103 gengwall,

I can tell you from experience, a statement such as that from a man (i.e. me) would have elicited great howls of fowl from many of the women I have dialoged with in the past. One chief complaint would have been “I don’t need any man to pave the way for me.” Another would be, “that is just another ’system’ where God puts men in charge.” I must confess, there are times where I feel men can’t catch a break. It seems we are always presumed to have alterior superiority motives.

Women who think that the worldly system that we live in (and that has drifted into the church) does not need a man to pave the way for a woman may not be living in reality. A woman who paves her own way may get the work done, but she is looked on as a Jezebel, a “manly” woman and as a intruder. While I “can” pave my own way, it will be a rough road for me. I am happy for and grateful to have a man open the doors for me and give his endorsement to allow others to listen to me without fear. Women who cannot embrace their brothers who are trying their best to lay their lives down to give us a voice may not have thought through this issue well enough. We have been hurt and we are bloody from the battle. I will praise God for every man who is willing to get bloody by walking by my side and opening the door for me in the face of ridicule and sneers. I encourage women to embrace these men as dear brothers in Christ and not to see themselves as self-sufficient. We simply need each other.

gengwall, your comment about the “fowl” “foul” made me laugh! I enjoy your humor and your visual pictures. I am off to get some other work done with the sound of honking geese in my mind! When I take another break I will get back to you on your questions 🙂

gengwall,

My “guarding” stuff was kind of shooting from the hip. Suffice it to say that I do not think of Adam as the guardian of Eve so much as the guardian of an environment. I think we are in synch on that note. Having said that, part of guarding an environment does bleed over into protecting the people in that environment.

Yes, I do believe that “guarding” an environment would cause one to “protect” a person. The issue of course would be the reason why one needs protection and the other one issued a responsibility to protect. I believe very strongly that the issue is not one of gender, but of knowledge and responsibility. The one who has been given much, much is required. The principle still holds for us today. If we have knowledge that is needed by another because the other person is in danger of being misled and deceived, then we are required to use that knowledge to protect.

My specific focus was Ephesians 5 and the reasons Paul had in having to rather blatantly point it out to men.

Men do seem to have to be told things directly and more than once! 🙂

The context of Ephesians 5 is that we are to be “imitators of God” (verse 1) willing to learn “what is pleasing to the Lord” (verse 10) and practicing putting ourselves under each other to lift the other person up with our service by being subject one to another (verse 21). Men are then to initiate and model the servanthood code of conduct. While the first man abandoned his sacrifice for his wife, true men of God should follow God’s example and willingly initiate a sacrificial service for their bride. If we can understand this from the passage then verses 23 could be interpreted this way:

Eph 5:23 For the husband is to lead in willing sacrificial service for his wife, as Christ also led in giving himself as a willing sacrificial service for the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
Eph 5:24 But as the church willingly accepts what Christ freely offers her, so also wives ought to accept and lift up their husband’s sacrifice for them and respect him for his service of love.

While a wife is also called to be like Christ-like and to sacrifice herself, the one who is called to take first place as a servant is the man.

We can also note that all of the original apostles who were martyred for their faith were men. While the first man blew it in the garden, allowing his wife to be taken captive by the enemy, God set up a system whereby men now are called to sacrifice (not silence!) in order to pave the way for their women to get past all of the sin-filled traditions that stop a woman from fulfilling her calling as an imitator of God. We see this sacrifice and we praise God for it because it is His will. True godly men of God will initiate our healing, our elevation in society and our ability to serve God and the body of Christ. True godly men will be initiators and examples as they open the doors for us in the church. It is absolutely no problem for me to submit to men in the church as they are opening the spiritual doors for me to minister. I LOVE my brothers in Christ who understand this and who work hard to pass on a godly spiritual heritage that the first man failed in.

I don’t have a problem with the practical application that you outline – indeed I would say part of headship is sacrificing for and serving your spouse so that she can be free to “be all she can be”. (Again, both genders do that, but men seem to need a 2×4 to the head to get it) I simply would never summarize it with the term “source”. It is probably my symantical stumbling block.

Maybe you just don’t quite see what I see. Source can mean fountainhead, initiator, forerunner and provenance. The one who starts the process and by his love and care sees through the process to completion, that to me is a depiction of a godly man.

I concur with all the rest of your sayings. You seem to “get it” about the responsibility of a man. It isn’t about holding back another, but about initiating the giving of oneself.

