Jane,
I realize that you are very angry. I just can’t let that kind of anger come through on my blog. I try really hard not to moderate the comments but a lot of your anger which is not personal against anyone here, could come out that way and I do not want to offend anyone or have bad words used on my blog. This is not against you, but the need to keep my blog used for respectful dialog without excess anger.

Dave,
That was an amazing act of love that you did for your wife and your babies! I loved that story.

To all,
I have been working on our magazine all day today and so had almost no time to look through the comments and answer. I answered a couple of quick things today and left the longer thoughts until I was free. I will see what I can do to answer Tiffany and others before bed.

NN,
You said:

(as a closing aside, may I ask what concept exactly you think is in view in the Song of Songs if it is not the specific romantic love between a husband and wife?)

I made no comment about eros in the Bible. I do concur that this word or the concept of eros is not within the context of Ephesians 5. What I think about the Song of Solomon is irrelevant to our discussion of Ephesians 5.

NN,
You said:

I think perhaps you mistook the meaning of my argument. It was simply in response to the repeated statements to the effect that:

Since the word “eros” is not in the Bible, the concept is not Biblical.

I didn’t hear the argument being made that the concept is not Biblical. The understanding that I clearly got from the arguments that others were making is that you cannot just add the concept of “eros” into a passage without justification. Although it was said that the word is not in the Bible, I didn’t hear anyone claim that the sense of a sexual unity is not in the Scriptures. The challenge for you was to prove that eros is meant in Ephesians 5.

It would be the same thing with the Trinity. When Jesus said that he was thirsty while he was on the cross, we cannot take that statement and say that the Trinity was saying that they were thirsty even though the concept of the Trinity is true and it is found in the Scriptures. What is true is not necessarily true when placed in a text that has nothing to do with that particular truth. I think this is what was argued and so your argument that the Trinity is not found in the Scriptures without even stating that the proof of the Trinity is found in the Scriptures was a most unfortunate argument.

Tiffany,

I have done my best to make you feel welcome here and gone out of my way to express Christian charity and acceptance. If you feel that you are not welcome until your views are accepted, you may have too high an expectation.

I find that some people are just too sensitive to enter into passionate dialog on a secondary issue. They take things personally when the comments are about issues not people. It is okay to make judgment calls about issues when giving clear reason why you judge things as unacceptable to you. It is not okay for people to judge other people’s hearts and this is what I try hard not to do or allow on my blog.

If you think that my blog is not kind or accepting to complementarians, let me give you an example of a complementarian blog that I occassionally post on that allows all kinds of attacks against the few egalitarians that dare to post. This is what one comp fellow posted just today. He had made a comment that egalitarians are divisive church splitters. When an egalitarian made this comment concerning where church splits come from:

It is the inability for Christians of differing viewpoints on non salvic issues to love one another with the love of Christ.

Within a comment or two after that the complementarian posted:

The above reflects the thought processes of a passive-aggressive egalitarian personality seeking the high ground by claiming false victimhood.

This is the kind of interaction from complementarians that is typical on many complementarian forums. But it is not the typical comments on my blog because I don’t allow people to attack one another here. If you think that I am not doing a good enough job of keeping the peace and making complementarians know that they are welcome here and are loved as dear brothers and sisters in Christ, then perhaps you could instruct me on what it is that I need to do to do a better job. And when you visit a complementarian forum that regularly roasts egalitarians, then maybe you will reconsider so that you can understand that passionate argument on one’s beliefs vs another’s beliefs is not a personal attack, but attacks on a person’s motives is such an attack.

Lastly the issue of truth that is debated here will not likely change an opponent’s mind immediately. This is why I believe we need to follow the Scripture’s command to love one another and to defend our faith with respect towards those who oppose. If they cannot see Jesus in us, they are unlikely to consider our argument as an argument coming from the heart of God.

I would like to remind all that patience is a virtue and it is okay if another person does not accept your view. The work of persuading of truth is really the Holy Spirit’s work and we are just instruments that are useful to Him as He does His work.

TL, fixed.

As a side note, I think that some people have a difficult time with passionate discussion and some people don’t like it if their ideas aren’t commented on. I can’t speak for everyone, but I myself don’t have time to respond to each person’s comments and sometimes it is the ones that I disagree with most on that get my response. It is what it is and I don’t think one should read into it more than what is clearly said.

Charis,
I really liked that you asked me first if I was judging a person as a heretic before assuming that I was and walking away. I think that good communication should strive to understand first especially if there are hard feelings. This gives the person an opportunity to correct any misconceptions or apologize for being insensitive, etc. None of us are completely innocent that we never cause offense. But the love that we are to have for each other will overlook offenses or ask about them so that we can keep a good relationship. I am not perfect myself, but I try my very best and I am trusting that where I fail that God will continue to work with me until He births that sinless nature within me. What a wonderful time that will be, eh?

