egal pastors who sent abused wives back to their husbands telling them to submit more. Can we agree this is a horrible idea?

    Furthermore, many teach that abuse is not a reason for divorce, so the wife is stuck. (This is not true, but many teach it as they do not understand the context of the NT.)

    My take is the non-egals are deceived, and the normal solution is to educate. But they entrench.

    So the thing to do is for EVERYONE to study both sides. I do so and continue to do so.

  • Lydia

    Ellen: “But the comparison was not to the culture of the day, it was to Christ and the church. And that will stretch into eternity.”

    Lydia: That is exactly what Mormons teach about marriage.”

    Ellen responds with:

    “Lydia, do you believe that Christ and the church will end on judgment day?”

    This is why I do not think a discussion with you is possible.

    You and I do not agree on the subordination of Christ for all eternity, so it is a moot point. I believe that in eternity the Trinity has a united will

    Are you familiar with Mormon teaching on marriage and eternity?

    BTW: The comparison is about LOVE. Not hierarchies. That is where you guys do not get it. There are NO earthly priests for women. Christ did not die on the cross ONLY to leave women with an authority between her and Himself.

  • Ellen

    Don, making the other side illegal sounds like “my way or the highway”.

    Abuse is always sin. Complementarianism is not sin

    My take is the non-egals are deceived, and the normal solution is to
    educate. But they entrench.

    I believe the same thing about egals.

  • Ellen

    This is why I do not think a discussion with you is possible.

    Ditto.

    I make a comment about Christ and the church and you think I’m talking about the Trinity.

    There are egalitarians who see hierarchy (eternally) within the Trinity. On my blog I’ve written that whatever the eternal status of the Trinity, it should not be used to prove eternal submission of a wife (which I do not believe exists).

    so…you argue against an eternal hierarchy within the Trinity that I never brought up. Next step, getting angry when I bring up my original point (Christ and the church will last through eternity).

    If you need to argue against that which I did not say, go ahead. I will not participate in the straw man.

  • Ellen

    By the way…my “gentleman caller” is a direct descendant of Lorenzo Snow and has two uncles who are bishops in the Mormon church. He has rejected the teaching.

    Yes. I’m familiar. And certainly familiar enough to know that complementarian teaching is not Mormon teaching.

  • Don Johnson

    Marriage ends at death, it is to be life long but is not eternal. Death is one way the covenant ends, the other being divorce.

    Yes, non-egals will say I am deceived, I should have said that.

    That was why my conclusion was continued study of both sides.

  • Ellen

    Marriage ends at death, it is to be life long but is not eternal. Death is one way the covenant ends, the other being divorce.

    Don, you are correct. When Paul wrote instructing husbands and wives (if you recall my point) he did not refer to culture as the reason for a wife to submit to her husband. He referred to Christ and the church (which will last until eternity.

    If Paul meant for gender roles to be temporary, why did he make the parallel to Christ and the church (which is a relationship that will last through eternity.

  • Lydia

    Marilyn, We can all find some studies to cite. Were these egal marriages she cites, Born Again Christians? Real ones?

    My guess, based on experience in compland for 20 years, is that egals are much more honest about their marriages than die hard comps are. Comps seem to elevate authority/submission concept over Christ. Just look at all the books, conferences, sermons, etc., that are geared toward marriage, women’s roles, raising kids, etc. It is a market. And it sells very well. And people involved do not like to admit the formula is not working perfectly. Or that they are not sure of their acting ‘roles’ day to day. (I heard this all the time from comp women)

    Really guys, all this is silly. Russell Moore complains in an article a few years back that comp marriages are too egal and not Patriarchal enough. The slippery slope again. They go to all that trouble to create a great marketing name for the authority/submission concept (complimentarian) but now it is not authoritarian enough!

    And I know why: Most, not all, comp marriages function as egal marriages. And Moore can have none of that! A wife…how dare her tell her husband he needs to get away with other guys! That is not her place to do that!

    He knows as well as I do that most comps (secret egals) just put on their comp make up at church around the other comps.

    The comps that don’t function as egal marriages are the ones that worry me and the ones that we all have concerns about. The ones who listen to Ware teaching that a woman can incite abuse by her lack of submission.

    Also, it is a mistake to assume that in most egal marriages the wife works. One can have an egal marriage and be a stay at home mom. It just depends on how the spouses view the work they do. All the work has to be done..making a living, raising kids, etc. All of it matters. But the MOST important thing in any marriage is that both are seeking first the Kingdom of God. Period.

    The husband is not her priest who can sanctify her. Only Christ can do that.

  • ahunt

    Sounds like my (complementarian) mom and dad.

    Ya think? 😉

    …which suggests to me comps and egals do share a smidge of common ground.

    Does the Bible present patriarchy as the source of all human suffering in the world or not? It does not.”

    But I’m also not clear where the Bible presents patriarchy as the model for human relations. It was my understanding that in the Bible, “patriarch” refers primarily to geneological concerns.

  • Lydia

    “If Paul meant for gender roles to be temporary, why did he make the parallel to Christ and the church (which is a relationship that will last through eternity.”

    Huh? You are debating against yourself. Marriages end in death. Christ and the church is for eternity. So what is your point?

    Paul is not writing about gender ‘roles’ as in acting a part to ‘play’ in marriage. He is talking about LOVE. Where is the authority in this passage? Where are the roles?

    If it is a role then what about verse 21? How do you ‘play’ that role?

  • Ellen

    But I’m also not clear where the Bible presents patriarchy as the model for human relations. It was my understanding that in the Bible, “patriarch” refers primarily to geneological concerns.

    If “patriarchy” is the pattern of male leadership in the church and home, I would submit that this is the overall pattern that Scripture shows us.

    …which suggests to me comps and egals do share a smidge of common ground.

    At some point on some other blog I suggested a visual of a road divided into three parts, not two.

    On one side was hard liberalism, with the ordination of homosexuals, gay marriage, abortion as a basic human right.

    On the other side was the hard patriarchy.

    In the middle, most reasonable complementarians and egalitarians share quite a bit of common ground.

    That is pretty much rejected.

    I would submit that if a person pokes around CBMW with an open mind, what they will find there is actually pretty reasonable (and would fit into that middle third.

  • Lydia

    “If “patriarchy” is the pattern of male leadership in the church and home, I would submit that this is the overall pattern that Scripture shows us.”

    Patriarchy started in Genesis 3:16 and when Eve followed Adam out of the Garden. God worked THROUGH sinful man for His purposes…Jesus Christ. He allowed slavery, polygamy, murder, etc. all through the OT. In other words, a ‘pattern’ of these things in the OT by His chosen people…does not make it a ‘command’ from God.

    Does anyone want to argue that slavery and polygamy, etc., were commanded by God?

  • Ellen

    The comps that don’t function as egal marriages are the ones that worry
    me and the ones that we all have concerns about.

    I’m more worried about abusive marriage, whether they are comp or egal.

    Huh? You are debating against yourself. Marriages end in death. Christ and the church is for eternity. So what is your point?

    I’ll try again and break it down.

    1) Paul wrote instructions to husbands and wives
    2) Paul did not base those instructions on the current culture
    3) Paul did base those instructions on Christ and the church
    4) I believe it is a mistake to believe that Paul meant for his instructions to be temporary (meant only for that time and place), when his model was timeless (it still exists today).

    If Paul wanted wives to submit because of the culture, he would not (I believe) have used the church as the model.

    Lydia, please see post #1575, where the “role” part of gender role is defined in terms of sociology. “A role (sometimes spelled rôle) or a social role is a set of connected behaviors, rights and obligations as conceptualized by actors in a social situation. It is mostly defined as an expected behavior in a given individual social status and social position.”

    It is not a part, “role” is a valid sociological term for expected behavior.

  • Ellen

    Does anyone want to argue that slavery and polygamy, etc., were commanded by God?

    And the rhetoric continues…as I said, I no longer believe that most egalitarians care even one iota what most complementarians teach and believe. That is a shift in my understanding of most egalitarians – I used to have more faith that there was grace toward others that differ.

    Will the last egalitarian please turn out the light.

  • ahunt

    I’m sure I understand the definition…but I also understand that social roles are primarily culturally derived. So I’m not sure if the official definition is helpful here, in that, across time and cultures, there are few “roles” that devout women have not filled.

  • Don Johnson

    Ellen asked me “If Paul meant for gender roles to be temporary, why did he make the parallel to Christ and the church (which is a relationship that will last through eternity.”

    In the OT God is said to have married Israel and Judah, God divorced Israel for unfaithfulness and other reasons and could have done the same to Judah but did not.

    But the model of God being the husband and Israel being the wife already existed in the OT. Paul picks this up in Eph 5. Given that the person with power in a patriarchical society is the man, the mapping simply does not work for God to be the wife in the marriage. So Israel, which included men obviously, and the church, which includes men obviously, get mapped to a wife.

    Paul does this mapping both ways, he maps the wife to the church and the husband to Christ. This mapping is an analogy and an analogy breaks when it is pushed too far. How do we know when it is too far? Well we KNOW 100% sure that the husband is NOT Christ to his wife. Only Christ is Christ, any other is a false Christ.