68 gengwall,

I blogged on equality in marriage as outlined in the Genesis 2 model and one of the specific hierarchical arguments I rebutt is “first=authority”. You may find it helpful. If Cheryl will excuse the shameless plug…

No problem at all with the plug. I am thrilled to be a helper 🙂

65 gengall,

Oh yes, and regarding this:

“I do think source makes the most sense in the passage speaking of Christ being the head of every man, man being the head of woman, and God being the head of Christ, however. ”

I tentatively agree, but I would argue that the (primary) social sphere being addressed in that passage is the church, not marriage.

I am not quite understanding where you are getting the church in this context. Paul speaks about the woman as coming from the man and that every man thereafter comes through the woman. This is a context of source as in “origin”. Perhaps you might want to explain how you see the church in this context.

At any rate, when I look at Ephesians 5, as a man, the focus for me is not so much the title of “head” as it is the actions of agapao love. In other words, “Headship” is exemplified by selfless love. From that perspective, “head”=”source” just doesn’t make much sense to me.

I haven’t done much on Ephesians 5 here on this blog, but I will likely do more on this area in the future.

I see a man as a “source” of the woman in that he should be the provider for her. He can be the starting point where the doors are opened for her to minister. If a man fights for a woman to allow her to minister in the church and if all husbands fought to open the door for their wives, there would be no closed doors for at least the married women. Can a husband be the source or provider for a woman to be elevated to an equality with him even while society holds to a lower view of women? This is how I see the man as a provider for his wife. Would this help at all to make “source” in line with “provider” for you?

64 gengwall,

You said:

And finally, remember that headship has nothing to do with the activities of daily living within marriage. Nowhere does the bible say “the head of the house unilaterally does x”.

We have to remember that “head” is in reference to “body” not “house”. So that the husband is the “head” of the body” not the “head” of a building or a family.

The bottom line is that Christ never exercises authority over His bride. He never “rules” over her*. His only attitude and action toward her is selfless love. If that is what it means to be the “head” it is something to be embaced and celebrated, not feared.

*It should be noted that Christ does “rule”, but the social spheres in which He exercises authority and dominion are never the marital one. Whenever the church is being referenced as “bride”, Christ never “rules”. How could he! He is the second Adam. He has conquored the corrupt spousal “rule” brought on by and propogated the first Adam.

AMEN!!

63 truthseeker,

You said:

gengwall, I can understand your caution in putting forth a statement about head not meaning source. I had to laugh when you pleaded with folk to not freak out. I had my spear ready so raising your white flag from miles away was a good thing!

This made me smile!

62 gengwall,

You said:

I also think that men are designed to be guardians and that is why Adam was given that responsibility. I think the activities above are guardian activities.

Was Adam given the responsibility of being a “guardian” because he was a male or because he was the first created and had more experience that made him eligible for the responsibility of “guardian”? Also was Adam’s responsibility to guard the garden or Eve?

I think godly men should try to succeed where Adam failed, just as our example, Jesus, has succeeded as the second Adam in all areas that the first Adam failed. We can’t be perfect like Jesus, but we absolutely should try to emulate Him…

The closest model I can think of for “head” in the biblical sense is the captain of a team. The team captain has no authority over the other team members. That is reserved for the Coach (Jesus/God). His position is only one of responsibility and service to the team. He does not have unilateral decision making authority, nor does he uniquely and individually do any team job. In fact, in reality, the captain is often not even the most skilled player on the team. But he does have a “guardian” responsibility and is expected to interceed, sacrifice, and serve on behalf of the others.

I can agree that a man is expected to sacrifice for his wife and he has a responsibility to her that should flow from his love for her, but I am not so sure that the term “guardian” would be appropriate. Does a woman need a “guardian”? Is she deficient in some area that she has a need that the man was created to fill? If she has a need to have a guardian, then she would not be able to fill the responsibility of a “guardian” (overseer) herself.

I see the text as God giving one person a responsibility because of the overwhelming revelation that had been given to him. I do not see that all men are made to be “guardians” or that women are not created to be a “guardian”. If I am wrong in seeing this as a responsibility given to one man alone because of his unique experience with God, then is there something that I have missed that makes all men “guardians”? Perhaps my own circumstance has blinded me, but I just don’t see it. God has given me gifts in the “guardian” area. I have been used by my previous church in a place of protection because I could see things that others did not. I have been consulted by pastors and my wisdom has been used as the determining factor for the protection of the church. I have never seen myself as going beyond the gifting and calling of God. I do believe that the wisdom and knowledge that is given to a person is to be used for the benefit of the body. I do not believe that it would have been right for me to remove myself from using my gifts just because I am a woman.

As far as your “model” goes, I can agree with it in principle without seeing men as a God-provided “guardian” for women. I do believe that women are more naturally gifted in nurture so they typically function with a sacrificial care. Men need to be prodded at times to offer themselves as a sacrifice for their wives because their nature because of the fall tends to be more selfish and “me first”. I believe it is a God-thing to indicate to men that they should be “first” in sacrificial love.