I was also reading yesterday from something that came into my inbox and it was about female mutilation. The world has made eros love unequal and hierarchical by mutilating young girls so that only the male will have pleasure. I find it quite interesting that it is the world that creates a hierarchy and would just as well have women “evolved” into non-pleasured beings. But this is not the way that God created mankind. I also do not believe that Adam and Eve did not have a physical union in the garden. If they didn’t have a union, then God would not have had to increase her ability to conceive after the fall.

I do believe that whatever God does is good. Whatever sinful mankind does to what originates from God is a distortion to God’s plan. It is just the world that we live in and thank God that He has set us free to be what He originally created us to be in Him.

Charis,
You asked:

Are you suggesting that NN and those who believe eros has a bearing on properly understanding Eph 5 are heretics?

No, I am not suggesting that NN is a heretic. I said that I was surprised that he would use an invalid argument that typically those who are in the cults use. I am still surprised. He shouldn’t argue this way.

Tiffany,
You said:

I would put forth that it is possible for a believing wife to submit in to an unbelieving husband because she isn’t to submit to him in matter of truth, but rather in every thing else.

I think you actually mean she doesn’t submit in matters of sin. If he wants he to stop practicing her Christian faith, that would be a matter of sin and she would never do that.

You are quite right that when the Church (the bride) is joined with Christ (the bridegroom) we don’t disappear. But rather we will have been completely, utterly and wholly transformed to His image. It is a 100/0 split because it is Christ who has created the parameters for oneness. Unless we are completely made new in His image we can’t be one with Him.

I completely disagree with this. We are to be conformed to His image so that we can be perfect. When we are then transformed into His image we become 100/100 with Christ. We are then who we were created to be in complete perfection and ready to take our place in ruling and reigning with Him. If we say that it is 100/0 then it is all Him and no transformed image in us. But because it is 100/100 we are truly a new creation fit for Him as a bride without spot and wrinkle.

If you take this view of 100/0 to the husband and wife oneness, the wife in essence would have to be absorbed to become a zero.

But rather our love for Christ, our desire to submit fully to Him, will make it so we (our true and complete selves) couldn’t imagine not desiring everything that He desires.

That is why it needs to be 100/100. A 100/0 doesn’t show an equal desire.

To give a practical example- you discuss how we will judge the angels as the bride of Christ beside our Lord in oneness. We will do this not as a 50/50 spilt where the Church and Christ discuss the options, not as a 51/49 split where we reach agreement when we can but Christ gets the ultimate say, but rather in a true and ultimate oneness of 100/0 because we will desire all that Christ desires and the Church will be incapable of judging the angels any differently than Christ will judge the angels.

Again you give a very poor example that can’t help but show one being absorbed into the borg. No, it has to be 100/100 for us to be in perfect unity.

Now it has been said many times by others on here that the distinction Paul is making in Eph 5 about the marital relationship representing the Church/Christ relationship is about oneness. What I am saying is that yes, it is about oneness. The sort of oneness I spoke of in the preceding paragraph. With that view in mind authority almost becomes a moot point within marriage. It is certainly there, but not in the way that egalitarians are concerned it is going to be.

I don’t understand. How is authority there if there is no difference of opinion?

Let’s take a look at God for example. There is no submission in the Trinity since there is no difference of opinion for one to submit to the other. I am talking about the actual Trinity now, not the incarnation.

Also in the Trinity one member does not have authority over the others since they are completely in unity.

So tell me, how does an authority manifest itself in marriage if there is unity?

I suspect this should clear up my thoughts on submission and marriage and how mutually submitting to each other (al a Eph5:21) is not exclusive of a distinctive submission talked about in the following verses between husbands and wives.

I don’t see how you can even pull out a distinct submission when there is only one word “submit” used in only one verse? If Paul had wanted to express a difference, he would have had to either use another word or reuse the word “submit” and add something to it. But he did not do that. There is a unity here with only one word used to describe each submission. To break apart one word in this passage would require one to approach the passage with a preconceived idea of differences. I am unwilling to do that.

It should also give a clear idea of my ideas on the place of authority in marriage.

No, it actually makes me more confused. I don’t see authority in the marriage relationship defined and 100/0 example honestly is too borg-like for words. I know that you must realize that since you mentioned that you might be misunderstood, but you didn’t give anything to show where a husband’s authority is practically practiced so I still don’t understand. Perhaps you can give an example of a husband taking authority over his wife where you believe it is God-given.

In comment #323 you said:

Much has been made of the idea that the mirror of the marriage of Christ and the church is about representing onessness. I am with you all on this, but I am putting forth that it is this sort of onessness and that is what the marriage relationship should reflect.