    So what are the examples given to the wife. Submit and respect. What are the examples given to the husband, they are all SERVING and LOVING examples, they are not leading examples.

    Does this mean a wife is not to serve her husband? No, of course not.
    Does this mean a wife is not to love her husband? No, of course not.
    Does this mean a husband is not to respect his wife? No, of course not.

    And similarly, does this mean a husband is not to submit to his wife? No, of course not!!!

    Grudem argues that Eph 5:21 is not required to be read as mutual submission. However, when you consider the chiasm, it is mutual.

    Eph 5:19-21

    A addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,

    B singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,

    B’ giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,

    A’ submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

    The A matches up with the A’ and just as singing,etc. is mutual and symmetrical, so is the submission.

    So what we have in the following verses are examples of the working out of mutual submission in 1st century culture. They are also Paul’s gloss on Aristotle’s household codes, where he turns them inside out.

  • ahunt

    In other words, a ‘pattern’ of these things in the OT by His chosen people…does not make it a ‘command’ from God.

    Indeed. God can raise anyone He wants, and since there is enormous evidence in the Bible that God called women as prophets, leaders, judges and teachers, the concept that there are God-given, rigidly defined gender “roles” makes no sense.

  • Don Johnson

    Further on Eph 5:22 and following, these are all subordinate clauses in the Greek, subordinate to Eph 5:21. That is, up to Eph 6:9, they all need to be read as under Eph 5:21. Eph 5:21 gives the principle and then the examples follow.

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    #1635: “Even though we women are easily deceived, we are still responsible and guilty before God for what we do that is contrary to His revealed will.”

    #1503: “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.”

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

    Bless this woman who realized that she had believed in lies and had told herself lies to propagate the gravest abuse possible: The taking of innocent human life. Here’s an excerpt: “I recognized that I too had probably told myself lies in order to maintain my support for abortion. Yet there was some tremendous pressure that kept me from objectively looking at the issue. Something deep within me screamed that not to allow women to have abortions, at least in the first trimester, would be unfair in the direst sense of the word.

    I realized in that moment that perfectly good, well-meaning people—people like me—can support gravely evil things because of the power of lies.”

    Read it all at A Sexual Revolution

    Don Johnson: “My take is the non-egals are deceived, and the normal solution is to educate. But they entrench.”

    Ellen: “I believe the same thing about egals.”

  • ahunt

    1635: “Even though we women are easily deceived, we are still responsible and guilty before God for what we do that is contrary to His revealed will.”

    Where in the Bible does it say that women are more easily decieved than men?

  • Don Johnson

    As an aside, I find it incredibly ironic that subordinate clauses in Eph 5:22-6:9 are often made to appear standalone in some translations and then these clauses are then used as justification to subordinate women. It is just too crazy. It it getting subordination wrong twice.

  • Sue

    If the woman makes a free will choice to be non-egal, I have no problem with it.

    If the woman is told that this is what the Bible teaches and she is in sin otherwise then is that a free will choice. There is no such thing as a free will choice. There is only the suffering.

    Marilyn,

    Any thought that a man should have power over a woman just kills me. Add to that the notion that this leads to sexual passion and I can’t read it. Put what you say together with the teaching on the CBMW website that a man must demonstrate leadership over the woman who is resisting and fighting, and this leads to extremely violent images. It is violent and unsafe all the way. I left complegal over these images and I will be pushed out here too. Maybe it is time.

    Could we just not talk about how sexuality is an authority submission relationship.

    Maybe you could just tell me how you work full time but are not a co-provider. Do you get to keep all your own salary?

  • Don Johnson

    Sue wrote: “Don: If the woman makes a free will choice to be non-egal, I have no problem with it.

    If the woman is told that this is what the Bible teaches and she is in sin otherwise then is that a free will choice. There is no such thing as a free will choice. There is only the suffering.”

    Yes, this is a likely outcome, depending on the maturity of the husband.

    It is not a free will choice if she is told there is only one right way. She would need to study both sides and hopefully see good examples of both models.

  • Don Johnson

    Sexuality in marriage according to 1 Cor 7 is most certainly a mutual submission relationship, it could not have been made more explicit.

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    Where does the woman quoted in #1635 make the claim that the Bible says that women are more easily deceived than men?

  • Sue

    “It is not a free will choice if she is told there is only one right way. She would need to study both sides and hopefully see good examples of both models.”

    Most young women don’t get this chance. They are in a marriage that they don’t know how to get out of.

  • ahunt

    Put what you say together with the teaching on the CBMW website that a man must demonstrate leadership over the woman who is resisting and fighting, and this leads to extremely violent images.

    I do remember reading this teaching, which struck me as pretty soft comp, Sue, (and I just went back and reviewed.)

    But the question remains: demonstrate leadership by doing what? The implicit answer is to “serve” the wife. How is this NOT mutual submission? If a wife is “resisting” and “fighting” one’s leadership, and one’s response is to serve (submit) to her needs…then one is demonstrating leadership through submission.

    Now I suppose that problems could arise if one also reserves for oneself the perogative to define the wife’s “needs” based on some extrabiblical understanding of gender roles, but there is no mention of such authority in this particular CBMW teaching.

    I am forced to conclude that CBMW teaches mutual submission. 😉

  • Don Johnson

    Teach them the Biblical reason of abuse for divorce, per Instone-Brewer. I agree it is very sad if they are taught they cannot leave if abused. I have heard it from quite a few pulpits and it tears my heart.

  • Cheryl Schatz

    Ellen #1549 said:

    “Cheryl Schatz was present on this post, commenting about her DVD. If she is referring people to her own DVD (which is available on Amazon) does that make her more or less credible?

    I do not think that we should write off authors because they make a living from their writing (and Challies does not even do that).”

    I do not make a living from my DVD nor do I get one cent from the sales. It was a work of love and I mention that work when it appears appropriate to provide answers. I do not have the time to write out all the information in the DVDs (3.5 hours of material). The information on head coverings and the silencing passages of scriptures that appear to stop women from teaching and speaking in the assembly have a tremendous amount of work that has been done from Jewish historical sources.

    One is credible not because one does or doesn’t make a living from what one writes. One is credible when their work aligns with the scriptures. We are all to test everything and to hold fast to what is good.

    We also must be very careful not to offend those who have a different point of view. There is no scripture that says that a godly woman who teaches without being prejudiced against those who receive her teaching is sinning against God. There is also nothing in scripture that says that a married couple who love and respect one another and choose to sacrificially serve one another is sinning against God if the husband does not take authority over his wife but chooses to love and honor her and makes his decisions together in union with her.

    While CBMW has material that sounds good, the internal working is divisive and separates Christian brothers and sisters in Christ. When their leaders state that egalitarians are fighting against the gospel just because they are egalitarians and they also say that being an egalitarian is the same as being an open theist, they are guilty of separating brothers and sisters in Christ and sinning against us. We must stand up for unity in the body of Christ and speak out against this divisiveness.

  • Cheryl Schatz

    Ellen #1549 also said:

    “(BTW, I don’t think that Cheryl Schatz is more or less credible because she sells her DVD and goes to other places mentioning it. She is a good example of somebody with a sincerely held religious belief who sells her product – if she donates the proceeds, that information is not “front and center” and I did a site-search for “donate” and “proceeds”. If we do not discount her, we should not judge the motives of other “people groups” in their writing and discount them based on whether or not they profit from their beliefs)”

    Certainly someone who benefits personally from the sale of their view may be questioned although only God knows the heart. I appreciate that you are not questioning my motives. My work regarding women in ministry is an outworking of my volunteer work with the cults. The two issues have been connected for me because of the attacks that I have seen from the cults and then later I was very surprised to see the same things coming from brothers in Christ. The DVD I am working on right now is called “The Trinity from Eternity Past to Eternity Future” and it documents with audio quotes the things that some very influential complementarian teachers are teaching about the Trinity that are akin to the false doctrine on the Trinity that I have spent years refuting from the cults.

    I do appreciate that there are very sincere complementarians who do not subscribe to those who limit Jesus in the Trinity and are appalled by the attempts to make the Trinity a hierarchy of authority. We may not agree on the women’s issue but these ones are my brothers and sisters in Christ and together we need to stand up for truth and refute error. We need to do it in a loving and respectful way so that we may win our brothers in Christ while we oppose the error.

  • Kathy

    How many comp men love and like being the leader, the one in authority, the one having the final say, the one with ultimate power? How does that feel to you? Can you please share that here? What’s it like for you to be in this kind of position, being over another adult who belongs to Christ?

    If you do not love it or like it then can you say why?

  • Lydia

    “And the rhetoric continues…as I said, I no longer believe that most egalitarians care even one iota what most complementarians teach and believe. That is a shift in my understanding of most egalitarians – I used to have more faith that there was grace toward others that differ.”

    I know what you mean! This article by Moore is a far cry from what CBMW was teaching in the beginning. And we are seeing the same legalism from Ware, Grudem and others. The Grace is gone.

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

    As my husband said, there is something fundamentally wrong with a man who is constantly talking and thinking about his ‘authority’.

  • ahunt

    When their leaders state that egalitarians are fighting against the gospel

    Okay.

