Corrie

Hi Ken,

Are you saying that men cannot learn something from women, especially spiritual things or else that would be against what Scripture says concerning a woman cannot teach a man?

If you have learned ANYTHING from a woman, you have been taught by her.

Some man on the Bayly blog just stated that men do not find the voices of women to be authoritative so men do not listen to what women have to say.

What a horrible attitude for men to hold towards women. No wonder there are so many problems in marriages and our churches if men discount what a woman says in such a ridiculously ignorant manner.

He would also say that men can’t be taught by women but we all know that men learn from women ALL the time on many issues.

“With John Piper’s “interpretation” this week that the tornado here in the Twin Cities that hit a church holding an ELCA meeting was “a gentle but firm warning [from God] to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin”, he has lost all credibility with me. I simply can’t take anything he says seriously, no matter how serious the topic. It is truly a tragedy that people go to this fount of babbling silliness for presumedly wise cousnel.”

No kidding!!!

I guess he never heard about the parable of the tower of Siloam in Luke 13:4? He has committed the same error that Jesus expressly rebuked.

I cannot believe he actually said (not doubting that it was said) that a tornado hit the ELCA meeting because God was warning them? That is ludicrous.

It must be nice to be so confident that one is not as sinful as others and not in need of “warnings”.

We all have tragedies befall us, even John Piper….not too long ago. God forbid anyone would say that it was because of some personal sin in his life or anyone else in his family.

He sounds like Job’s friends who presumed to speak ignorantly for God, too!

Cheryl,

I was also disturbed by his advice concerning how a woman should respond to her husband if he asked her to participate in group sex.

It is creepy. Can he imagine what it would be like for his wife to ask him such a thing and he respond in such a robotic, non-plussed manner?

And, what if it is not as bad as group sex? How about anal sex? How about rough sex? Or anything else the woman finds personally degrading, embarrassing and humiliating? Does she have a right to say “no” to private requests that would degrade and humiliate her?

Don’t these comps know that a man is to submit to his wife as much as she is to submit to him when it comes to the bedroom? Why does talk that surrounds sex always concern the woman submitting to the man? It is like the big pink elephant in the corner is supposed to be ignored.

“I have real life friends who have tried this exact approach and all that the church does is berate the woman and try to find out what SHE has done wrong to cause her husband’s abusive “reactions”.”

Don’t forget that Bruce Ware teaches the same thing about a wife being abused. He explained that a man has one of two ways to react to a rebellious wife- passiveness or physical abuse.

The transcript is disturbing on many levels.

First, I wouldn’t trust in any comp church leadership to take care of an abusive husband. I trusted in them to take care of someone who molested one of my children and to protect the other children in the church and when I finally had to go to the police, I was accused of “gossiping”….to the police??? They wanted to cover up this heinous offense and protect the victimizer and, in the process, they revictimized the victim.

I have seen woman after woman after woman go to the church leadership for help in an abusive situation and it ALWAYS boils down to grilling about what she did to make her husband treat her in an abusive manner. And that if she were just more sweet, accommodating and submissive, he would not have a reason to abuse her.

I also echo the advice concerning Piper following his own advice. How long would he sit and tolerate a night of smacking or verbal abuse? Would he tolerate that from a church member? Someone who walked up and punched him and beat him about the head and then when he was down on the floor kicked him in the stomach and then choked him? Would he submit to that treatment? Or would he try and defend himself? After all, he is commanded by Scripture to submit to other believers. Would he tolerate a “season” of verbal excoriation in perfectly sweet submission? Men are not exempt from being submissive, gentle, kind and all the other things they tie up on the backs of women.

Lin,

That is interesting.  It looks like Billie Graham was secure in who he was in God and he wasn’t into fleshly ambition that his daughter’s obvious giftings were a threat to his own ministry.

The way I look at it, it all boils down to control, power, fleshly ambition, and the need to be the greatest in the Kingdom without actually doing what it takes (being servant to all) to be the greatest.