I strongly disagree that our oneness with Christ is 100/0 but is rather 100/100 so the thought that our marriage should be 100/0 makes me see the borg image where the woman is assimilated. It is a very unhealthy thought, in my opinion, and the number relationship shows that only the husband is important and she needs to become a clone of him as if he knows that is good for her. Since he is not her lord and her master, I can tell you right now that he does not know what is the best for his wife. Only the Lord Jesus knows what she needs and that is why the woman has only one Lord.

Looking forward to your further explanation.

Do you believe in the “Trinity”? Pray tell, where is that word used in Scripture?… Of course it isn’t, so there must be cases in which we believe concepts to be Biblical even when the word itself is not used in Scripture.

The explicit definition of the Trinity is found in the Scripture. Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. There is only one God.

This is different than attaching an express definition of romantic love which is not in the passage. Two totally different animals and I am quite surprised that you tried this tactic. This reasoning is common in the cults but not common in Christianity so I am very surprised you used it.

Susanna,
You said:

Hey Cheryl, I think we won the debate (doing the victory dance…), for you know you have won when the opposing party gets nasty (rule #1 in debating: the one who gets mad has already lost).

It was interesting that Mark came out swinging even though he has not been a major part of this discussion so very little has been addressed to him. I was surprised in one way but not surprised in another way. I think I understand why he comes across in anger. If one cannot respond to the questions and your position is something that you have a strong emotional attachment to, then when your security blanket is being pulled on, you will react aggressively. Anger is a good cover for other emotions.

Mark just doesn’t have the answers, although he has convinced himself that he does, without actually giving those answer to us. But I am starting to get to know Mark a bit and I think he is a good guy at heart and in the basic Christian doctrines we are in agreement and likely he could be one of our good friends if we knew him face to face. But he gets hot when he is challenged and some of his conversation is less than charitable. My first thought is, boy he must be really insecure in his position to throw out shots like that, but then another part of me has a lot of sympathy for him because I know that he is showing discomfort because of the challenge. I know that it takes a big man to change one’s position and sometimes it takes years, but if we keep acting in love even when we are mocked, we are following what we have been called to do by our Lord. I trust the Lord that he can get through to Mark. I believe that Mark’s heartfelt desire is to stay right where he is theologically. Who will win in that battle will depend on the two of them.

Now to Mark, I agree with Susanna. When you attack the person instead of dealing with the argument, it will be seen as a sign that you lost the debate. If there is anything you need to work on to make you more effective in your argument, it is to work on the charitable nature which I am sure is there within you. Fair enough?

As far as Gen 1-3 is concerned, Grudem & co all agree that it does not mention the man’s headship which is why they have to go to the NT to find it (which is equivalent of saying the Constitution affirms slavery three thousand years from now).

It amazes me that they don’t seem to think this one through. What happened for all the years before the New Testament was written? What happened during the years that the apostles were teaching the church but they were still using the Old Testament? How did they appeal to the Scriptures that God had assigned a “role” of authority to only the husband over his wife? Now we are back to an authority that is never given by God according to the Scriptures.

Tiffany,
You asked:

you also say that is how the church submits to Christ. Could you elaborate some on what you mean by sincerity of heart? I think I understand you but would rather make sure before addressing that specifically.

I have highlighted three Scriptures below that I believe show the way in which we are to submit. It is not insincere to forced or coerced but in sincerity of heart:

Ephesians 6:5 (NASB)
5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;

1 Peter 1:22 (NASB95)
22 Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,

Colossians 3:22 (NASB95)
22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

You said:

Truth is determined by Christ, not husbands.

I couldn’t agree with you more! Yeah! Agreement!

It is a truth that is outside of them, one which they need to find together ideally.

This is the basis of egalitarian-style marriage. Working hard together to be a unity of two operating in agreement.

Although the Bible makes provision if they don’t, telling believing wives to submit to unbelieving husbands.

Believers are told to witness to their unbelieving husbands through their chaste and reverent behavior. Because Christ gives women freedom, it was thought that Christianity would cause women to be against their husbands, but thoughtful caring women who respected their husbands and loved Christ could soften their hearts toward Christianity.

So my observation is that if you have gotten to the point where a trump card is needed that both husband and wife have already screwed up. That neither are operating by the rule of Christian love, that the husband isn’t loving and sacrificing as Christ did and that the wife isn’t seeking to submit (honor, please, etc) as the church.

That is exactly my point. If a comp couple live a life together of honor and respect and love, they will have the exact same model as an egalitarian couple who live a life together of honor and respect and love.

So what’s the difference? The only difference will be when there are differences of wills. If the wife submits each time and gives up her will and the husband is not given the opportunity to give up his will for her, then it is not a truly sacrificial marriage for him.