    This is new. Admittedly, my perusal of the CBMW’s site was awhile ago, and cursory, but I do not recall militant language.

  • Bonnie

    I know the conversation has moved on but I’m just now getting back to this thread and the discussion about Challies and profit, which started with a comment by Lydia (#1515) (which I originally attributed to Corrie — sorry!)

    I took her point to be that Tim’s credentials are not academic. He merely agrees with the “big name” comps. and has profited, both reputation-wise and probably financially, by gaining clients from those of like mind, as well as getting a book published.

    The point was that his credentials are not “impressive” by general standards, yet he seems to carry great authority. Yet his authority comes mainly through his associations. This does not mean that his views are not valid, but that he likely has a personal stake in holding complementarian views due to having associates to whom he owes much of his reputation and perhaps also some of his business profit.

    I am open to correction on this, though.

  • ahunt

    Oh Dear…this is new. I never paid much attention to CBMW beyond offhand curiosity some years back, having long since reconciled the seeming contradictions in scripture to the reality of happy married life.

    But this martial language, this challenge to salvation…is profoundly disturbing.

    Also (and admittedly I sould have been paying better attention), how widespread is the theology of a Trinity hierarchy? I’d heard of the interpretation, of course, but simply attributed it the evangelical fringe.

  • Cheryl Schatz

    ahunt,

    Not every complementarian has been infected but it is widespread. Grudem’s and Ware’s books are in the seminaries and handed out by the hundreds at a large pastor’s conference. I never in my life thought I would have to use the same verses with these men that I have used to show the Deity of Jesus to JW’s. Ware admitted to me that some verses do give him trouble especially ones that show that Jesus can be prayed to. Ware does not believe that Jesus has the authority to answer prayers or that we should pray to Jesus or let our children pray to him. I asked him how he had a relationship with Jesus if he never talked to him. He wouldn’t answer that question. I find this both alarming and sad.

  • ahunt

    Ware does not believe that Jesus has the authority to answer prayers or that we should pray to Jesus or let our children pray to him.

    blinking

    I initially thought I had read you wrong, Cheryl. The teaching has never been explored in any great depth in our small rural fellowship, beyond reflex dismissal of the idea that God is made up of disparate entities.

    And in some fashion, I’m actually relieved. I have a hard time believing that such teaching will gain truly serious traction. I do not pretend to fully understand the mystery of our Triune God…but I do know I come to the Father by way of the Son, and in my better and worser moments, the Holy Spirit will find me.

    What was the purpose of the interpretation? What did it purport to explain or create or inspire?

  • Ellen

    Ahunt, for what it’s worth, the Trinitarian debate does not run strictly across gender-debate lines.

    John Stackhouse and Craig Keener are both egalitarian scholars who have written on hierarchy within the Trinity.

  • Sue

    Ellen,

    I do think that even the most conservative are beginning to have some doubt about Ware. He teaches this.

    “Note: Nowhere in Scripture does the Father ever do the will of His Son. It is always the Son Who does the will of His Father. …

    Is it any wonder that that when God created human beings in His image, that He made them equal in essence, but distinct in function? Relationships of authority and submission in human relationships, then, derive from and should be modelled after the relations of authority and submission in the Godhead.”

    It is clear that Dr. Ware is teaching that the husband does not ever have to do the will of the wife. I frankly don’t think that anyone can imagine this teaching enacted in real life unless they live it out.

    Do you really think that it is acceptable in a marriage for the husband to NEVER do the will of the wife? (And, of course, she may never do her own will either.) How would you answer this?

  • Cheryl Schatz

    ahunt,

    The purpose of the interpretation is for Ware to make the Trinity a “proof” that women are subject to men while still being “equal”. I do not see the relevance of bringing the two issues together and so when I have contact with Bruce Ware, I did not initiate a discussion of the women’s issue. One of the very first things that he said to me was that I was influenced in my view of the Trinity because I was an egalitarian. The funny thing is that he had to go to my web site to understand that I am an egalitarian. I did not engage him on the women’s issue or bring it up, but he brought it up. I also listened to probably dozens of his teaching sessions in my research on his view of the Trinity and I found no sermon, nor any writing of his on the Trinity that did not bring in the women’s issue. While he did say that his view of the Trinity was not influenced by the women’s issue I have a hard time believing that. The proof is that he never fails to connect the two.

    I also dialogged with Ware regarding his inability to prove the subordination of Jesus by the actions of the preincarnate Christ in the Old Testament. He uses the New Testament account of the humility of Christ’s incarnation to try to prove an eternal relationship in the Godhead. The DVD on the Trinity will refute Ware’s views with scripture alone. I offered him a copy of the DVD when it is finished but he apparently wasn’t interested.

  • ahunt

    Not to worry, Ellen…I’m not thinking of gender issues here…SO taken aback by Ware’s assertion, and looking for any foundation.

    Sue, while I’ve got you, do you have any thoughts on what the hierarchical interpretation of the Trinity attempts to explain? Its purpose? I’m at a loss.

  • Cheryl Schatz

    Ellen,

    I am unfamiliar with John Stackhouse and Craig Keener’s position to know whether they make a distinction regarding the Trinity and the incarnation. If they limit the authority of Jesus as Ware does, then their view is not the biblical view. The Trinity is not connected to women’s subordination so it is certainly possible that there would be egalitarians who could misunderstand the differences of the persons in the Godhead. Certainly not all complementarians see Jesus as having to ask permission of the Father to create the world as Ware teaches. When I was a complementarian I never once believed that Jesus had any less authority in the Trinity than his Father did.

  • Corrie

    But the will of the Son IS the will of the Father because they are God and are One and are completely unified in ALL things.

    There is not 3 separate wills in the Godhead. There is one will.

    As far as the husband doing the will of the wife, it is expected of him right in scripture. Paul tells us that a married man is going to be concerned about how he may please his wife. Also, it tells us that his body belongs to her. It also tells us that a husband is to put his wife’s needs/desires before his own (that is all the one-anothering in Scripture).

    You can’t be concerned about how you may please your wife unless you are going to do what she wills.

    Sue, you make an excellent point. If Ware believes that the Son never does the will of the Father, then he necessarily believes that the husband never does the will of the wife. And this is exactly what he was saying in the sermon referenced in this very blog post.

  • ahunt

    x-posted, Cheryl. Thanks so much for the info, but I’d like to go past gender issues for a second…to the foundation of the interpretation. I vaguely recall there was some connection with LDS doctrine, but how and why did the teaching make its way into evangelical thought?

  • Ellen

    Sue, I’ll get back to your comment tomorrow. Ahunt, here is a short quote from St. Augustine:
    “If however the reason why the Son is said to have been sent by the Father is
    simply that the one is the Father and the other the Son then there is nothing
    at all to stop us believing that the Son is equal to the Father and
    consubstantial and co-eternal, and yet that the Son is sent by the Father. Not
    because one is greater and the other less, but because one is the Father and
    the other the Son; one is the begetter, the other begotten; the first is the one
    from whom the sent one is; the other is the one who is from the sender. For
    the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. In the light of this
    we can now perceive that the Son is not just said to have been sent because
    the Word became flesh, but that he was sent in order for the Word to become
    flesh, and by his bodily presence to do all that was written. That is, we should
    understand that it was not just the man who the Word became that was sent,
    but that the Word was sent to become man. For he was not sent in virtue of
    some disparity of power or substance or anything in him that was not equal to
    the Father, but in virtue of the Son being from the Father, not the Father
    being from the Son.”

  • Cheryl Schatz

    ahunt,

    I think the hierarchical interpretation of the Trinity attempts to give men a unique authority that is withheld from women. The teaching is that Jesus did not have equality with God regarding his authority from before creation. The verses that I always used with the JW’s to teach them that Jesus laid down his right to use his power and authority for his own benefit in Philippians chapter 2 are now being used to teach that Jesus never had equal authority so instead of his refusing to hold onto this equality and coming to earth in the form of a servant, it is now being taught that Jesus refused to “go after” equality with God but instead of reaching out to be equal with God, he took the road of becoming a man. The arguments now being taught by these Evangelicals are the same arguments that have been used by JW’s for years. The only difference is that these men believe that somehow Jesus is equal in essence while not equal in function while the JW’s deny equality in both essence and function. In the end it is little difference and the verses used are the same with much the same argument.

  • Corrie

    “One of the very first things that he said to me was that I was influenced in my view of the Trinity because I was an egalitarian. …. I also listened to probably dozens of his teaching sessions in my research on his view of the Trinity and I found no sermon, nor any writing of his on the Trinity that did not bring in the women’s issue. While he did say that his view of the Trinity was not influenced by the women’s issue I have a hard time believing that. The proof is that he never fails to connect the two.”

    Cheryl,

    Wow! I am absolutely dumbfounded.

    He accuses YOU of believing what you do about the Trinity because you are somehow biased by your egalitarian beliefs but then turns around and asserts that he, in no way, is influenced by his beliefs on the subordination women?

    ROFLOL!!!!

    Of course! How can you argue with that? It is like arguing with someone who tells you that “God told me this and such.”