92 truthseeker,

Lately, I have chosen to say little in my defense. First, because I find that often the other party is not interested other than looking for toeholds for their own beliefs on the matter. Second, because sometimes silence is better, coupled with refusal to participate in a corrupt or misguided system.

My friend, I think this is wise. Sometimes we just need to be steadfast where we stand without defending ourselves. Silence is the better way in many instances and I commend you for your ability to be silent and not argumentative.

60 gengwall,

Now, for full disclosure, I don’t necessarily buy the “head”=”source” argument either. That is best left for another time. Suffice it to say that “head” definately does not mean “authority”, “ruler”, or any other hierearchical position and Paul’s writings coupled with Jesus’ example confirm this truth…

Again, my point is not that “headship” can be ignored, it is just that complimentarians are looking in all the wrong places to find examples of it. They never look to Jesus, and that is why they stumble.

The term “head” is going to be defined by the context. In 1 Cor. 11, for example, the context of “head” is that one person comes from another. The woman is made from the man, and the man is made by God who was the ultimate physical source of life. I agree that “head” cannot mean “ruler of” since that meaning is not in the context and we have been told that one person is not to rule over another in the body of Christ.

58 gengwall,

The greatest argument against complimentarianism is that it is woefully impractical. If it is God’s design, then God set us up to fail.

Amen! Well said.

57 gengwall,

I truly believe God leaves it up to the partners in each individual marriage to define “what works for them” as far as decisions and activities of daily living. The bible, in it’s teaching, continually reaffirms this. The world, in it’s fallen state, as reflected in biblical history, continually defies the biblical teaching….just as God said it would in Genesis 3.

Learning how to work out our individual marriages is a great way to mature in the faith. The world’s way is to set strict boundaries that define who we are. Women have especially been bound throughout history and it is an amazing thing that men have convinced women that they were made to have limitations on their service for God.

56 Alison,

Thanks much, Cheryl. The whole debate is much like a dog chasing is own tail sometimes; funny to watch, but not funny to actually be the dog chasing its tail. I say that because I’ve felt like the dog: I’ve felt like I’ve hit on answers through the Spirit, only to be told by a comp that what I’ve hit on is wrong.

I understand what you are saying. There are going to be many people who want to squash the Holy Spirit’s work because when it comes to the work that He does through women, frankly it scares them. They have followed tradition so long that they think the breath of fresh air that the Holy Spirit brings is the spirit of the age. And their fear keeps them from even hearing the other side. So these people must stop you too so that their position stays strong. Human tradition is a very difficult thing to fight against.

78 Stickler,

Welcome to my blog! You said:

I would BET that if the majority of women really knew the difference between comp theory (opinions, supposed implications, presuppositions, assumtions etc) and biblical facts and proofs, that they would fall off the comp wagon like flies because they would KNOW that they are free from comp restraints since God’s teachings are not dependent on man’s theories but rather his written word.

I think you are right except for one thing. Some women cannot afford to think outside of the box that they are in because their mates and their friends and the church they belong to will persecute them and call them a heretic. It is a real threat and many cannot follow their own conscience into the context of the scriptures because they are too afraid of the consequences.

80 Paula,

That’s the goal, to get the “other side” a voice. It’s very much like the evolution issue (sorry Cheryl, but it’s a perfect analogy): one side uses every dirty trick in the book to keep the other silenced, because it fears examination. It knows that if people truly had a choice, and could freely examine both sides, they might “leave the club”.

I do believe that it is very important to hear both sides. Even for those of us who are convinced on the egalitarian side. The problem I have with having the other side presented here (and in particular the evolution side) is when someone wants to present the other side but won’t answer questions on their view. They won’t answer how they came to their point of view, or what their point of view is exactly and they won’t give the parameters that define their view so that there is a principle regarding how one sees the difference between a scripture that is literal and one that is “figurative”, “poetic”, a “hymn” etc. So I tend to tolerate a respectful opposition position as long as the person will dialog. Otherwise I feel like my own blog is being used to promote a view that conflicts with the scripture. I guess I have been around the cults for too long that it wears on my patience to see someone dodging questions and refusing to give a reason for their belief.

And a lot of us have tried reasoning with them, their leaders and followers, but to no avail. The solution is to just keep shouting out the truth and try to reach as many as possible.

I have been learning that some will not dialog because they cannot allow themselves the ability to even hear the opposition. When the walls come down, then we need to move on because we are wasting our time. There are many times that I have tried every angle I can think of to get people to think outside of their prejudice. It doesn’t always work and we need to balance being a faithful witness of the grace of God towards women and knowing when to respectfully walk away and work with others who are more open.