Now in human relationships the likelihood is that they are going to screw up at some point and then you come up to this idea of a trump card and the husband taking authority, but I think this is a symptom of something already gone wrong. So of course if the husband uses said trump card it is going to hurt both him and his wife.

I agree that the husband using the trump card of taking authority over her will, will hurt both him and his wife. But it is not necessarily something gone wrong, just that God created us with different wants and likes and passions and at times these will clash when we care the most.

And this is a oneness. But it is still oneness on Christ’s terms. He is still Lord.

Yes, it is indeed a oneness. And the “terms” that Christ has set out are shared authority. Although he is the one who will judge and He said that not even the Father will judge, we are invited to judge with Him. His heart of love for His bride shows a consistent loving sharing of everything that He has with her.

It isn’t a 50/50 split oneness, or even a 51/49 split oneness, but a 100/0 split oneness.

I don’t know what you mean by this. We are joined with our Lord, but we don’t disappear. I am confused by what you mean by 100/0 split oneness.

The question I have from what you have written, is how do comps affirm husbandly authority when it is sin that would cause him to take his authority over her will? You said that if he does this then it will hurt them both. That is how we see it too. That is why egalitarians work hard to not have one person take authority over the other. I causes a deep hurt that is not meant to be there in the marriage. And if there is no authority that is taken over another person’s will, then an unused authority is just as good as no authority at all. If I am wrong about this, then how do you see an authority that is not used over the other person as a viable, real authority? And why would God created an authority for man that wasn’t meant to be used? I am quite unsure of your views because your husband sounds way more like a complementarian than you do. I am not trying to cause an offense, just making an observation perhaps from the lack of information?

Mark,
It is quite like you to ask questions instead of answer them. You may not mean it this way, but it comes across as being evasive.

I was going to answer once again when I see pinklight has just responded to you in summary that is wonderful:

A verse where Paul says for *husbands* to submit to their *wives* does not exist.
A verse where Paul says for all to submit to one another does.
A verse in Genesis saying that Adam had authority over Eve does not exist.

Here’s one way to describe the difference:

“One another” encompasses husbands.
“Helper” does not encompass the concept of “Adam’s authority”.
Being created second does not encompass “Adam’s authority”.
“Eve’s deception” does not encompass “Adam’s authority”
There is nothing in Genesis that encompasses “Adam’s authority”.

Great summary!

Mark, you said:

By the way, i never had the intention to answer your or Susannah’s questions. I simply wanted to show that authority did exist in the pre-fall world.

You had no intention on answer our questions? Why am I not surprised?

Final thought just to re-inforce. I want you to prove from scripture where a husband is told to submit to his wife explicitly- this way the issue should be solved. You can ‘disprove’ all the reverse passages as much as you want, but you must therefore show where a husband is told to submit to his wife. If you cannot do this, the point is proven- egals are teaching a false teaching, something not declared in scripture. Then for you to be consistent, show me the second or third witnesses from the Bible. I will wait for all eternity i assume!

All of us (including husbands and wives) are part of the one another’s that are to submit to each other:

Ephesians 5:21 (NASB)
21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.

1 Peter 5:5 (NASB95)
5 You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.

Galatians 5:13 (NASB95)
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

1 Corinthians 16:16 (NASB)
16 that you also be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps in the work and labors.

Now what Scripture can you give to show where God delegates authority to the man to be the authority over his wife?

Tiffany,
You said:

The only issue I have ever brought up in my comments in this thread is “wives submit to your husbands as the church does to Christ”.

Would it not be fair to add that your argument has been that the reason for the submission is because the husband has authority just as Christ as authority over his church? So the question about when did God authorize the man to have authority over his wife is really appropriate.

So no I haven’t attempted to prove anything from Genesis because I am speaking of Christ and the Church and the probative passages are in the NT.

Is it your position then that the authority that the husband has that models the authority of Christ over the church is not an authority that originated in Genesis but sometime after, perhaps in the New Testament era?

The only nod I have given to the discussion of authority is to acknowledge it can be used wrongly and damage people which was an awful thing.

Are you sure that you don’t believe that the husband has authority over his wife? In comment #234 you said:

The prevailing thought seems to be that the Lordship isn’t an authority but a oneness where authority isn’t necessary. Rather that Christ and the church are going to be one in a way where authority is not applicable. I disagree with this. Thus I view the interaction of Christ and the Church differently and think it applies to the marriage relationship in a different manner.

Seems to me that you are saying that in authority of Christ applies to the marriage relationship but in a different manner. Perhaps I have taken some of NN’s comments and assumed you agreed with him. Would you be willing to give your opinion on authority? After all this is what this post is about – authority vs submission.