    I am sorry but this is the height of arrogance. I can’t imagine someone claiming that they are totally free of bias while others who disagree are totally biased by their sinful and errant beliefs.

  • ahunt

    Gotta hit the sack, but thanks to all here. I do not think I can bring this to my group w/o distressing the seniors, so I am particularly grateful for the discussion here.

  • Corrie

    Cheryl,

    Gads! Who was the one that said that Jesus didn’t go after equality with God? I remember reading that a while back and being SHOCKED that these beautiful verses in Phil. were being twisted like this. You are right that this is very much like JW doctrine.

    Jesus didn’t regard His equality with God something to be grasped. He already had equality. You cannot go after something you already have. Is He God or is He not God? If He is God He is equal with God in all ways. He had equality. He laid it aside. He became a puny human for our sake. And, when He rose triumphantly, He took up what rightfully belonged to Him as “I Am”.

    Please do not tell me that they are teaching this stuff in seminaries.

  • Cheryl Schatz

    Ware is in direct contradiction with Jesus. While Ware states that the Father never does the will of the Son, Jesus himself when he was in the garden being arrested, said that if he made an appeal to the Father to save him, the Father would “at once” put at his disposal twelve legions of angels.

    Mat 26:52 Then Jesus *said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.
    Mat 26:53 “Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

    Jesus said that if he did requested this from the Father, then how would the scriptures be fulfilled? Yet he stated that the Father would do Jesus’ will with just one request. Jesus didn’t request this from the Father so the Father didn’t send these angels, but it is very clear from scripture that even though it was the Father’s will for Jesus to die, the Father would do as Jesus requested and save him if he asked.

    Corrie,

    I too found Ware’s claim to appear very arrogant. I am not saying that he isn’t a nice person. I also have no doubt that he is sincere. I just find his claims to be consistent with his view that males are made in the direct image of God and females are only the indirect image of God. I don’t know if it is possible for someone who has such a high view of males to come across without some sort of arrogance.

  • Corrie

    For the record, Stackhouse and Keener both disagree with the comparison between the Trinity and marriage and say that is not a cogent argument to make. I read both of their papers and I agree with what they are saying. They are not making the case that a man and woman are any where near being analogous to the Son and the Father and they make this very clear in their papers on this subject.

    I take issue with the “God is the husband and the Son is the wife” argument.

  • Cheryl Schatz

    Corrie,

    Yes, they are teaching this stuff in seminaries. In fact Denny Burk teaches that “Jesus did not want to be equal with God in every respect” and “Jesus possessed the form of God but not equality with God” and “In his pre-existent Trinitarian fellowship with the Father, Jesus decided not to go after equality but to go after incarnation”. The audio from these clips is here:

    http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/01/22/equal-but-different-deteriorates-to-an-unequal-trinity/

  • Ellen

    Corrie, I think I already said that (pretty much) when I said that “the Trinitarian debate does not run strictly across gender-debate lines.”

    We also covered Keener and the Trinitarian thing about around comment #750

  • Sue

    The trinitarian debate does not strictly run across gender lines. However, I was brought up in a pretty strict Plymouth Brethen group and they would be absolutely gobsmacked by what is taught today about the trinity by complementarians.

    Traditionally, the trinity should be considered to have one will. Chrysostom clearly said that “head” did not mean ruler and subject. The son obeyed the father and the son gave counsel to the father. So, I think for C. the father did enter into a mutual relation with the Son. Also, C said that the relationship between the terms in the three head phrases cannot be the same, because the distance between God and Christ is not so great as he distance between Christ and man.

    So, I would say that both the eternal functional subordination of the son and the gender trinity comparison, are not found in the church fathers in the way they are represented by the complementarians.

    However, it is a complex issue and I am not a theologian.

    On Ware’s books, I have read reviews by people who were only interested in the trinity and they could not understand why he kept bringing in gender.

  • Corrie

    “Does anyone want to argue that slavery and polygamy, etc., were commanded by God?”

    Ellen,

    I don’t understand your response to this question.

    Were slavery and polygamy commanded by God? I think this is a fair question and the answer will speak to whether there is consistency in reaching various conclusions to these issues.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    I was just clarifying to make sure people didn’t take your post about Keener and Stackhouse and think that they were in agreement with those who teach that the marital relationship is analogous to the relationship between the Father and the Son.

  • madame

    You have all moved on, but I’d still like a basic question answered.

    Someone, I think Ellen, said

    Does Christ, the Head of the Church submit to the Church? (or something along the lines)

    This leads me to a very big problem I have with some complementarian teaching.
    The way I understand it, Complementarians teach that a husband is to love his wife as Christ LOVES the church.
    In Ephesians 5, this is part of Paul’s instructions to husbands:

    25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body.

    Husbands are told to love their wives as Christ ALREADY LOVED the church, laying down his life for her.
    Then he instructs them to nurture them as Christ nurtures the church.

    Are the verbs “LOVED” and “GAVE” in the past tense in the original texts?
    Is the tense of the verbs of any importance?

    I agree with Egal teaching that this is a picture of unity, not hierarchy. Christ cares for and nurtures the church, and that’s the aspect of the relationship between Christ and the church that husbands are commanded to
    imitate. They aren’t told to guide, lead, be masters of, they are told to love, nurture, give…

  • madame

    I think we do ourselves a disservice when we try to live out our marriages according to someone else’s understanding of Scripture.

    I agree with some comp. teaching, but I disagree wholeheartedly with some of it too. Some of it matches my understanding of Scripture, some doesn’t.

    Moore says that living out marriage the complementarian way is Gospel and that our children won’t be seeing the Gospel lived out if we don’t live that way.
    Jesus says something different:

    34″A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

    Jesus commands us to love each other, not to live out some paradigm based on a few men’s interpretation of a few Bible verses. I agree that our marriages speak to people, our whole lives, single or married, speak to people, a lot more than our words do. But why do complementarian teachers believe that a good, functional Egal marriage can’t convey the message of the Gospel?
    If anything, a marriage where the man is exercising his authority over his wife who happens to not like it, is probably giving the world a very skewed picture of Christ’s love for His church.

  • madame

    I agree with Don Johnson when he said (somewhere back) that we have to keep studying both sides. Slinging mud at each other, calling each other ugly names and assuming the worst is not leading anywhere.

    He also said that we have to look at what the Bible says, not what some scholar or another say, or anwers.com.

    I pretty much agree with DJ most of the time!

  • Paula

    And calling false teachings what they are is not rhetoric, lack of grace, insensitivity, misunderstanding, or anything else but our Christian duty. False is false, and harmful is harmful.

    “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked people, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, those wicked people will die for their sins, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked to turn from their ways and they do not do so, they will die for their sins, though you yourself will be saved. (Ezekiel 33:7-9)

    What those people are teaching is heresy, it is unbiblical, it is the stuff of cults.

    Phil. 2:6 reads “who in form of-God being-inherently not snatching deems-it the to-be equal to-God”.

    How can these scholars not “grasp” the meaning? It plainly says Jesus “being inherently in the form of God”! He is already there, of the same substance. And that “snatching” word, harpagmos, is of a group of words having to do with not only taking what one does not have but also keeping jealously what one already has. Putting the whole verse together, we read “Jesus, being inherently God, did not consider this as something to never let go of…” So He didn’t refuse to step down.

    I agree, this new interpretation is indistinguishable from the cults.

  • Ellen

    …not rhetoric…

    Sue, I know I said I’d get back to you, but I think I’ll skip that. If you want to ask the same thing over on my blog, I’ll be glad to answer. (and my request is that if I get wound up and start to get off track, personal, use rhetoric-style language, etc, that somebody will call me on it).

    “cults”, “heresy”, etc., is not language I feel like dealing with today.

  • Don Johnson

    Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

    The word love is agapao, the agape love of God.

    1Co 13:4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant
    1Co 13:5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

    The word love is agape, the love of God.

    We see from combining just these few verses that a husband is NOT to insist on his way as he is to love his wife.

    Somehow this gets twisted by the non-egals into the right of a husband TO insist on his way. This is simply a contradiction of basic faith.

  • madame

    Correction to comment 1701

    The problem with comp. teaching is:

    They teach the husband to relate to his wife as the risen Christ relates to the Church. The husband becomes the lord, leader, ruler. We worship Jesus and love him because of what he already did.

    My point is, Paul told husbands to imitate what Christ already did for the church, not to raise themselves up as lords, make sure that the wife does what she should, make all final decisions….

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    Madame, #1701: “Does Christ, the Head of the Church submit to the Church? (or something along the lines)”

    Well, since you asked, an Egalitarian argues in ETS paper that Christ submits to the church.

    Excerpts:

    Luther Seminary professor Alan Padgett, argued in a paper at the 57th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) that Christ submits to the church.

    “Alan Padgett’s proposal is not even Christian,” Moore said. “The idea that Christians will, in the eschaton, no longer submit to Christ is more than simply an unbiblical error. It is virtually pagan.”

    If this is where Christian egalitarianism is going with “mutual submission,” then it is clearer than ever that evangelical feminism is more feminist than evangelical.”

    “This is just one more example of what lengths egalitarians will go to in order to bolster their otherwise untenable position,” Stinson said. “Unfortunately, there will no doubt be many more theological aberrations such as this coming from the egalitarian camp.”

