34 Truthseeker,

What I think is that there is a prime opportunity here for a DVD spoof, albeit with as much respectful humor as is feasible, that reveals the utter impossibility of ever implementing comp teaching.

Oh man, I am really tempted to do a DVD with a section of out-takes and put some of this stuff in it. It might be more eye-opening than the main event 😉

Truthseeker,

You guys are all funny! Humor is a blessing in a land dark with curses!

That is what I like about this blog. I have so many people show up who have a great sense of humor. In my work with the cults I found that if I couldn’t laugh, I would not have been able to keep up with the work. It would have been too depressing.

17 Greg,

Lin, woman vapors smell far better than man vapors any old day.

Oh boy, I got a smelly picture from that one. Thanks Greg!

13 truthseeker,

One day, in complete ungodly exasperation, I blurted out that ‘THAT isn’t even logical!” to some cockamamie ‘biblical’ explanation I had just heard. To that I was told-get this-”Well God ISN’T logical. His ways are beyond our ways. The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man.”

Well if God isn’t logical, then we are all in a great deal of trouble because we would have no hope of understanding anything. It reminds me of the apologist who tried to get out problem of the “she” and “they” of 1 Timothy 2:15 and he said that it was a grammar error and God could inspired grammar errors if he wants to! If God didn’t communicate with us in a logical format, we may as well stop studying grammar and the meanings of Greek and Hebrew words because it would do no good trying to study to show ourselves approved unto God when God follows no grammar rules at all. And WE would be greater than God since WE are logical.

PamBG,

It is impossible to go through life without being influenced by the lives of other people and by their attitudes. And this is certainly ‘teaching’ in its most profound form. Therefore all men have been ‘taught’ by women in some form or other.

Good point!

The only way for a man to stay ‘pure’ from the teachings of women would be to be whisked off to an all-male environment at birth and live there for the rest of his life in a highly censored environment.

This reminds me of the sect of the Jews in bible times who didn’t want to look at any women for fear that they would fall into lust. They kept their eyes closed and did a lot of bumping into things. I can’t remember the name that they were called but I think it had something to do with bleeding something-or-others because they were always bleeding from walking into one thing or another. I don’t think today’s hierarchists have really thought this through. Jesus didn’t isolate himself from women and the fact that he picked women as the first ones to give out the good news of the resurrection was exceptional.

gengwall #11,

There is a little more subtle but equally disturbing trend in less aggressive churches. That is to call anyone who disagrees with the pastor or the leadership “divisive”. As you might easily guess, that label has been used against me and I have been marginalized within my own church. What is inexplicable is that my wife gets labelled on a par with me. If you knew her, you would be shocked because she is anything but divisive. But she has taken the unfortunate step of agreeing with me, and so she is pushed out as well.

The issue of authoratarian leaders is a big one in this day and age. I have seen godly men and women removed from their churches merely for disagreeing with a secondary doctrine. Today some pastors and other leaders think that the bride of Christ belongs to them.

I don’t know about the study as it has not been on my radar. I do know about me and lots of others who are like me. The only time I have not felt respected by my husband is when he puts me down in public, which to his credit he rarely does. Every other time when we have had problems it isn’t with respect. It is because he has done something that has made me feel like I am not loved.

However to save the peace let’s agree that love and respect are fairly close to one another. Most women lean towards the love end (but not all) and most men lean towards the respect end (but not all). But they are closely related so that they do go together.

34 Paula,

Cheryl, all I’m doing is trying to reconcile two statements you made:
1- a man can be harmed in his ego more easily than a woman
2- But we can be mindful of our respect and not purposely try to harm another human being

2 goes both ways but 1 only goes one way. I can’t reconcile those two statements. And I’m taking them on their face, not going beyond them.

I do believe that a man’s ego is usually more fragile than a woman’s just as I also believe that a man’s ego is usually much larger than a woman’s. I have seen exceptions as I have seen women with large egos. These women with large egos also tend to have fragile egos too come to think of it. But for the most part, it is the men who have out-in-front egos. At the same time it was never my intention to say that it would be okay to walk all over a woman’s ego just because she may not be hurt as easily. Some women do take offense very easily and I could be wrong, but these women seem to be the exceptions to the general rule. Perhaps raising kids makes us more even keel 😉

Now as far as going beyond my statements, what I said should not mean that I say that it is okay at all to take advantage of a woman and not care about her ego. What I do try to do with men who have fragile egos or women or are more easily offended is to try to allow them a way to “save face”. Again, I may not be perfect, but I am not interested in publicly shaming anyone and if I realize that this may be what is happening, I try to back off.