Cheryl,

Thank you for pointing out the sleight of hand in the CBMW article.

Yes, Lotz is NOT an elder or pastor so there is no problem with her speaking to a group of men because she is not in an authoritative role.

Surely they do not believe that everyone who speaks to a group of people is in an authoritative role?  If they do, then we are in trouble.

It is my personal opinion, that after hearing Anne Graham Lotz speak on heaven, that the men in that room were intimidated by her obvious gifting from the Lord and that she shines brightly as someone who knows God’s word and how to present it.  She is an amazing orator and is certainly by far one of the best I have ever heard.  It is sometimes hard to admit, because of pride, that someone is better at something than we are, especially when that someone is a woman.  🙂

Turning their chairs around is an act of an immature toddler.   These are not men of God.  These are toddlers who need a a time-out. The real men of God in that room were the ones who didn’t act like silly children and who were secure in their manhood enough that they could enjoy her presentation and be blessed by her words of wisdom.

What conference was this at?  When did this incident take place?

Cheryl,

I just ordered the DVD and I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say about this issue. The clip on youtube was very good and what I would like to know is how Ware handles the fact that Jesus specifically tells His disciples to ask Him anything and it will be done for them.

I am currently concerned about an article I read on the CBMW site that teaches we will have eternal headship of husbands over their earthly wives in heaven and that women will be eternally and perfectly subordinate to men.  The Bible clearly teaches that there is no marriage in heaven and Jesus illustrates this perfectly when he talks about the woman who had 7 husbands and how NONE of them will be her husband in heaven.

It seems that those who want to lessen the deity of Christ by making Him eternally subordinate and less than the Father are also those who want to use this new doctrine to teach that there is eternal headship/subordination and eternal marriage in heaven. It seems more like Mormon teaching than it does that of orthodox Christianity.

http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-11-No-1/Relationships-and-Roles-in-the-New-Creation

“Finally, consider that in the new creation, those who were husbands in the former dispensation will, at last, be unencumbered by the flesh. They will be able, as never before, to genuinely love “as Christ also loved the church”. They will, as never before, have the capacity to relate to those they love “in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life”. Consider, moreover, that in the new creation those who were wives in the former dispensation, will have the mind of Christ, “who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and . . . humbled himself” . They will see in the example of Christ, as never before, the beauty and glory that inheres in gracious, selfless submission. With both man and woman thus perfected and transformed, are we to suppose that the new creation will abandon the order established in God’s original creation? I think not. Rather, such relations will bring to each true joy, and to God, more glory than before.”

So, in Heaven, men will be perfect in their authority over women and women will be eternally subordinate and HUMBLED and eternal bond-slaves to those men.

And I thought that we all- both male and female- were to possess the mind of Christ that is outlined in Philipians 2?

Cheryl, I think you are correct when you say they are redefining the Trinity in order to keep women in their places.  To me, the Trinity is their Trojan Horse and this article is proof that their thoughts on Christ’s subordination go much, much deeper than the earthly marital relationship.

It seems more to me like Mormon theology than anything resembling orthodox Christian teaching.

Cheryl,I just ordered the DVD and I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say about this issue.  The clip on youtube was very good and what I would like to know is how Ware handles the fact that Jesus specifically tells His disciples to ask Him anything and it will be done for them.  I am currently concerned about an article I read on the CBMW site that teaches we will have eternal headship of husbands over their earthly wives in heaven and that women will be eternally and perfectly subordinate to men.  The Bible clearly teaches that there is no marriage in heaven and Jesus illustrates this perfectly when He talks about the woman who had 7 husbands and how NONE of them will be her husband in heaven.  It seems that those who want to lessen the deity of Christ by making Him eternally subordinate and less than the Father are also those who want to use this new doctrine to teach that there is eternal headship/subordination and eternal marriage in heaven.  It seems more like Mormon teaching than it does that of orthodox Christianity.http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-11-No-1/Relationships-and-Roles-in-the-New-CreationAs you can tell by the title of this article, it is about relationships and ROLES in the new creation.  The article causes me to believe that people who oversee CBMW and their site are not that concerned about sound doctrine or this would have NEVER made it onto their site and in their Journal!This author asserts that “functional distinctions will remain” as far as “what we shall do” in the new creation.  “We might express this view in the form of a syllogism as follows:

(1) Functional equivalence is necessary to equalityand,(2) Equality is necessary to the new creationtherefore,(3) Functional equivalence is necessary to the new creation.