  • Don Johnson

    Without seeing Padgett’s paper it is not clear what he is saying. But I do not see mutual submission stopping.

  • Paula

    “This is just one more example of what lengths male supremacists will go to in order to keep their self-proclaimed preeminence.”

    Actually, since Jesus washed his disciples’ feet, we have to conclude that he did in fact “submit” to it (the word can also be translated “support” or “be attached to”). How can this not be an act of “submission” on Jesus’ part?

    Contrary to Grudem et al, submission is NOT always to an authority. The problem here with male supremacist thinking is that one always submits to an authority. But Jesus submitted to his own followers! Clearly they had no authority over him, yet he submitted. And he told his disciples, WHICH INCLUDED MEN, to do likewise.

    Why won’t comps submit like to their wives just as Jesus did to his followers?

  • Don Johnson

    I just listened to Albert Mohler’s exposition of Mat 5:31-32 (divorce) and he (partially) misunderstands the 1st century culture and results in condemnation. This is an example of the false teachings that tear my heart. Thank God for Instone-Brewer.

  • Egal-eye

    I don’t know of Instone-Brewer’s book being online, but I emailed him, got the book via his referral source, and he was most kind to answer my questions, etc. and referred as well to a free online resource written by a woman on the issue of women in ministry, etc. A short ten or fifteen page pamphlet type of thing. He recommended Craig Keener’s book on the matter of women in the church and marriage. David I-B was very courteous and answered a number of my questions pertaining to divorce and biblical equality, by email.

  • Truth Unites.. and Divides

    Denny Burk knew about egalitarian professor Alan Padgett’s ETS paper. Denny quotes Dr. Russell Moore in a previous blog post:

    “The stakes of the gender debate for all of Christian theology are apparent even at the ETS meeting itself, with egalitarian theologian Alan Padgett arguing for mutual submission between Christ and the church from Ephesians chapter 5. In his presentation, Padgett argued that Jesus “submits” to the church at the cross. Touchstone readers will remember Padgett for his interaction with Touchstone editors in the pages of the magazine over feminine God-language.

    This proposal assumes that service means submission. The church did not send Jesus on the redemptive mission; the Father did. Jesus everywhere notes that he is freely offering his life in obedience to the Father’s mission. Moreover, Jesus in his love for the church refuses to submit to the foundation stones of his church, when they demand that he will never be delivered over to the Romans. Instead, he sets his face like flint toward Jerusalem. That is servant leadership, and that is headship.

    Stunningly, in his paper presentation Padgett argues that the church’s submission to Christ ends at the eschaton. This is sub-Christian at best; Canaanite at worst. An article about the Padgett presentation can be accessed here. If this is where evangelical feminism is going, it is clear that the movement is even more self-consciously more feminist than evangelical; more egalitarian than Christian.”

  • Don Johnson

    P.S. The PlamoBible teachings are a hoot but teach more things in 1st century context than many (supposed) teachers.

  • Don Johnson

    I have contacted DIB also. His posted sermons are very good. I pointed out a few things where I went further than his book in my teachings and he agreed with what I discussed with him. The main one is there is a difference between an “any matter” divorce and getting a divorce for “any matter”. The former was what Joseph was going to do with Mary, but it was not for any reason, it was because she appeared to have committed adultery. And he was going to do this to avoid bringing further shame to her. The point is that while one should not divorce for no reason at all, it might make sense to use the no-fault divorce today to avoid needed to discuss the reasons ala Joseph.

  • Brian (Another)

    Fascinating, folks! I’ve enjoyed reading what I can of the discourse (I have to meter my online activity time!).
    First (Lydia #1644), just to reiterate it, Dr. Ware stated (one of) the way(s) a man can sin is by reacting and abusing. In the same way I would say that in reaction to a church sanctioning homosexual marriage, someone bombed the church. Was it a reaction on the part of the bomber? You bet. Was it justified? No. Was it sinful? You bet. Doesn’t nullify the fact that the church is sinning by ordaining same sex unions.
    Cheryl (# 1680): Where does Dr. Ware state that we should not pray to Christ? I’m not intimately familiar with this view of his. Also, in your Matt 26 reference, I understand your comment, but don’t lose sight of the full statement that Christ said he could appeal to His father. As opposed to “I could tell my father”. He has ultimate trust in and submission to His Father’s will (see Luke 22).

  • Corrie

    “Why won’t comps submit like this to their wives just as Jesus did to his followers?”

    Fear. Ego. Pride. Thinking more highly of one’s self than they ought (arrogance). Not thinking the best of others (suspicious of motives and desires even though there is not one shred of evidence for being suspicious). Wanting to be in control and always in power over others but never being at the mercy of others or vulnerable to them.

    If God, Himself, is not diminished one iota when He is our ezer (our ever present help in times of trouble) or when He became a bondslave to His people, then why do puny humans think they are above doing it?

  • ahunt

    Don, what a terrific site! Well Done, Young Man.

    And I did run across Instone-Brewer’s scholarship summary on Christianity Today awhile back, but didn’t immediately make the connection.

    Kathy, up for a chuckle?

    In the spirit of loving mischief, I asked the Better Half “what its like” to be “over another adult who belongs to Christ?”

    Cue Deer in the Headlights Expression, and then:

    “So was the something you needed me to do?”

    Seriously, your question is a very good one, and deserves to be bumped up.

    For comp men from Kathy:

    How many comp men love and like being the leader, the one in authority, the one having the final say, the one with ultimate power? How does that feel to you? Can you please share that here? What’s it like for you to be in this kind of position, being over another adult who belongs to Christ?

    If you do not love it or like it then can you say why?

  • Ellen

    Not thinking the best of others

    hmmm…might we even give Bruce Ware even a little glimpse that we might think even a little good (although certainly not the best) of him?

    Sorry…I just found that piece a little ironic.

    For the record, the complementarian marriages that I know personally do not fit the pattern you describe. Most would be stunned to see themselves (or their husbands) described in the way that they are described here.

    My version of thinking the best of people here is recognizing that (for the most part) they are passionate about what they believe. Most egalitarians understand what they see in Scripture to be Biblical truth. Most have no further agenda than that. Some can get “wound up” (for lack of a better term and one that I point at myself frequently) because of past pain. I understand and accept and I applaud their passion.

    I read your description, Corrie, and I think of my (complementarian) “gentleman caller”. He washes my feet. Something my (egalitarian) husband never had a thought of doing.

    He bought an iPod (something he has every right to do, it is not as if we are married or accountable to each other as to how we spend our cash)…and thought of me. He would not use his until I had one (that he had paid for) in my hand.

    He gave up peanut butter (I cry in emotion when I think of that). He gave up peanut better – when one of the things he likes best is peanut butter cups. And Pad Thai. Why did he give up peanut butter cups? Because I am allergic to peanuts. He wants to support me and stand next to me in the sacrifice that I must make…he makes voluntarily.

    Corrie, I am sorry that you know so many evil men who seem to hate their wives so thoroughly.

  • Ellen

    Paula, it seems as though you passed by my link earlier. Instone-Brewers book on divorce and remarriage are on google books (at least most of it, some of the pages are not there). The book is well worth owning, as is Jay E. Adams “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church”. Adams is a shorter book and deals more with pastoral issues – and always with grace.

  • ahunt

    In the same way I would say that in reaction to a church sanctioning homosexual marriage, someone bombed the church. Was it a reaction on the part of the bomber? You bet. Was it justified? No. Was it sinful? You bet. Doesn’t nullify the fact that the church is sinning by ordaining same sex unions.

    blinking hard

    I’m stunned. Brian, you may want to rethink this analogy.

  • Paula

    Yes, Corrie. And after nearly 2,000 posts they still can’t reconcile what Jesus modeled for all of us and their own male supremacist teachings. The two are mutually (pun intended) exclusive.

    The Bible does not tell males to play the role of God the Father to females’ role of the submissive Christ; it tells all, male and female, to follow Christ’s example of humility, of laying privilege aside, of being willing to get beneath someone else in order to lift them up. There is no way to reconcile comp teachings with these most fundamental Biblical truths.

    Yes, it all comes down to Pride. The Pharisees were paranoid about losing their “place”, and were willing to butcher the Living Word to keep it. Nothing has changed.

    The apostle John’s words about proving one’s love for God by loving people are completely ignored in comp teachings. And lest they claim their leadership is “loving”, I would remind them again, as others have done too, of Paul’s definition of love in 1 Cor. 13. “Self-seeking” is the male supremacist motto; there is no way to sugar-coat that by calling it “sacrifice” by “having the final say”.

    But hey, I’m preachin’ to the choir, cuz the brick wall ain’t listenin’.

  • Cheryl Schatz

    Brian #1727,

    I have documentation from Ware’s talks on the Trinity where he states that we are not to pray to Jesus. I will be placing his audio quotes in my DVD. I did write to Ware and question him on his belief and engaged him with scripture. He said that it was not biblical to pray to Jesus and that the apostles were uniquely allowed to pray to Jesus because they had a relationship with him in the flesh before he died. I brought up scripture that shows that Paul talked about all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus and he admitted that there are some scriptures that appear to give him some problems in his viewpoint. His view that Jesus is not allowed to be prayed hinges on his belief that Jesus has less authority than the Father. I will be providing Ware’s view of the subordination of Christ (although he says that he doesn’t like this term) from his audio messages along with, I think, one or two quotes from his book on the Trinity, on my DVD which should be released sometime in September of 2008.