I hope this helps!

Lin,

I do not want to be contentious and I hope you know I am just trying to make a point. The above does not describe me at all and I am a woman.

Yes, I am glad that you brought this up. It certainly does not apply to everyone just like Peter’s words do not apply to every woman. Peter said that the woman is the “weaker vessel” literally the “powerless container”, it doesn’t mean that every woman is physically weaker than every man. Some woman are bigger and have bigger muscles than some men, but generally speaking women are physically weaker. My words were of a general nature.

I do know about exceptions. I am one of those exceptions. When I first started studying how to witness to the cults and I was able to do the work of witnessing and explain the scriptures so that others could also understand, I was seen as an oddity. I was even told that some men were afraid of me. I guess they were not open enough to understand that the gifts are gender-neutral and that no one should be afraid of one of God’s gifts.

I get very nervous when we take scripture that has been translated by men and put genders in these categories of what they should ‘feel’.

I hope that I haven’t done that. I haven’t meant to. I was expressing my understanding and my experience in general terms not meant to put someone in a box nor to assign certain feelings to one gender or another. My own husband is one of those men who is very in touch with his emotions. Some are very taken aback by the emotions that he shows on his face. But I like him like the way he is. His emotions do not scare me and I would much rather have a man that is extra emotional (he is more so than I am) than a man who has little to no emotions and who is unable to emotionally bond.

I would prefer respect over understanding. Just as I would prefer cleaning the toilet over flowers.

I am about even-even. And I prefer flowers over toilets but I also prefer a deep-level theological discussion over a discussion about flowers any day. I never go to the doctor or dentist without a theological book in hand because I bore easily just reading women’s magazines.

The comps tried to tell me for years I was in rebellion because I did not fit those categories. There was always something wrong with me.

Well, they are just plain wrong. There is no one-shoe-fits-all category. You and I and Paula and a few others are in a category that doesn’t have a whole lot of women in it, but we are real women nevertheless.

I think culture plays a big part in understanding this passage. These are women who had NO respect at all from men and would need understanding.

I agree that these women had no respect in that culture. But I don’t think this is the kind of understanding that Peter is getting at. The terms that Peter uses is to “live together with” the wife “with perception, comprehension”

In the Theological dictionary of the New Testament this word for “understanding” denotes in ordinary Greek the intelligent comprehension of an object or matter, whether this comes for the first time, or comes afresh, into the consideration of the one who grasps it (“to come to know,” “to experience,” “to perceive [again]”)

I take this to mean that the man is to live intimately with his wife in such a way that he comes to experience who she is as a person and he is to consider that she is weaker physically so that he doesn’t put on her an expectation that is beyond her physically. In some countries the man supervises while his wife plows the field. I don’t think this would be considered a respectful thing by Peter.

It is very good to express these kinds of thoughts so that we can hash out our differences and perhaps come to a better understanding of what the scriptures are saying and how we can apply them in our day and with women who do not fit the general mold.

Paula,

How many women’s spirits have been utterly destroyed, little by little, because we are presumed to have stronger egos? Why is this permissible against only women?

I never said anything about permitting harm against women.

I know you agree that women have taken this abuse, but that’s why it so puzzles me that you would say that a man’s ego is more delicate, and that women must therefore be more careful of hurting men than they are of hurting women.

I never said anything about being more careful about hurting a man than hurting a woman. In fact I think that as Christians we should be careful not to hurt anyone. I try my best to be gracious to all and although I am not perfect, I do try my best.

It appears that you are taking my words and going past what I have said. Perhaps it is time for me to step back and let others respond for awhile. I will check in later today.

truthseeker,
Thanks for the welcome back! Sometimes I get so busy that I just don’t have time for a lot of back and forth. I will need to go shortly but will try to pop back once in awhile today to see how things are going.

Similarly, nearly all the directives in the NT about how we are to live and to treat one another are not directed to specific genders. Nowhere does the bible say anything like ‘women need…’ or ‘men need ….’ The closest possibility is the comment about women being the weaker vessel, yet there is still no mention of them always ‘needing’ a particular thing because of this.