If premises (1) and (2) are true, then it must follow that there will be functional equivalence in the new creation. Gender-based differentiation of roles and responsibilities will have no place in the new creation.There is a problem, however, with the syllogism. The first premise is false because functional equivalence cannot be necessary to genuine equality. “It seems that they are using their new doctrine on the Trinity to sneak in this new doctrine about male headship and female subordination to earthly spouses in heaven.  The Trinity has become their Trojan Horse.They do not believe that the end of marriage equals the end of headship which is about as bizarre as anything I have heard.  If one is no longer married, one no longer is a head or has a head.  Do they not understand that only a husband is called a head to his wife while they are married?  He ceases to be her head when he dies or she dies or they are no longer married.  “But to deny the very concept of male headship in the new creation on the false assumption that it is incompatible with creation ideals is, at best, reckless theology. Of even greater concern, however, is the hermeneutic that must be employed in the interpretation of the biblical texts in order to justify such conclusions.”Male headship in heaven even though there is no marriage?  What theological gymnastics must one perform in order to make this statement?”Although Scripture does not speak directly to the question of the effect gender will have on the lives of resurrected believers in the new creation, it does offer sufficient evidence to affirm that gender will continue to be a significant aspect of our lives in the eschaton.”These sorts of baseless claims are scattered throughout his paper.  He states as fact something he never bothers to prove with Scripture.  That, imho, is dangerous.And, why did Jesus de-emphasize family relations in His kingdom if these family relationships are what makes us “the people we are”?  Where is this concept in the Bible?  He also tries to tell his readers that because God made man to not be alone, that means, in Heaven, the same concept of helpmeet will be waiting for him in Heaven.He continues to insist there is a possiblity we will be married in Heaven even though Jesus dispelled that notion.And here we get to the point- the eternally subordinated Jesus is replicated in the eternally subordinated and HUMBLED wife:”Finally, consider that in the new creation, those who were husbands in the former dispensation will, at last, be unencumbered by the flesh. They will be able, as never before, to genuinely love “as Christ also loved the church” (Eph 5:25). They will, as never before, have the capacity to relate to those they love “in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life” (1 Pet 3:7). Consider, moreover, that in the new creation those who were wives in the former dispensation, will have the mind of Christ, “who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and . . . humbled himself” (Phil 2:6-8). They will see in the example of Christ, as never before, the beauty and glory that inheres in gracious, selfless submission. With both man and woman thus perfected and transformed, are we to suppose that the new creation will abandon the order established in God’s original creation? I think not. Rather, such relations will bring to each true joy, and to God, more glory than before.”And I thought that ALL believers were commanded to possess this same mindset of Christ?  Silly me, it is only women who are to be possessing the mindset commanded in Phil 2.

This is just shocking to read.

“Pay off”???? What?

Also, why would Jesus have to go after something he already possessed?

“Burk thus renders the sense of the verse as, “Although Jesus existed in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God as something he should go after also” (139). The payoff, then, of Burk’s careful grammatical investigation is that Philippians 2:6 affirms the ontological equality of Father and Son while maintaining the functional subordination of the Son, even in his pre-existent state (cf. 139–40 n. 46).”

If you already have something you do not have to go after it! That is just a silly statement to make and I am appalled that noted theologians have not taken him to task for such a statement.