    Regarding my quote from scripture I am showing that Jesus claimed that all it would take is a request to the Father and the Father would *immediately* do as Jesus requested. Ultimately Jesus did not request this because he did not cave to following a fleshly will but his Father’s will. However in the Trinity there are not opposing wills. The will of the Word of God is exactly the same as that of the Father’s will. There are three wills but these wills are in union. We can see this in John 12:28 where Jesus tells the Father to glorify his own name. It is in the imperative.

    John 12:28 “Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came out of heaven: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.”

    Jesus tells the Father to do something and the Father responds that he has done it and will do it.

    For someone to say that the Father never does the Son’s will, is simply wrong.

    The submission of Christ including his willing subjection in 1 Cor. 15 will be thoroughly answered in the DVD.

  • Corrie

    Brian,

    Only an irrational nut-job would bomb a church because they allowed homosexual unions. I don’t think we could call that a “reaction”.

    It is like saying that the slow lines at Walmart caused me to react in a violent temper tantrum. Obviously, if I react in a violent temper tantrum because I have to wait in line, there is not something quite right in me to begin with.

    The point is that an abusive person will conjure up things and then react to these imaginary problems. It comes from within them and it is not a reaction from outside of them.

    The word “react” has no place in the discussion of abuse. It is dangerous and it gives abusers justification for their actions. It doesn’t matter if you tell them it is sin, as long as they can spread the blame out on their victim for their problems, they will have satisfaction and they will be able to assuage themselves of the guilt that they alone should carry.

    An abuser doesn’t react to a situation. An abuser creates and initiates the situation so he/she can abuse and then the abuser blames his/her victim for the abuse by saying “I wouldn’t have had to hit you if you would have had the house clean the way I like it.” It all starts and ends with the abuser.

    It is obvious that people do not understand what it is like living with an abusive person. They are irrational and they ALWAYS blame their victims by saying the abuse was a reaction. Balogna.

    Let’s say I was pulled over by two police officers and I shot one of them. How far do you think it would go in court if my lawyer tried to tell the judge that I had one of two ways to react to the threat I felt when the policemen pulled me over?

    And why is it that Ware doesn’t say that a wife will react to her husband’s neglect and lack of love in one of two ways- insubordination or passivity? Why does he assume that the insubordination starts with the wife? After all, couldn’t her insubordination be a “reaction” to the sinful/selfish husband who wants to be served and is always demanding that she fulfill his will? Or is it that he believes wives initiate sin into the marriage and husbands react/respond to the wife?

    His words should not sit right with people because they are loaded with bias and prejudice and suspicion towards women.

    And I will guarantee you that every passive and abusive husband is probably thinking “Yep, if only she wouldn’t buck me all the time, I wouldn’t be like this.”

  • Corrie

    “I’m stunned. Brian, you may want to rethink this analogy.

    How seriously do we want to take abuse?”

    Ellen,

    Could you explain your response to ahunt. I don’t know what you are saying.

    My opinion is that people who took abuse seriously wouldn’t give an inch to an abuser. Ware’s statement gives a mile.

    And anyone who is familiar with abusive people understand exactly what I am saying.

  • Don Johnson

    All the loving and submission stuff can be done by anyone, giving up peanuts is a nice touch.

    Yes, there can be some people who profess to be non-egal who are nicer than some who profess to be egal. But the egal is not using bait and switch tactics when (if?) he submits to you. You are not sure about that with a non-egal.

  • Ellen

    Corrie, please define “reaction”. If we are using different definitions, that could be part of the problem.

    I’ve been slammed a couple of times for using the dictionary to define terms. If you have a Biblical definition of “reaction”, please share it.

    Only an irrational nut-job would bomb a church because they allowed homosexual unions.

    Only an irrational nut-job would beat his wife. How are they different?

    And I will guarantee you that every passive and abusive husband is probably thinking “Yep, if only she wouldn’t buck me all the time, I wouldn’t be like this.”

    Reality…an (egalitarian) woman I know (a relative) can be “difficult”. I asked her husband why he doesn’t say something. His answer: “You don’t have to live with her.”

  • Ellen

    Corrie, my reply to ahunt is that we should take spousal abuse every bit as seriously as we take a person bombing a church. Both are deplorable and reprehensible sins.

    How do you think abuse should be treated?

  • Corrie

    “Corrie, I am sorry that you know so many evil men who seem to hate their wives so thoroughly.”

    Ellen,

    What in the world are you talking about? I never said any such thing.

    I was giving reasons as to why some people do not want to submit themselves to others. I was answering a question. I in no way stated that I know a bunch of evil men who hate their wives! LOL

    Double sheesh!

    You want to put any more words in my mouth?

    My answer had NOTHING to do with anyone I know. I know plenty of men that love their wives (my husband is one of them) and families but then they would be accused of having “same sex marriages” because they are not manly enough for the likes of some comps.

    Your boyfriend sounds very nice. I have no idea what your story has to do with my answer, though.

  • Ellen

    Yes, there can be some people who profess to be non-egal who are nicer than some who profess to be egal. But the egal is not using bait and switch tactics when (if?) he submits to you. You are not sure about that with a non-egal.

    Funny, I would have thought it to be the opposite – in egalitarian marriages I know, it is. If my friend does something nice, it’s not because he’s obligated, it’s because he’s a kind and generous man (and very much an alpha male and very much a complementarian).

    In egalitarian relationships, where there is no clear structure, there is the danger of having to give in order to get. If he gives her something…what is it that he wants from her.

    I would be much more suspicious in an egalitarian marriage.

    Remember Corrie’s words about thinking the best of people?

    We can all think the worst of the other side. I refuse to do that.

  • Ellen

    Corrie, my reasons for thinking that you might have those feelings are simply a reaction to motives that you say complementarian men have.

    “Fear. Ego. Pride. Thinking more highly of one’s self than they ought (arrogance). Not thinking the best of others (suspicious of motives and desires even though there is not one shred of evidence for being suspicious). Wanting to be in control and always in power over others but never being at the mercy of others or vulnerable to them.”

    If those were the complementarian men you know, no wonder you…(lack of words)

  • Lydia

    “Lydia, just to reiterate it, Dr. Ware stated (one of) the way(s) a man can sin is by reacting and abusing. In the same way I would say that in reaction to a church sanctioning homosexual marriage, someone bombed the church. Was it a reaction on the part of the bomber? You bet. Was it justified? No. Was it sinful? You bet. Doesn’t nullify the fact that the church is sinning by ordaining same sex unions.”

    Does the person bombing the church have authority over the church? Is the church told to submit to the bomber or they are in sin? Or, if they would submit to the bomber he only has 2 choices of reaction because he is a sinner.

    For some reason, this just does not work. :o)

  • Ellen

    My answer had NOTHING to do with anyone I know.

    You seem to know the motivations of complementarian men. I thought you must know some in order to know their motivations.

    Complementarians here have answered – you all either do not believe or do not listen.

    Don, what makes you think that my friend merely “profess”es to be complementarian. Do you think we lie?

  • ahunt

    Pretty much, Lydia. One is an act interpersonal violence based in a belief of authority. The other is simply an act of war.

  • Corrie

    An irrational nut-job doesn’t need a reason to react, Ellen. Abusive people make up reasons and then react to these imaginary reasons.

    I don’t know how better to explain it to you. Abuse is NOT a reaction to stimulus from without. Abuse is something that comes from withing and it needs no stimulus from without.

    I can’t say it any plainer than I already have.

  • Ellen

    Corrie, I asked you to define “reaction”. If we do not know what definition you are using, it is much harder to come to any sort of understanding.

  • Lydia

    “In egalitarian relationships, where there is no clear structure, there is the danger of having to give in order to get. If he gives her something…what is it that he wants from her.”

    Ellen, this is just sad. Both are to be seeking Christ. As adults in the Body and in marriage, why do we need ‘structure’ in marriage union and in the Body when as true believers we have the Holy Spirit?

    Institutionalizing the church has been it’s death. We have lots of buildings but few that are the ‘Body of Christ’.

    The problem is very basic. Most are ‘professing believers’ in both camps. When both are truly seeking after Holiness, none of this silliness matters. Men seeking after Holiness are not running around demanding that they are in charge. They don’t write and preach on their authority all the time.

    Remember we are supposedly talking about true believers in the Body and in marriage.

  • Brian (Another)

    Corrie (#1728): While I daily fight the battle against fear, ego and pride, I dare say that is not the reason for holding a complementarian view (I projected the submission part to the overall view). I see complementarianism as the model portrayed in the bible and delivered directly in Scripture as what we should follow per Col 3, 1 Pet 1, Eph 5. And just to ask two questions, did Christ submit to His disciples or serve them? Do you see a difference in service and submission? Also, while I will stop at casting the direct results onto you (and Sue, Cheryl, etc.), to say there is not one shred of evidence is wrong. See ECUSA, many of the Methodist churches (though definitely not all), Presbyterians where the ordination of women preceded the extreme liberal theology that each finds themselves now. So, no, I would not say without a shred of evidence.