Actually I think that Peter does mention what women need. They need “understanding”. My husband and I have been talking a lot about this and we have found something that works for us. When I need him to be understanding I say first that I need him to just listen and I don’t need him to fix anything. This gives him the ability to relax and not feel like he is to be in the position of a “fixer”. He then can hear me and our conversations are without an unseen blockage that used to be there. He used to see some of our conversations as an “attack”. I could never see how he thought that way, but when I understood that as a man he always felt obligated to “fix” me or whatever we were talking about, he was always on edge and felt inadequate. Now when I assure him that he isn’t being asked to “fix” anything, he is able to give me his understanding by just listening. Does this make sense?

I, too, agree that respect is something women like/need as much as men.

I agree. Respect is something that we all need. My emphasis on a man’s tender ego was not meant to say that he needs more respect than a woman does.

Paula,

What delicate egos do **not** need is to be protected and pampered. They need to be faced and strengthened.

I think we may be talking about two different things. I didn’t say that a man’s ego was to be pampered. What I did say was that a man can be harmed in his ego more easily than a woman. We also cannot “fix” another person. But we can be mindful of our respect and not purposely try to harm another human being. I think that was all I was saying. Hopefully I am being understood. Men? Any men out there who would like to jump into the issue of the ego? Come on in. The waters fine. I’ll moderate the comments so that there won’t be any sharks in the water 😉 (not that I have any on my blog anyway!)

22 Paula,

To say Peter is giving Christian wives a more stringent level of respect for their husbands than the other way around is to agree that men need more respect than women.

I didn’t say that. Not sure where you are reading past my words, but perhaps is good to clarify. Peter isn’t giving Christian wives a “more stringent” level of respect for their husbands. He is noting that the Christian attitude towards others does not exclude husbands. Women who have been treated as shoe horns for their husbands because of the “I rule, you drool” patriarchical attitude of many of the men may naturally balk at submitting in any way to their husbands because of the way that they have been treated.

I would think that when it comes to unbelievers observing the whole Christian community, the greater and stronger witness would be for the men to respect the women.

I am not so sure. For women looking at this respect, yes it would be a great witness. But perhaps men seeing the respect for the women might be seen as a sign of weakness. It may not be considered a “greater witness”. However I have no doubt that in that culture women acting in a godly and supportive way towards their unbelieving husbands would be a strong witness to them.

21 Lin,

What gives you the idea they have a special need for respect any more than a wife does? I have never understood this line of thinking. It is dangerously close to the thinking that women are more easily deceived. It does not seem to have a basis in scripture and actually makes men appear to be weaker because it is taught they ‘need’ this.

What I mean is that a man has a “tender” ego that can be easily shattered. Women on the other hand tend to be able to bounce back more easily from disrespect. It is not that men have more of a need to be respected. I think that all people have a need to be respected. But men typically have a really big ego that has a thin shell covering it. A man’s ego can be large but it can be deflated easily. Often a critical word spoken that would be easily taken by a woman without much harm will critically wound a man. Speak critically to a man during love making and it will become clear that he has a tender ego. Does this make a man “weaker” than a woman? I would like to be gracious in saying that it really makes a man “different” than a woman. Now I realize that not all men fit the “norm” just as not all women fit the “norm” either. God made all of us unique. But on the whole men’s egos (although they can be excessively large) do not handle criticism as well. Perhaps some man reading this may confirm whether I am understanding this issue in the right way.

As a matter of fact, I have found that men who publicly respect their wives are more respected by others. they are viewed as strong and are not diminished by doing so.

I agree absolutely! Whether a wife or a husband, the one who lifts their spouse up instead of criticizing them in public will receive a lot of respect themselves in return.

18 Paula,

First let me clarify that I have no issues with “submit”; I know what it does and doesn’t mean, so that did not factor into my view of this passage at all

Thanks for clarifying!

A Christian wife of a non-Christian husband had a tough job, because she often could not say a word to him about religious matters. Her actions were her only witness, and such actions went beyond the norm for the society, which considered women to lack the depth of character Peter encourages here.

Very well said!

As for Sarah, I think the OT shows both from Abraham’s actions and Sarah’s demands on him concerning Hagar that she did not hesitate to openly scold him at times.