But I don’t intend to jump into a separate conversation on genesis as I do not have the time for two topics. If this one gets finished out I might reconsider.

Sure, as you wish. I am just glad to have some complementarians here to interact with. You are free to comment on what you want and if you are not making claims, then you are not the one who would need to support something you are not claiming.

As to your insistence of NN to do so, about 100 comments (208)ago he requested a “last call” if you will to him for any questions anyone felt to be of critical importance as he has other more pressing matters to address.

I have not available much today even though I tried. If he is willing to take one question from me, mine is when did God give authority to the husband over the wife? Was in the time of creation, or later or in the NT? When?

You suggest in a comment above that “running out of time” is some sort of excuse given when comps. don’t have answers for you.

Actually I have found that complementarians don’t answer questions by several ways:
1. They demand answers from us before they will answer the simple questions.
2. They say they do not have time to deal with it.
3. They just don’t answer and go on to something else.

If we are to love the truth, then we should be willing to answer questions. I do understand that many people aren’t open to any other view than their own and so they don’t entertain questions. But for those people, I don’t know why they would bother to come on an egalitarian blog? It doesn’t make sense to me at all. There are some basic questions that everything else is built on and knowing when (and how) God gave special authority to Adam that he was to have over Eve is a basic question. Of course if God didn’t give authority at creation but gave it at another time, then perhaps Genesis isn’t applicable.

Given that there have been 300 comments on this topic, over 100 of them just today, can you not realize that is a very legitimate concern whether the person feels they can answer you or not? Surely you have at times had to post pone or abandon web activity for things more pressing?

Sure all the time. However the question I have been asking is a consistent one every time that authority is brought up and we have not yet had an answer from complementarians.

And especially in a debate like this where there are 3 comps (who have all stated from the beginning that they aren’t trying to prove every objection you have to the theology) and by my count at least 10+ egals, that expecting everyone to stick around until you are convinced or they are isn’t reasonable? If someone says- “hey I’m out of time” why not just take them at their word instead of insinuating it is an excuse because they don’t have the answers.

I guess the reason that I feel this way is because of lots of words written about things that are not in the Bible and non-Biblical arguments but no time for the very basic Biblical argument. It is so simple. Or is it? If we cannot identify when God gave an authority to Adam or to any other man, then why should we consider that there is a God-given authority? I don’t doubt that there is a man-centered authority that the world practices, but I think as Christians we need to base our doctrine on the bible and God’s word.

Anyways, looking forward to reading what else you write. I know I have more to correspond to, but it is difficult for me to get everything done and for one person to answer everyone’s posts. I do try my best to do as much as I can.

Mark,
You said:

Let me say a few things. I have given you much to look at in Gen 1-3 before. As i recall, you have yet to deal with the grammatical issues i have raised…do you remember that!

No, where? Please give me a link to where you showed that God gave man the authority over the woman. I have never seen it but if you claim that you gave it, then please either repeat your argument or give a link so we all can read it.

Why will i waste my time saying things over and over when you haven’t even dealt with past issues.

I have never seen anything about God giving man authority over the woman that I haven’t dealt with. I have asked the question over and over again and never got an answer. If you think you answered, don’t you think it would be strange that I didn’t answer? This would be the place to give the answer since there are a good many people watching this blog article so your answer can go out to many more people. Maybe you can just summarize it, because honestly I do not recall seeing any place you showed a quote from God or other about a giving of authority in the original creation to the man to have over his wife. Perhaps you wrote it on another blog. Help me out guys, has anyone seen Mark’s argument where he shows the time when God gave the authority to the man to have over the woman?

Also you might wish to be careful of what you say, as if you are the only one ‘fearing’ God. Remember the tax collector’s prayer?

Pardon? Where did I say that I was the only one fearing God? And why would you accuse me of being a self righteous Pharisee?

Or is it possible that we need a degree in physics to understand that the husband has an authority over his wife? Maybe that is why we don’t get it?

Yet what I have seen from the Scripture is that God is very clear in the areas of sin so that we are warned to keep away from sin. If we reject the husband’s authority over their wives then wouldn’t that make us subject to sin? Yet it is never listed in the Scripture so that all can understand this. And no list of sins describes not taking authority over their wives as a sin. It is extremely odd if God indeed has delegated authority to husbands.

Tiffany,
You said:

To Cheryl re comment #260. Might I recommend you read your own advice back in comment 12 or TL’s in #143? No one (NN, Mark or myself) have said anything of the sort. You have stated that you are frustrated with the conversation so maybe that’s why you are reading into things, but either way, nothing like what you stated has been said.

Here is the problem…many of us have asked over and over again where the authority of the man over the woman is found in Genesis and no answer is given. But there is a control tactic going on saying that there will be no answers forthcoming unless SM can answer something first.