83 Lin,

Everyone wants to fit in. And the fact that most people actually like a works type of role thinking it is spiritual. They can check off a list of being a good wife and mother and they think this role is part of their sanctification.

This is the danger, for sure. Women in particular accept that it is a “role” that is part of their sanctification and so many leave aside the in-depth study of God’s word for themselves.

Lin, it is very helpful for your to bring your point of view here because you have been there and can give an accounting that many of us have not been privy to. I really appreciate that!

Michael,
I agree! The amount of “additions” to the text that these men bring is quite mind-boggling.

Michael,

It is correct that Eve does not pass on the sin nature. The sin nature comes from rebellion and deliberate sin and Eve did not have that. The consequences of her actions were what God told both of them – that they would die. But God further added to the consequences by pronouncing a curse on the earth because of Adam’s deliberate, willful, rebellious and treacherous act. No curse was placed on anything because of Eve having been deceived and so her seed will inherit no rebellion that is in all of us who are descendants of Adam.

My internet was down yesterday at our motel. Arghhh…! We are just packing up to come home so I will have to leave my comments for when we are back home.

Hi all,

I am on the road on a ministry trip. I will try to get time later today or tomorrow to respond to some of the comments here. Thanks!

Cheryl

Dane,
Thanks for popping in! I appreciate that you agree that Christians can strongly disagree with another Christian’s interpretation of the Scriptures. I also am sure that your Dad’s interpretation of scripture may not necessarily follow through in his marriage. In fact many complementarians live in egalitarian marriages. This has been documented even through complementarian sources.

It would also be helpful for you to know that some take a bad interpretation seriously and the comments may reflect some of that. I try very hard not to moderate the comments here as that would come across as overly controlling. However I still appreciate your comments and thank you for your admiration of your Dad. I am sure that he has the same respect for you too.

Blessings,
Cheryl

Interesting how children see things so differently than we do!

Lin, pinklight, truthseeker, excellent comments!

43 Alison,

In my conversations with my spiritual mentor, who is trying to teach me a more “gentle” complementarian philosophy so that I lose my independent spirit before becoming a wife, I’ve wondered, without asking, Where’s the PROOF for complementarian ideas, other than the twisted interpretations of a few texts?

The only time we are told to lose ourselves is when we die to self so that Christ can be formed in us. Losing ourselves so that our personhood can be taken over by another person is a very dangerous thing. I would have thought that we had learned that lesson already, but it seems like we keep going around the same bush. The thinking then becomes that losing ourselves to a man must be good for us since he is supposed to be our head/ruler/decision maker. It seems to me that men who are able to think and reason and actually feel for their wives should be able to get that this is not a good thing. And many must be able to get it because a good majority of marriages, even comp ones, are actually lived out as egalitarian. Both husband and wife actually benefit from the wife having her own personality and freedom to chose.

gengwall,

I have so much enjoyed reading your comments. The wisdom that you speak really has touched my heart and giving us a testimony of what you have experienced and see through your own eyes is very precious. I hope that God keeps you hanging around here for a long time. You are such a blessing to me!!!

Frank,
I appreciate your kind words. I have not been able to access the CBE publication. It looks like my password is not working right now on the site so I have requested a verification of the password. When I get an answer back I will have a look at the new article. Thanks a lot for pointing me in that direction!

Oh, sorry… it stands for

Patriarchy / Male Supremacism

“Only this, and nothing more.”

Awww….Shucks I had a different idea of what it meant. I got the Patriarchy/patriarchal right. I just had a different thought for who/what the MS stood for. Glad you straightened that one up for us.

You know, I like the humor you guys have. Seems to me that in this area we either have to keep our humor to keep things a little light because of all the attacks on egalitarians or we can become discouraged. I sure enjoy a good smile 🙂

Paula,

What a revelation your little “conversation” revealed.

From me,
One who is “biblically” be-hind (working on being a servant of all)

gengwall,

(BTW – he also doesn’t explain why Paul’s carefully constructed chiastic coldly abandons the men from vs. 8. In reality, if the chiastic analysis was true, there would be a verse 16 dealing with all Christian men.)

You put your pointy finger on an excellent challenge!

gengwall,
I LOVE that “na-ah!” I can just see that four year old in my mind. It is SO cute coming from a four year old. Not so cute coming from a grown up. 😉

I should make one correction. It was actually Michael McMillan who said that the gospel should be preached to me. But Neopatriarch was in agreement that I am in grave error and apparently in need of the gospel. Incidentally nothing was said about what it was about the gospel that I did not believe. It was the “additions” to the gospel that I do not believe and Neo’s Patriarchy is something I do not believe.