While you may be right, I see Sarah’s demand not as scolding but as a command that God affirmed was a righteous command when he told Abraham to obey her.

So Peter is not giving all Christian wives a more restricted range of behavior than husbands, but advising believing wives on how to achieve the difficult task of witnessing to unbelieving husbands.

I would not say at all that Peter is giving Christian wives a more restricted range of behavior. I think that he is reminding all wives that the Christian attitude of submission is due even to their husbands (in the teaching of Christian freedom which is the other side of the coin and which Peter also touches on with the issue of self-determination, many women would naturally want to reject supporting their husbands and treating them with respect since most if not all likely followed the “I rule you drool” “manly” way of taking male privilege) and due even to unbelieving husbands. The purpose of aiding unbelieving husbands to come to faith in Christ is there in the passage but it also follows the term “in like manner” which clearly shows that this is a Christian attitude and way of life, not just a woman’s attitude and way of life.

And again, my interpretation is not driven by fear of the word “lord”; I am well familiar with its usage.

This part I didn’t pick up from your comments. It seemed to me that you were looking at the term “lord” as almost a mocking term since it was said to be used in derision. I think that threw me off.

6 gengwall,

I also agree with truthseeker that “unbelieving” may have a broader idea in mind, and that is of any husband whose behavior is “unscrupulous, unfair or dishonest”, whether he is a Christian or not.

I can heartily agree with this! There are many men who are saved but in essence they are not “obedient to the word”. For example men are called to initiate a sacrificial attitude (even all of us are to serve one another), but if the husband refuses to love his wife as Christ loves the church, she can refrain from responding to his lack of sacrificial love with a negative reaction. She can chose to model a proper Christian attitude and lead by example. This godly example may spur her husband onto a godly response and while he may fail to lead in a sacrificial love, he may get there through seeing her model a Christlike spirit.

You said:

So, when did Sarah “listen” to Abraham and treat him as a superior at a time he was behaving badly?

First of all Sarah called Abraham “lord” in her own mind as she thought about her inability to have a child. Secondly I do not believe that Christian submission means treating a person as a “superior”. After all we are all brothers in Christ and we are to treat each other as brothers. Treating one another as “superiors” seems to me to be against our unity in the brotherhood. Perhaps a better word would be “respect”. We can treat each other with “respect” without treating another as being a “superior”. The idea of superiority was got many in trouble as they divided over the lines between “clergy” and “laity”. This separates the sheep when we are to be brothers.

At no other time was Sarah MORE respectful and honoring when she had every right to be otherwise. It was in those circumstances where Sarah’s example is doubly meaningful where “unbelieving” husbands are concerned.

I agree. However I wonder if Sarah should have stood up to her husband in these times when he wanted to have her pass as his sister and it nearly got her married off to another man. It seems to me that Abraham at those times was walking in the fear of man more than the fear of God. But then who am I to judge? I am not living in the treacherous times as they did.

Sarah’s example alludes to the Proverbs 31 woman, who’s “value” or “praiseworthiness” is not wrapped up in outward looks and charm, but in her fear of God.

Amen!

The instructions to husbands have an eerie parallel to Malachi 2:13-17. Although many focus on “I hate divorce”, and rightly so, the other message in that section is that if you treat your wife poorly, if you do not honor her and “live with her in an understanding way”, your prayers will not be heard.

A double amen!!

I am not fond of the translation of “honor” in 1 Peter 3:7 because that English word is very closely related to “respect”… I would prefer “reverential” in vs. 2 and “cherish” or “value” or something along those lines in vs. 7.

The word used as “honor” in 1 Peter 3:7 is basically, the worth ascribed to a person or the value ascribed to a thing – Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. In the active form it means honor, reverence, respect. It certainly could mean to cherish because of the value of a person. The respect in verse 2 means:
Fear, terror, reverence, respect, honor. Reverential would also be a good term for word in verse 2.

Verse 7, while being the only verse addressed to husbands, is still full of meaning. Most importantly, it completes obliterates any thought that male “rule” is somehow godly design.

Excellent thoughts!

3 Paula,

You said:

Peter is giving the reason for the wordless witness. Why would a saved husband need a witness at all? In other words, if we think this through, this wouldn’t make much sense:

If all Christian wives are submissive to their husbands, the lost husbands will take note and be converted.