He IS equal with God, therefore Burk’s statement about Jesus viewing the reality that He IS God and therefore EQUAL to God since He IS God “something he should go after also” makes no sense.

Why would the Creator of the Universe have to “go after” something when all things are His? This is a frightful example of bad theology.

Jesus being God, came to the earth and set aside what was already His [equality with God] until His work on this earth was accomplished. Because equality with God was already His, He laid it aside. Laying something aside [temporarily] is hugely different than not going after something.

“After all as I discussed with Mr. Ware – that if women are subordinated to men this doesn’t mean that Jesus is eternally subordinated to the Father. In other words, Jesus can be completely equal with the Father in every way and this doesn’t mean that women cannot also be subordinated to men. Each issue should be dealt with separately and it is such a shame that subordinationists cannot seem to leave the two as separate.”

Exactly, Cheryl! I do not see how the two are connected and I totally see that Jesus being completely equal with the Father in no way affects the comp argument that a WIFE is subject to her husband. All I see is fear coming from the complementarian camp when it comes to making their arguments. When we have to stoop to make God subordinate because He is self-described as “ezer” instead of admitting that the word “ezer” does not imply subordination, we have surely lost.

Lynn,

After reading that excerpt from Kamilla and Donna, I wonder why that would not fall under their very own definition of gossip and making assumptions? I could ask “Why do they hate Carolyn Custis James so much?” because they say the most unkind and uncharitable things about her without cause. I know the two women they are referring to in the discussion you quoted, Lynn, and it is not hard to figure out who they are. They are hypothesizing about the motives of these two women and why they are egalitarians. That is ridiculous. I could do the same thing about patriarchalist females who were abused in the past. It is a known fact that women who have been abused gravitate towards abusers and abusive systems. Maybe that is why the two outspoken when on the CCC-forum are patriarchalists?

You see, it is just as ridiculous when I turn their very own words back on them.

We should stick with the facts. I know the two women they are talking about and they are intelligent and learned women. They also don’t seem like the emotional type that would be their feelings over fact. They arrived at their beliefs through careful study as they have often asserted.

Donna,

You keep on insisting that I said something that I didn’t.

Here is the quote you keep attributing to me:

“DL:
I think that you are correct. However, they [ie women who have been abused who gravitate to CBE] tend to dwell on the abuse. They tend to want to keep the hurt and the memory going. That is not Christian.”

That is what Lynn wrote up above in #192. Go read it for yourself. I did not say this. You keep on attributing things to people that they didn’t say. If you are going to be so dogmatic and so accusatory don’t you think you better get your facts straight first? This totally causes loss of credibility when you keep on making false accusations and then when people confront you about them you keep on making the same false accusations.

You told me to ask you but I cannot ask you since you have no comment section.

You said this:

“The words “i.e. women who have been abused who gravitate to the CBE” are your words. Maye you didn’t recognize them after you said them?”

I didn’t recognize them because they weren’t my words. I told you this but it is like you have your fingers in your ears or something?

You have done this to a lot of people, Donna. Don’t you think you should take a step back and maybe take a break for a while? You can’t keep on falsely accusing people and then talking like you have greater discernment and wisdom and understanding.

Donna,

I can’t ask you this question on your blog, so I will ask it here.

You said:

“I love the ministry of the Christians for Biblical Equality. One of their members is Family Life Today, which is an excellent resource.”

Are you really recommending CBE as a resource?

“Given the amount of anger and even hatred people have for her, and given the nature of those who oppose her, she must be a good woman. She is hated by the wolves, who also hate me.”

This is totally unfair and an outright lie. You really do not have any idea what you are talking about. How dare you judge your sisters in Christ as wolves. Have you read James lately? Maybe you should. It has much to say about the sort of judging you do and the lies you spread.

You are treading in dangerous waters, Donna. You are falsely accusing fellow believers as wolves because they dare to examine the teachings of men like the Bereans were commended for doing. No one is inventing new meanings for words but there are some who have a problem with people who suppress the truth in order to shore up their doctrine.