So I am going to ask it another way and I would ask respectfully that either you or NN please answer. When did God institute the authority of the man over his wife? Was it in Paul’s day that this was instituted? If not, when was it instituted? I think that these are perfectly good questions and deserve to be answered. Why should we accept that there is a male authority resulting in a hierarchy of man over woman if such a distribution of authority from God cannot be determined? If we can know when the authority over creation was given, why cannot we know when authority over the woman was given?

pinklight,
I have prayed for you. Thanks for sharing!

Hmmm…I sense that this is what is being presented about the people on this blog:

There is a childlike inability to understand a concept … without someone taking control of the discussion…theology is the same as mathematical processes…no answers will be forthcoming… inevitably you will be at a place where you can figure it out for yourself…the teacher’s task is done…you didn’t get it?…back to square one…you must be the problem…

gengwall,
You said:

Cheryl – breath…….

It is the same old circular reasoning that we always deal with.

The husband has authority over the wife
Why
Because God gave it to him
How do you know
Because the husband has authority over the wife

Boy, oh boy, have you hit the nail on the head! This is what is so frustrating. There is never really any answers to the questions but circular reasoning, alternated with no time for the questions themselves. It comes across to me that their mind is made up and we should not bother them with the facts.

I still think that these discussions can be very valuable for those who have not hardened their hearts against hearing the hard questions. Such ones may or may not respond here but I am certain that many are reading these discussions and thinking deeply about the issues. That makes it all worth it for me. I do not “go there” easily on the issue of marriage, but when I am willing to be upfront, honest and patient with the opposition, I am looking for God to touch hearts as people see that we have come to our position because of the Word of God, not in spite of it.

Tiffany,
You said:

I would like to make one thing clear if nothing else is- I have not, am not now, nor in the future will be responding to any personal testimonies.

As you wish. But I think that personal testimonies that share the grace of God in our lives and uphold God’s unique right to our lives is uplifting. I didn’t post my own testimony without a cost to myself. Going back over the failed system in our lives has brought back old pain. If what I share helps even one person, then it is worth it.

Those who follow my blog know that my focus is on women in ministry and I don’t really like to go into the marriage issue if I can help it. In fact there are times that I only go there kicking and screaming. But when I see God’s hand in a matter, I will be submissive even if it is an issue that my own wish is to put in the background.

SM,
You said to NN:

I obliged you before, but because we seem to both be following this thread which is addressing your article, because this is where the conversation began, because others are engaged in this same topic, for the sake of time following the same conversation in two places, and for various other reasons I believe this venue is suitable and that it would be much easier for us to navigate this one thread on your article.

That is my desire as well. There are a whole lot of people following this comment stream (apparently) and it is far better to not divide between two blogs the same conversation. I, for one, just don’t have time to be posting on both blogs so this is where I will stay and I appreciate if people interact with me here. I work very hard to keep the atmosphere here as cordial and the passion on issues not on people so I think this is a great venue. Thanks SM for agreeing!

Okay, I was going to stay away from the blog for a good portion of today because I am so busy, but I think it might be good to come back on and off if there are comments that I need to answer rather than answer “a day late and a dollar short” 🙂

Mark, you said:

I agree that any abuse of authority is God-stripping. However to reject God’s ordained authority is equally horrific.

No one here is rejecting God’s “ordained” authority. We have asked over and over again to have this “ordained” authority shown to us from the creation of mankind and honestly it is getting so frustrating because the requests are being ignored as if Genesis is not important.

As with your other comments, i fail to see how ‘confident’ you state your position to be.

When we stop reading into the text, God’s Words are quite clear. If I am wrong, then all it takes is for someone who knows what truth I am missing to show me. Running around the bush and squawking about the opponents position just won’t do it. Boy I hope that doesn’t sound rude, but it is how I feel. It is f-r-u-s-t-r-a-t-i-n-g!

I’m not overly concerned with re-kindling old arguments on Gen 1-3, i just simply wanted to point out the fallicy of Susannah’s argument.

Of course you don’t want to rekindle the “old” arguments because you have been unable to show the transferring of God’s authority over the woman to the man. Honestly, I wouldn’t want to go there either if I was the one with no evidence, but I would do it just for the sake of truth. I embrace truth that is real truth even if it contradicts my position. It is part of my “fear” of God that desires God’s truth no matter how much of my world it might shake up. But you haven’t presented anything to even consider as truth. It’s too bad because I was sure willing to listen to what you had to say.

Can you agree therefore, that authority existed in the sinless creation of the garden and that authority is not in and of itself sinful?

Authority only existed with the image-of-God having given that authority. Any change to that created authority without God’s permission is in itself evil and a distortion of the original good creation. And of course God’s authority is a very good thing. But as with everything else satan loves to take what is good and distort it. We must make sure that we are not on satan’s side.