I believe that it does make sense if we say that all Christian wives are to have an attitude of submission (just as Jesus had an attitude of submission) and if some husbands are unsaved, this attitude of their wives will cause them to take note and it may bring them to the Lord. That makes perfect sense to me.

I think it’s the combination of the “if” with “any”. Yes it could possibly mean that the unbelieving husbands will not the behavior of all believing wives, yet I don’t think Peter is addressing groups here, but only couples. The word I’m keying on for this is “own”. Peter says to Christian wives, “Be subject to your own husbands…”, which I think gives it a more restricted scope. Just my opinion.

In this verse Peter is definitely only addressing the wives and he does say “your own husbands” which makes this attitude of submission a particular attitude towards only one man, but the general message of service that is attached with the term “likewise, or in like manner”, refers to all Christians.

2 Truthseeker,

In 1 Peter 3:1, ’so that if any of them….’ I understand this to mean that some of the women are married to unbelievers, though not all. The ‘if any’ seems to suggest to me that some might not be unsaved husbands.

You are correct. Peter defines his own terms and once again context is key. Obedience to the word or obedience to the gospel is used as a synonym for the unbeliever. See 1 Peter 4:17.

1 Peter 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

I also agree that Peter is telling all women to have an attitude of support (submission) to their husbands. It isn’t just the women who have unbelieving husbands who are to receive her submission but the ones who are not believers are especially able to see her godly behavior in contrast to the behavior of the women of the world.

Paula #1,
I disagree that the only reason for the wife’s submission is to win over an unsaved husband. 1 Peter 3:1 starts with literally “in like manner” linking it to what has previously been said. I think that the real problem here is not with submission but with what submission means. I had not really intended to go into the issue of marriage, but it seems like this is the direction I am being pulled and so I will submit. I will definitely have to do a post about what submission is and what it isn’t. We have too many wrong ideas about submission that taint the whole point of Christian submission. The whole reality is that submission is to be a Christian lifestyle which is really what Peter brings up. Submission isn’t “attached” to women. It is “attached” to Christ and Christianity. However because there are so many wrong teachings on what submission is, many people bristle when the word is even mentioned because the picture they have is of a doormat on one side and a domineering male on the other. There is nothing further from the truth. The Christian concept of submission has been maligned, misrepresented and buried under a mountain of half-truths. I believe that once we truly understand the biblical concept of submission, it will help us to lay aside our prejudices. More on that later.

Back to 1 Peter 3:1. While the submission is given with the purpose or goal of winning the husband, the complete context of 1 Peter shows that all of us are to be in service to others.

You are certainly right in that the word translated “chaste” is better translated as “pure”. About this word the Theological dictionary of the New Testament says:

It originally signifies “that which awakens religious awe.”

And the Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament says:

of persons, as characterized by moral purity pure, free from sin (1T 5.22); as being without intent to do wrong in a matter innocent, blameless

I love the “without intent to do wrong in a matter” because the whole point of submission is to do what is beneficial for another person. (More on that later).

You said:

As for verse 5, I’m not convinced that it’s in the past tense. The tense is aorist, which only denotes a point in time not necessarily in the past. The other verbs are in the present tense. I understand it as “For this is how holy women rely on God, outfitting themselves with support for their own husbands…”

I agree. The verbs are in the present tense so the “holy women” are those who are presently hoping in God. I also like your use of the term “support” for this is a key to what submission entails.

I disagree with this:

Regarding Sarah calling Abraham ‘lord’, she only ever used it in derision, in Gen. 18:12, where she thought to herself, “After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I now have this pleasure?”

While Sarah was laughing to herself, I do not believe that the term “lord” was used in derision. I believe that it was used in the way she was in a habit of referring to Abraham. In other words she had great respect for Abraham as a man of God and as her husband and partner.

So what is Peter saying? That Christian women are like Sarah when they do what is right and do not give in to fear. Sarah clearly had no fear of Abraham, social norms notwithstanding.

This is true although I think you have missed the fact that Peter shows that Sarah spoke of Abraham with respect. I do not believe that Peter is insisting that wives call their husbands “lord” but I do believe that Peter is referring to this as Sarah’s way of honoring her husband.

I also believe that husbands flourish under their wive’s respect and even more so when she gives him public respect. We all need respect, but men seem to have a special need perhaps because they have a tender ego.