You have no idea if someone hates someone else. And no one hates you. I tried to reach out to you on Lynn’s blog and you called me a liar and a hypocrite and told me that I wasn’t being genuine. Do you know what is in my heart? Are you super-human and have some sort of omniscient ability to discern the thoughts and motives of others? How dare you lecture others about putting words in your mouth and making assumptions. Discussing what is taught by leaders within a certain movement isn’t hatred or you would be guilty of your own accusations. So are the Baylys and any other ministry, blog, pastor or discussion group that discusses what is taught by other leaders within Christianity.

Also, people have problems with certain leaders because they are not forthright about facts and details.

You obviously do not take scripture seriously because if you did you would not be talking like you do and judging falsely and unjustly like you do.

I think your mission board, husband and elders need to see what you write. You need to show them so they can help you.

I don’t know why she is talking to me on her blog. She is not even quoting me nor do I say the things she says I say. She mixes me up with others.

Just thought I would let you all know that if you are going to read Donna’s blog please know that she frequently mentions people and attributes things to them that they do not say.

I don’t think people who put words in people’s mouths should lecture others about the subject, especially when they are attributing things to them that someone else said.

False assumption? You bet.

“Just once, I’d like to see an INTELLIGENT argument from patriarchalists that shows ANY harm that can come from a couple practicing biblical submission to each other.”

Psalmist,

I would like to see the same thing, too. They will tell you that no one will see the gospel in such a marriage. Well, what sort of picture is painted when we are told in a systematic theology book that God is subordinate/inferior to man when He helps man? I am getting the same picture as Satan proclaiming that he will be seated above God.

Obviously if God can be a subordinate/inferior to man when He helps man and no harm comes to God or His word or His people or the lost, then I hardly think that a fellow human being is going to be harmed by submitting to the person they are closest to.

If submission is such a good thing, then why do patriarchalists react with vehemence when it is suggested that husbands do submit to wives? If it is a good thing and a good word and a good concept, then why is it only good for some people? Didn’t Jesus subordinate Himself in His incarnation in order to set an example for ALL of us to follow? He came to serve, not to be served. He emptied Himself and took on the form of a man. That seems to be saying that being a man is a lowly state and one of subjugation.

Does a husband help his wife in the same sense that God helps us? Well, a husband’s help PALES in comparison to God’s help but you get the picture. So, if God is said to be an ezer to humans and according to Grudem makes Him subordinate/inferior when He is in ezer-mode, then a husband certainly cannot deny that he helps his wife and that when he helps her he becomes an inferior or subordinate (aka submissive) to her, can he? Is a husband above God? Is he so far above his wife that he can’t stoop to help her? Is helping a lowly position only relegated to women, children, slaves and God?

Hosea 13:9 says this:

“O Israel, you are destroyed,
But your help is from Me.”

In other words, God is telling them: O Israel, you are destroyed, but your EZER is from Me.

What does it mean to be an ezer? Junior assistant or strength? Hmmmmm……I think it means “strength”. Certainly God is not telling Israel that He is their subordinate, was He?

It would seem that Grudem’s words might put patriarchalists in a tight spot. Grudem did say that any time a person helps another person, that person who is helping necessarily becomes the subordinate/inferior to the one that he/she is helping. Right? So, that would mean that Grudem is saying that men submit to their wives when they help their wives. Or am I getting something wrong here? Maybe it is wrong for men to help their wives. Maybe that is why we play semantical games and call it “sacrifice” when a man helps his wife.

And, if a man isn’t practicing submission towards his wife in the bedroom, then he is in sin. After all the Bible does tell us that the woman has authority over the man’s body. We could talk about all the harm that comes to a man’s body when he submits himself to his wife in this area. 🙂 After all, is not 1 Cor. 7 a picture of mutual submission? Or do I need greater understanding into this passage, also?