So unless and until you can prove that God gave Adam authority over Eve in the original creation, you cannot claim that authentic and godly authority includes the authority of the man over the woman.

Now it is time for you to answer a question. If authority is not given by God but taken upon oneself, is this a description of a usurping of God’s authority? Yes or no?

Mark,
You said to Susanna:

If God ordained that authorty exist in a sinless world we ought to teach and know that- that’s my point.

The rule that existed in the sinless world was the rule of man over God’s creation. As Dave mentioned, authority comes from God alone and I will add that taking authority when God hasn’t given it is usurping authority from God. The reason why there was authority and rule in the beginning is that God made us in His image. One of the ways that we were made in His image, is that we were made to rule God’s creation. The animals then were made to be ruled.

Once that is set as the foundation, then one can look further to see if such authority existed between husband/wife and if it did, we can be confident that authority is not in and of itself sinful.

The question then must be asked and answered whether the rule of Adam over Eve was given to him by God or whether he took it for himself. We start with Eve to see if she too was created in God’s image to rule and we find that the answer is “yes” in Genesis 1.

The next thing we ask is whether God gave image of God rule to Adam. He did not. We never see an inkling that Adam was meant to rule Eve or that Eve was created to be ruled by the animals or by Adam.

The only thing that we can identify about Adam’s rule over Eve is from Genesis 3:16 after the fall. Thus we know for sure that in the beginning in God’s good creation He did not create His image in Eve to be ruled by His image in Adam. The ruling over God’s image did not start until after sin entered the world and God did not “give” this rule to Adam. God predicted that Adam would this rule over God’s image but God never said one word to Adam that this authority belonged to Adam. Therefore we can be confident that the rule of one image of God over another image of God is usurping God’s authority.

This is at the heart of many egalitarian arguments, and unfortunately they by pass this point assuming authority=evil (which of course is a by-product of our post modern philosophy)

I think that it would be overstating the case to say that egalitarians believe authority to be evil. What egalitarians consistently believe is that the rule of the man over the woman in marriage is an authority not given by God. If it is an authority taken by a sinful man and not sanctioned by God then it is evil. I think you would agree with this that any self-assumed authority not sanctioned by God is evil as it takes away from God what He has not given.

I think that this is the issue that needs to be dealt with.

Continuing on with #175 Tiffany,
You said:

Usually by well meaning men who want to be good husbands so they try and find out “How can *I* be a good husband? What must *I* do?” But the thing is it isn’t about *I* doing anything. There isn’t some magical formula. We can’t pull ourselves up by our bootstraps to be better husbands/wives/Christians/friends/parents/children/etc.

Well if the man isn’t supposed to wonder what *he* can do to be a good husband and just lets the chips fall where they may then what kind of husband will *he* be if he isn’t trying? I get the feeling that you may be working around about to blame my husband for trying to hard. I won’t let anyone do that. He is a good man and if he did not have the wrong system that set him up for failure, our best friendship would have grown and developed to the place where we are now. No one is going to blame my husband. I know him better than those who might want to blame him. The fact is that there is no textbook that tells a husband how to operate within his “authority over” his wife. The only example is Jesus giving examples of not taking authority over his disciples and washing their feet and dying for them. If Jesus had meant for us to understand the the husband had this “higher” authority, then it is cruel to assume it while not giving any guidelines for the expression of overriding the wife’s will without taking away her personhood. If you think about this long and hard when you have a serious disagreement and your husband pulls out his trump card and rides over your will, I think that you might understand what we have been through. His good intentions is not enough. There has to be a rule book for godly rulership and there has to be a divine authority instituting this “higher” authority in marriage and my friend, it is just not there.

We can surrender to Christ as our Lord, be filled with the Spirit of the Triune God and live our lives enabled by His power, His grace, His truth. But it isn’t something we do.

It all comes back to Christ as Lord and what that means practically? How does that play out?

But all of that isn’t an earthy master and lord. We are not filled with our husband’s spirit and our lives enabled by his power. If we were we would be a spokesperson for him. We do not operate with the grace and truth of our husband. These are idolatrous things.

What we are is equals together in one body and we serve and love each other as one body without lordship.

This has already gotten quite long, and I must go to bed. Sorry I haven’t addressed the questions directed towards me. I might be able to tomorrow.

Again, I really appreciate you sticking around for this discussion. Having a complementarian woman here to help us understand how you think is important. It takes us back a bit to a time of pain, but that’s okay because we are free of that pain and we are free to work on oneness in a new and Spirit-filled way. Perhaps you can learn from us too.