    And for the analogy, I guess we don’t see the seriousness of abuse as the same. I gravely equate abusing biblical teachings the same. Even given imprecatory Psalms, a man (or woman) is doing evil in the sight of God by acting in retribution toward a church’s sinful actions (bombing). I equate that as the same as a man abusing his wife because he misapplies the biblical teaching of headship. I suppose we’ll have to disagree on that. But I think those questioning the analogy do see the same seriousness.

    Lydia (#1745): Dr. Ware did not say there are two possible reactions. He was referring to two sinful reactions. He did not list everything that can ever happen. The person bombing is called to confront evil doctrine. But to do so in a sinful manner is still sinful.

    Sorry, but I must go and withstand 100 degree heat to watch an 8 year old play soccer.

    Blessings, all!

  • Ellen

    Brian, I do see your point.

    On one hand we see a husband very sinfully twisting and abusing Biblical teaching to dominate and sinfully control his wife, to the point of abuse.

    On the other hand we see another sinner, very sinfully twisting and abusing Biblical teaching to justify to himself the bombing of a church “in the name of God”.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    Go back and read Paula’s question and then read my response. I don’t know what else to say to you except that I have no idea who you got what you did out of what I said.

    I was surmising why some comps will not ADMIT that they submit to their wives. And if some comps will not submit to their wives, I was giving a list of reasons why they might not be submitting. One cannot be a bondslave, a servant to another person without submitting to that person and yielding to that person, can they?

    “Complementarians here have answered – you all either do not believe or do not listen.”

    Huh? They answered what? Where is the answer? Can you show me where this is?

  • Don Johnson

    Ellen,
    On what someone professes, it is much easier to profess something than to actually live it, so I was mainly thinking of the egal.

    It seems you have a bad example of someone who claims to be egal and a good example of someone who claims to be non-egal. And maybe more examples than that.

    Examples are just that, examples; and we are all sinners, some further along in the sanctification process than others.

    The foot washing example you gave, do you see this as an example of him submitting to you, him leading or what? I see it as submitting.

  • Corrie

    ” While I daily fight the battle against fear, ego and pride, I dare say that is not the reason for holding a complementarian view (I projected the submission part to the overall view). ”

    I did NOT say that complementarians hold their position because of these certain reasons.

    I am going to repeat what I originally said because it seems people are reacting to things that are not there:

    ““Why won’t comps submit like this to their wives just as Jesus did to his followers?”

    Fear. Ego. Pride. Thinking more highly of one’s self than they ought (arrogance). Not thinking the best of others (suspicious of motives and desires even though there is not one shred of evidence for being suspicious). Wanting to be in control and always in power over others but never being at the mercy of others or vulnerable to them.

    If God, Himself, is not diminished one iota when He is our ezer (our ever present help in times of trouble) or when He became a bondslave to His people, then why do puny humans think they are above doing it?”

    Simply put, I listed reasons why some will NOT submit themselves to others. This list is for both males and females.

    Now, are you, a comp, admitting that you do submit to your wife?

  • Ellen

    Corrie, about 1700 comments worth (although the vast majority of them are from egals). If you haven’t caught any of the answers, it’s beyond me.

    What question? You asked me to go back and read Paula’s question. When I tone down the rhetoric, I think the main thrust of the question is why do complementarians believe that men have authority in the church and home? That has been answered to the best of our sincerely held religious beliefs.

    Ellen, this is just sad

    Lydia, you all pretty consistently put complementarianism in the worst possible light. Is “turn about fair play”?

  • Corrie

    “And for the analogy, I guess we don’t see the seriousness of abuse as the same.”

    I seriously am having a hard time understanding this comment.

    The problem with your analogy is not that some of us don’t take abuse as seriously as you do.

    We do take abuse seriously and that is why we have, ad nauseum, tried to explain why abuse is not a reaction TO but it is a sinful way of relating to others REGARDLESS of the other person’s actions.

    No one would phrase a situation where someone bombs a church as a “reaction”. To me, that is LESSENING the severity of the situation. To me, that is not taking it seriously enough when we use that sort of terminology.

    The bomber had only one of two ways to respond to the church’s position on homosexuality? Either abusing that church or passivity?

    When someone sins against me, do I only have two ways of reacting and both of them sinful?

    And why assume that the church was doing anything wrong? I know someone who walked into a church up in Milwaukee where we used to live and shot about 8 people just because they were irrational and insane. Shall I say that this person reacted TO the pastor and the church? Absolutely not. The pastor could have been wearing a bad tie and that could have set him off.

    I am really not being heard at all. It is clear.

    Brian, ask yourself why Ware didn’t make the leader responsible for setting off the sinfulness of his wife. Why did Ware make the woman the one who introduced sin into the marriage? Why isn’t it the other way around, especially since he is the leader? Why didn’t Ware state that a wife will often feel threatened and react in one of two ways?

    This is a constant inconsistency in many comp teachings. What they teach and what they say are two different things.

  • Ellen

    About the question of complementarian men submitting to their husbands:

    I reject the premise of the question. Is it okay if I quote from CBMW?

  • Corrie

    Here is what Ware said and he stated it in an “either/or” fashion. It is up to him to correct the confusion. As it stands, it seems that he is saying that a husband reacts to his insubordinate wife by either/or.

    He did not say that there are several ways a husband reacts to the alleged threat to his authority. He said “either/or”.

    “The very wise and good plan of God, of male headship, is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them; and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged .or more commonly to become passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.”

    And his whole point was that patriarchy will prevent this passivity and abuse but that egalitarianism/feminism is what causes the abuse/passivity. The woman knows her place (to serve, not to be served, to fulfill the will of her husband not for him to fulfill her will) and the husband, in turn, does not abuse nor is he passive.

    Basically, it seems that this all rides on the woman’s shoulders.

  • Don Johnson

    I do not think Ware meant it as negatively as some are interpreting it. What I really think he was trying to point out is that PASSIVITY is ALSO a possible sinful response (as he sees it). He wants to have non-egal husbands not respond with passivity as well as not with abuse.

    However, I agree with the concern that he did not point out a third way, it was implied, but I did not see it stated. Plus the example started with a woman resisting, so that is a sensitive area for abused people.

  • Don Johnson

    Ware ducked discussing the 3rd way, the non-sinful response. This is critical to understanding. What does a non-egal husband do if his wife just says No?

  • Ellen

    Don, how can he “duck” a topic during a sermon? This was not a Q&A.

    There’s a reason that I tend to prefer working from written statements instead of picking apart a sentence from a live sermon.

    The reason? I’ve given speeches. Crucial words get left out (or whole paragraphs). But Ware gets very little grace from most egalitarians.

  • Don Johnson

    In any case, I want to know what a non-egal husband does when he wife says no?

    We know he is not supposed to abuse her or become passive. So what exactly is he supposed to do?

  • Ellen

    I am really not being heard at all. It is clear.

    I hear you. You don’t like the analogy.

    Others of us see both as sinful reactions (as we define reaction, since you won’t) to a stimuli that should not be reacted to.

    Just because we do not agree does not mean we don’t hear you.

    Most nut-cases who blow up things do believe they are acting under the authority of God.

    Has the church been told that they are to submit? No, but CBMW also makes it clear that a wife should not submit to abuse.

    Again, I hear you. I simply see the metaphor (which does break down, as metaphors do) and you do not.

  • Don Johnson

    My point is he said what NOT to do, he did not say WHAT to do. No wonder people have concerns with what he said. Perhaps he was going to say something and cut it at the last minute, I know this can happen.

  • Ellen

    Well sure, Don. That’s why I referenced my preferences to work from written (which you still would not agree with) material.

    In Ware’s written version, he states that since the fall, the inclination is for…and all the rest. He was writing about inclinations and generalities and the problems that those inclinations bring.

  • Don Johnson

    Quote any non-egal you choose. When the husband has invoked his (supposed-non-egal) option to break ties/decide/other euphemism and his wife says no, what happens then?

  • Ellen

    (I must admit I’m becoming increasingly cynical about any attempt for most egalitarians to see complementarianism is any good light. Don, I know that you’ve been around this issue for a while – I’ve seen comments from you from over a year ago – so I’m surprised that you are not familiar.)

    In an article of family worship:
    An unsupportive wife: your wife does not think it is important or is critical of what you are trying to do or is uncooperative. Woo her to the habit. Indulge her all you can. Refuse to speak sharply to her about her unsupportiveness. Explain it to her. Enlist the prayers and encouragement of your pastors and elders, but make every effort not to shame her outside the family circle.

  • Ellen

    When a husband and wife disagree, I don’t think it’s sin to concede to the woman, unless the disagreement involves a moral issue, where your conscience is bound by the clear teaching of Scripture and it would be sin to let her have her way. We husbands should give jurisdiction over spheres of domestic activity to our wives and not even ask them to check things out with us. Leadership does not mean that I dictate the way everything is done. Leadership means that I take the bottom-line responsibility to provide a moral atmosphere in the home, where Christ is honored, and everything works smoothly.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    That would be great if you quoted from CBMW. Could you also explain to me why you reject the premise of the question? I think it would be helpful for me in order that I can understand where the disconnect might be.