Recently I saw a wife give her husband public disrespect and I saw the clear look of pain on his face. She was just trying to be funny, but she put him down in front of about 40 people. Her husband made a reply and I can’t remember exactly what he said but it was something about having the ability to ignore what she said. How much better it would have been had she publicly held her husband up to honor. Everyone else was honoring her husband and so she felt that she could dishonor him and lift herself up. But honestly, I saw it as dishonoring both of them – him for what she said and her for the mere fact that she displayed a disrespectful attitude in public. Had she honored her husband in public, he would have felt a greater love for her for what she did for him. That is my opinion, but I do think that scripture backs me up on that as well.

So overall, I see the emphasis not on subservience but on inner strength, on depth of character.

This is where I think so many go wrong in equating submission with subservience. Subservience is by definition to mean excessively submissive and acting in a subordinate capacity. I do not believe this is the biblical meaning of submission.

Dave,
Welcome to my blog! Yes context is the most important thing that many miss when they quote scripture. It is my intention to always emphasize the context so that we can all understand what was written.

Hey guys,
I am taking the day off so I won’t be able to answer anything here until probably tomorrow. It is my 37th wedding anniversary today and I am going to enjoy my husband and give him my full attention (with great love and respect as I receive his love and honor). I never thought of it before, but perhaps my post on the relationship in marriage was a good one in time for my own celebration. Have fun commenting. I will be posing some interesting questions when I get on line next time in this very thread.

🙂 Cheryl

I am still working on my next blog post. However I just thought I would pop in for a minute to let you all know that Mike Seaver emailed me that he is willing to dialog on the issues that were offensive in his article. Thanks to Rachel of http://hrht-revisingreform.blogspot.com/ who supported my request to Mike requesting a dialog. I am not sure if he will be willing to do a public dialog, but I will be encouraging that as I think it would be very healing for women who have been very hurt by the strong complementarian words on women in ministry. I may set up a post where Mike and I can dialog and if he agrees I will be requesting that people keep very respectful to him and we should be to every brother in Christ. More later.

Looks like you guys are having way too much fun 😉

I am working on a DVD project so I will be “in and out” of my blog periodically as I try to balance different areas of my ministry with only one brain. I have on my “to do” list another blog article on 1 Peter 3 and God-willing I will be working on that later today. Once that is completed I will pop back into this comment stream.

Okay kids, go back to your fun 🙂

gengwall,

You take the position (correct me if I’m wrong) that the root cause for any reluctance to submit on the part of wives is primarily (and maybe even exclusively) cultural.

Perhaps I should start a post on Ephesians 5 sooner than later. We’ll see. However my position isn’t a cultural one. It is a position of reaction to mistreatment. This mistreatment has become cultural in many areas but it isn’t limited to culture. The treatment of women is part of the fall. It is a natural outgrowth of human nature that when one is freed from a bad position, that when one looks back at the bad times, one can feel disdain for that place and to never want to go back there again. So a modern day woman even that has been mistreated as if she was a second-class human, when she understands her place in Christ, she may not want to voluntarily place herself as a willing servant for the good of her husband because she had in the past been treated as if she was nothing more than a servant. I don’t know if you can understand that or not. I can because I have been there. And I have heard from many women who have been so hurt by their husbands that they fight against submission. They see it as a weakness instead of power under control. I have been shunned by some because I believe that submission is to be a characteristic of *all* believers. Submission isn’t being a door mat or allowing someone to control you or take away your person hood. It is a loving act to help another person by treating them as valuable and special in the Lord. So even though I would never go back to being a person with no options except the life of being controlled, I can embrace submission as a Christian because I now control what I give and I have choices.

However I do understand the feelings of women who have not yet come full circle. They can serve everyone but their husbands because they have been taken advantage of and treated as if their views are not important and as if they were created to be the maid, the doormat and the yes-girl. It is difficult for them to see their husbands as Christ sees them and they have not yet come to understand how empowering submission and love and acceptance can be. My life is very full when I can serve others. And I cannot withhold my service and care from my husband as I give it to others as well. When I see the writings of Paul in Ephesians 5, I look through the lens of what a woman might feel who has been hurt and taken advantage of and who has seen the green grass on the other side because of freedom in Christ. Without the instruction to willingly submit, she might naturally disdain her husband as if he had been her tormentor. When a wife has full healing in her life, she can forgive him for everything that he did that was wrong and she can treat him as a true brother in Christ. And as a true brother in Christ, she will give of her best to him in service.