One other thing that I should mention is that in love we can tell you that you can live out your marriage any way that you want. If hierarchy works for you and this is what you both decide on – you go for it. You are free to live this way.

Are we free to live the way of love without hierarchy? I think that the Bible is clear that love without hierarchy is not a sin. I think the only time that these issues are really vitally important is if love without hierarchy was a sin (it’s not) and if the love with hierarchy becomes a strain on the marriage. We are here for you and will never judge you. You can be loved just the way you are. If we are a help that’s great. If we are not, then that’s okay, we can patiently wait for those who do need a hand of love to untangle a mess that hierarchy brought to them.

Lots of love,
Cheryl

175 Tiffany,

I really praise God that you are still here and not taking offense. This is the place where the body ministers to one another and the passionate arguments are a ministry that may plant seeds in all of our hearts. I know that I have already been touched by thoughts that I had not articulated myself.

You said:

The Bible says “wives submit to your husbands as unto the Lord.” How is it that we are to submit to God?

Submitting to the Lord is clear – we are to submit “in the sincerity of heart”. In the same way we are to submit to our husbands in sincerity of heart. But the Bible doesn’t say that we are to submit as to Deity because that would be idolatry. In fact many women are guilty of idolatry by putting their husbands before the Lord.

How is the church to respond to Christ?

“with sincerity of heart”.

No, the verses do not tell the husband to take authority. But that isn’t what I (and others) have been saying.

It seems to me that NN has been telling us that the husband is to take authority over his wife if there is a dispute. But the question I would have for you, if a husband doesn’t take authority, then what good is his having authority? Most staunch complementarians will agree that the authority that belongs to the husband is a trump card that is to be pulled out whenever the wife’s will is different than the husband’s will. It (the authority) decides whose will, will be followed. If it (the authority) isn’t brought out then the marriage is following the egalitarian model for unused authority is no different in reality than no ultimate authority.

I believe I am to submit to my husband *as unto the Lord*, which is a distinction made to the husband/wife relationship that isn’t made for the others.

That actually isn’t true since Ephesians 6:5 also tells slaves, men and women to obey as to Christ.

Ephesians 6:5 (NASB)
5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;

This follows the injunction to submit one to another “in the fear of the Lord” and I would think that fearing God would be a good reason for masters to submit to their slaves since in the natural they would not have a willingness to do so except for the fear of the Lord.

I don’t fully understand how marriage is an image of Christ and His bride, but it is, and it is my desire to convey truth of that relationship through my own and to see others do the same.

The image is one of oneness. The Lord treats His body as He does Himself so that He puts all things under His authority by putting them under His feet. That is putting all authority under our feet. He shares His authority with us so that we will be judging the angels in the next life. All judgment has been given to Jesus but He shares that authority for judgment with His bride. Sharing of all things brings a complete unity and a oneness in love.

Are there times when husbands do a horrible job conveying the truth of a Christ in their marriages? Absolutely. I rather think it is caused by the sin of pride and self reliance.

That may be of some but it sure wasn’t of my husband. He tried his very best to do what God required of him. It wasn’t pride in his case but his love for me and his desire to be what he thought the head was required to be. He believed that God required him to make the decisions for me when we disagreed. It really was his own self-less desires to be a real good husband that brought us into trouble. It wasn’t his own pride that was a problem – it was the system that was flawed.

NN,
Your answer to Sue did not answer the question of whether the husband as “higher” authority can overrule his wife’s will. And it also did not answer my question about how the wife’s authority as ruler of the world somehow became a “lesser authority”. To claim such a demotion one surely should have a direct Scripture to show it.

I have another question that is based on Susanna’s and my own experience in our marriages. If our husbands now chose to allow us to experience freedom to make decisions without being overruled and they do not take authority over us like they used to, are they now in sin? Are they sinning against us or are they sinning against God? And why would the “sin” of not taking authority over one’s wife create a oneness that take authority over one’s wife could not if God instituted the model of “authority over”? Are you seriously telling us that God’s law is that we go back to the way we were or do you think that perhaps you argument is placed so that your own model of taking authority over your wife’s will is affirmed?

And if you don’t take authority over her will, why don’t you? If you don’t you are living like we are. How could you say that we are not living out the correct marriage model if you aren’t taking authority over your wife?

I love the way the Lord Jesus showed us the correct way by never taking authority over his disciples will but wooing them and convincing them of the right way so that they are alongside him instead of a will taken over.

Also before NN leaves, I would really like to find out when the woman’s “authority” got down graded to a “lesser authority”? Was this the original creation, or did God create an unspoken command that dropped her authority over creation down a notch or two?

So sorry that the Greek characters don’t show up on the blog. It appears like an unsolvable problem for now. Sorry.

Susanna,
Yes, we too have sure come out of a bad place but God is good that he showed us the way of love.