  • Ellen

    As these two words indicate, a husband has an extremely serious responsibility in marriage, which leaves no room for a self-centered abuse of authority. All that he does with regard to his wife is to be for her good, not for his own pleasure or convenience. Thus, for the sake of meeting his wife’s genuine needs, a husband should be willing to surrender whatever is necessary in his career, recreation, relaxation, spending, and other areas of his life.

    A husband’s responsibilities are to be fulfilled unconditionally. Nowhere does the Bible indicate that a husband is released from his duties if his wife fails to live up to her responsibilities (except for adultery, which would allow a divorce). Just as God took the initiative to love and save us while we were still hostile to Him (see Rom. 5:8), so must a husband love his wife and see to her needs, even if she is presently anything but loving and pleasant herself. To do so, a husband must take his eyes off his wife’s deficiencies and focus them on Christ (see John 14:15), who gave us the perfect model of unconditional love (Gal. 2:20).

  • Ellen

    On the “not so among you…”

    There is even more that a husband must consider. Paul says that husbands should love their wives “as Christ loved the church.” And how did Christ love the church? Mark 10:42-45 answers that question, and at the same time provides us with a clear job description for any person who is in authority:

    You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant [diakonos] and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all [doulos]. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served [diakoneo], but to serve [diakoneo], and to give his life as a ransom for many (cf. Matt. 20:24-28; Luke 22:24-27).

    Again, in order to get a clear understanding of what is being taught, we must look carefully at two key words, both of which emphasize a single principle, that of being a servant. A diakonos (dee-ak’-on-os) is a person who runs errands for others, attends to their needs, and waits on them. Note how the word is used in Matthew 23:11, Mark 9:35, John 12:26, and Romans 16:1.

    A doulos (doo’-los) is a slave to another person, either involuntarily or voluntarily. This word is used of Christ in describing the role He took on for the sake of His church (Phil. 2:7). Doulos is commonly used in the New Testament when urging believers to be “servants of God” (see Acts 16:17; 1 Pet. 2:16).

    The verb diakoneo (dee-ak-on-eh’-oh) means to be an attendant, that is, to wait upon others; it may be done in a menial fashion or as a host, friend, or teacher (such as a church deacon). The word is used to describe servants waiting upon their masters (Matt. 8:15; Luke 12:37; 17:8; 22:26, 27), angels attending to the Lord (Matt. 4:11), Christians serving Christ (John 12:26), and Christians serving one another (2 Tim. 1:18; Philem. 13; 1 Pet. 4:10). The essence of diakoneo is looking out for and meeting the needs of someone else (cf. Matt. 25:44; 27:55; Acts 6:2; Rom. 15:25; Heb. 6:10). Through His many acts of service, including washing His disciples’ feet (John 13:1- 17), and ultimately dying on the cross for all believers, Jesus demonstrated the humility and sacrifice that must often attend such service.

    By incorporating these concepts into the Ephesians passage, we gain additional insight into a husband’s role in marriage. He is to be a servant to his wife; he is to be sensitive to her needs, trying to anticipate them even before she does. He is to attend to those needs before his own, even if it costs him dearly. Obviously, this leaves no room for exerting his marital authority for his own pleasure or convenience. This is what it means to love your wife as Christ loved the church.

  • Don Johnson

    All this seems like general good advice to try to convince someone who disagees with you; except for the last sentence, I do not understand what “bottom-line responsibility” might mean as opposed to just “responsibility”. Every believer should be trying to provide a moral atmosphere in the home, etc. and whoever fails is the one who fails. Each are responsible for their own choices, good or bad.

  • Don Johnson

    I agree with this as an egal, a husband is to sacrifice for his wife, to serve his wife. This is not describing a diff. between egals and non-egals.

  • Corrie

    “We husbands should give jurisdiction over spheres of domestic activity to our wives and not even ask them to check things out with us. ”

    It is not the husband’s to give. The wife has already been given jurisdiction by God. Maybe they forgot that the man and woman both received the dominion mandate?

  • Don Johnson

    On divorce, there are 2 basic Biblical reasons, not just adultery but also abuse/neglect. This can be physical, sexual, emotional, etc. There are also others, like forcing someone to have an abortion and other very serious sins.

  • ahunt

    I would dispute the notion that I do not also have a bottom line responsiblity to provide a moral atmoshere in the home.

    “Concede” does not equal submit.

    “Serve” does not equal submit.

    But it still looks like great deal of “mutual submission” going on here, Ellen. What is the hangup with acknowleging that husbands are in fact submitting to their wives. What is so scary?

  • Ellen

    We do take abuse seriously and that is why we have, ad nauseum, tried to explain why abuse is not a reaction TO but it is a sinful way of relating to others REGARDLESS of the other person’s actions.

    I don’t see those as mutually exclusive. We have also tried to explain ad nauseum, that abuse is indeed a sinful way of relating to others – but in Ware’s example of inclinations, it is also a sinful response.

    It’s a false dichotomy.

    Could you also explain to me why you reject the premise of the question? I think it would be helpful for me in order that I can understand where the disconnect might be

    Corrie, I’m seeing a bit of irony just now.

    Can you please explain to me your definition of “reaction”? As I said before, “If we do not know what definition you are using, it is much harder to come to any sort of understanding.”

    The example was Christ and foot washing.

    Actually, Christ did not submit to washing the disciples’ feet. In fact, Peter told Jesus that He would never wash Peter’s feet. If Jesus has “submitted”, He would have simply let Peter have his way…but Christ, the Prince of Peace, did not allow Peter to have his way. Christ did not submit to Peter’s desire.

    Jesus told Peter (my paraphrase): Peter, if you don’t submit to me in this matter, you will not even be a part of me.

    It was Peter who submitted to having the ultimate authority of the universe wash his feet.

    I think that explain be why I reject the premise of the question.

  • Kathy

    ‘Kathy, up for a chuckle?

    In the spirit of loving mischief, I asked the Better Half “what its like” to be “over another adult who belongs to Christ?”

    Cue Deer in the Headlights Expression, and then:

    “So was the something you needed me to do?”

    Seriously, your question is a very good one, and deserves to be bumped up.’

    Awwh! Thanks for that! 🙂

  • Ellen

    ahunt, I don’t see foot washing (in and of itself) as submitting. See above.

    I don’t have a problem with husbands submitting to wives (although I think that egalitarians would define it differently).

    As Wayne Grudem puts is: “The result is what they call “mutual submission,” and in their view that means that there is no unique authority or leadership role for the husband in a marriage. They redefine “submission” to mean something like “considerateness, thoughtfulness, an attitude of love toward one another, putting the other person’s interests above your own.”

    Of course no one can object to the ideas of mutual considerateness, thoughtfulness, and love! These are clearly taught in the New Testament. “

  • Ellen

    I agree with this as an egal, a husband is to sacrifice for his wife, to serve his wife. This is not describing a diff. between egals and non-egals.

    Don, what you do not see is a directive to force an unsubmissive wife.

    Abuse is sin. Always.

  • Don Johnson

    This is true, in the egal model, there is no unique leadership or authority role for the husband, both the husband AND wife have such.

  • ahunt

    All that he does with regard to his wife is to be for her good, not for his own pleasure or convenience. Thus, for the sake of meeting his wife’s genuine needs, a husband should be willing to surrender whatever is necessary in his career, recreation, relaxation, spending, and other areas of his life.

    Surrender?

  • Ellen

    This is true, in the egal model, there is no unique leadership or authority role for the husband, both the husband AND wife have such.

    Yes, that is where we disagree. Some folks see that either way can be read into the text, others call the opponents…both sides.

  • Don Johnson

    P.S. When Jesus washed the disciple’s feet, he did the act of the lowest slave in a household, as there was no sanitary plumbing with animals in the streets.

  • Ellen

    P.S. When Jesus washed the disciple’s feet, he did the act of the lowest slave in a household, as there was no sanitary plumbing with animals in the streets.

    Just so.

    But it was not submitting. It was serving and that’s what men are called to do.

    ahunt: Surrender?

    Christ surrendered His life. That doesn’t mean He doesn’t have authority.

  • Corrie

    Ellen,

    re: #1773

    It sounds good at first glance.

    “Obviously, this leaves no room for exerting his marital authority for his own pleasure or convenience.”

    What does that mean “exert his marital authority”? What would that look like?

    Don,

    “Quote any non-egal you choose. When the husband has invoked his (supposed-non-egal) option to break ties/decide/other euphemism and his wife says no, what happens then?”

    Basically it looks like the non-egal has the same option as the egal husband- to woo her, indulge her, explain things to her, and enlist the prayer support, do not speak sharply to her and do not shame her to others.

    Is this what exerting marital authority looks like (#1769)?

    Because I would say those are also a wife’s options when her husband is rebellious to the word.

    When the rubber hits the road, I see no difference.

    I wonder if we word things a certain way to make some people feel better?

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.