I don’t know if this makes any sense to you or not, but it comes from my experience. More later in whatever I post on Ephesians 5.

Greg,
I have been shocked to see the aggressive stand taken in the last few years of comps toward egalitarians. I cannot account for the vitriol except that it appears that they are just living out their stand. This stand separates believers and identifies those who do not agree with them as “enemies”.

Sue,
I have posted on Mike’s blog post and it is under moderation right now. I have offered for him to come here and dialog. His public statements certainly speak for themselves, but I would welcome him as a brother in Christ should he stop by my blog. Thanks for the suggestion.

Hi Mark, welcome to my blog!

I have done a whole section on a simulated interview with the Apostle Paul. The section on 1 Timothy 2:12 starts here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/20/round-3-interview-with-paul-on-a-woman/ This is the third interview. There are links to follow the interviews from one to the next so this should help you with an understanding of the reasoning of Paul.

I hope this helps!

103 gengwall,

Do we agree that Paul’s directions to husbands in Ephesians 5:25-30 are expressly designed to address a fleshly flaw in males brought on by the fall? And the more controversial parallel question: would you agree that Paul has similar motivation and is taking a similar approach in vs. 22-24 in his direction to wives?

I do agree with you about Paul’s direction to husbands that deals with their fleshly flaws. But with the women I have another view. Women had been under their husband’s authority in that culture. This is the way it had always been, but Christianity changed that and gave them their own responsibility to mature and grow and use their own spiritual gifts. As they experienced Christianity, I believe that there is a strong possibility that their freedom in Christ might cause some of the women to despise their husbands. Surely they could submit to serve everyone in the congregation, but their own husbands? Why should she had to minister to him when she was freed from that? I think that Paul is emphasizing that our freedom in Christ should be a cause for us to honor and serve the body of Christ including even those whom we no longer are compelled to serve. So for slaves, they are to serve their brothers in Christ who are also their masters even if they get their freedom. The injunction to submit one to another isn’t for everyone except for former slaves. And it isn’t for everyone except for husbands. Our love for Christ should make us even more willing to serve with love. But I can understand how women who have become equal in Christ could despise doing things that made them think about their old lives which had no choice for service. Their service was compelled and now it is to be given freely out of love for Christ. I don’t know if that makes sense to you or not.

Therefore, they distrust me and dismiss Paul. I have literally had women tell me that I don’t really believe what I am saying; that Paul was a misogynist plain and simple and anyone who tries to paint him otherwise is either a fool or a liar. And it all stems from this fundamental, pervasive, invasive misunderstanding of “head” and “submit”.

This is very sad. It not only paints men who want to help as being a liar, but it paints the Apostle Paul as a misogynist. I believe that Paul has been misunderstood for so long that he has been wrongly accused of holding back women when his real attitude towards women in ministry was outstanding. I really feel compelled to defend Paul, because I have come to love him and his writings because of my intense study of the hard passages of Paul on women.

I agree with you that Ephesians 5 is key but I also think that there is something else at least in modern times that is key. It is the relationship in the Trinity where hierarchical scholars are saying that in the Trinity the Father has an authority over the Son. They make Jesus out to be eternally in a position of submission and eternally subordinate to the Father. I think that once this error is straightened out it goes a long way to straightening out the false views of women. This is why I spent so long on my portion of our DVD “The Trinity Eternity Past to Eternity Future” on the subordination of the Son. Definitely Ephesians 5 & 1 Cor. 11 “head” in the Trinity are key passages that must be taught properly so that people may become free.

Lin, thanks for the info.

I too thought that Mr. Seavers looks around 20ish. He doesn’t look old enough to speak so confidently about women teachers. Perhaps he has just been breathing out CBMW “air” to use his own term.

I just added a “cootie” graphic. Notice the uncomfortable look on the little boy’s face. Sigh!

Paula,
That is what I thought of first and why my graphic seems to have “cooties”. But the term “uncover enemy” seems to place Seaver’s comments into a more sinister light. I wonder how he can worship the Lord Jesus while at the same time attack part of the Lord’s body as if these women are a disease? I am hoping that men and women who read these very unkind words towards women will finally have their eyes opened to the “fruit” of this movement. These men have become very nasty in their attacks on Christian women.