“DL:
I think that you are correct. However, they [ie women who have been abused who gravitate to CBE] tend to dwell on the abuse. They tend to want to keep the hurt and the memory going. That is not Christian.

Kamilla:
Yes, they cherish it and feed it, lovingly watch it grow until it
comsumes them. They’d rather remain victims, crying “Woe is me, I
have been abused!” on the street corner like the proud pharisee
praying out loud how glad he’s not, yadda yadda yadda.”

ROFLOL!!!! Oh, this is good. Especially considering who it is that are making these statments.

I am wondering if they see some black in their pots?

This whole Kamilla thing is like deja vu.

Donna, maybe you are getting confused between Lynn’s invitation that was also dubbed “shameful” among other things and Cheryl’s invitation.

I see that Cheryl explained to you that you were [once again] wrong or confused about the facts and you refused to acknowledge that. You have do this a lot to people and it does get wearying.

May I recommend that you be a bit slower on the trigger? Maybe you should really find out the facts before you start shooting?

I think it is honorable that Cheryl invited Kamilla to come over here but I could have told Cheryl that she shouldn’t hold her breath. Kamilla frequently takes pot-shots at people but then when she is called on her words, she behaves like she is being victimized. You would think she would welcome the chance to own up to what she says?

I won’t judge Kamilla as you have judged Cheryl. To each his/her own. If Kamilla doesn’t want to discuss these issues on this forum and she would rather stay under safety of the wings of Bayly and Co., that is her prerogative. But, it is not shameful and hypocritical to invite her. It is actually polite and cordial.

It is funny to me that so many patriarchalists can talk very bravely in certain venues but then refuse to discuss the same issues when they are asked some very straightforward questions.

Paula,

Thanks for the link to that blog. I appreciated how he has has explained what Grudem teaches in his Systematic Theology book. I am disturbed that it is so well like in so many colleges and seminaries.

Here is a quote from that blog which quotes what the Athanasian creed says about the trinity:

“The Athanasian Creed, which Grudem accurately says is “still used in Protestant and Catholic churches today,” puts it thus:

“Nothing in this trinity is before or after, nothing is greater or smaller; in their entirety the three persons are coeternal and coequal with each other.””

I would agree. To go further than this is adding and/or subtracting from scripture and playing around with the very divinity of Christ.

“Grudem’s reading is that woman’s original sin is usurping male authority and man’s original sin was rejecting God’s authority.”

That is bunk. The scripture says no such thing. She did NOT usurp male authority at all. She disobeyed God, not Adam. Where does Scripture tell us that Eve violently overtook Adam’s authority and went against him? I thought the scripture simply says that Adam was with her in the garden and she was deceived? Doesn’t sound like usurpation at all. We can speculate until the cows come home but I wonder how the patriarchalists rectify their speculation while at the same time denigrating other speculation? John MacArthur goes so far as to say that he KNOWS why Adam did what he did and even though he wasn’t there, he didn’t have to be to KNOW why Adam ate the fruit. It was because Adam wanted to be noble and not let Eve die on her own. Yeah right!

“Thus, Jesus died to reconcile men (males), and women are reconciled through their husband. This is a Mormon teaching, not orthodox Christian teaching.”

Exactly. A lot of this is Mormon-like teaching.

Hi Donna,

“I would encourage people to read what is said at the CBMW, and try to understand where they are coming from as far as the eternal subordination of the Son is concerned. It is an appeal to greater understanding.”

When the egalitarians say appeal to “greater understanding” of the scriptures they are eviscerated by the Bayly Bros, et al. They mock and scoff and scorn such statements citing that an assertion of greater understanding is just not possible.

But, here you are appealing to the “greater understanding” argument?

After reading Grudem’s statement in his Systematic Theology book, no less (!!!!!!!!!!!), that God is a subordinate/inferior to man when He is an “ezer” to man, I don’t think I can trust where this “greater understanding” is coming from or what fuels it. It looks to me like desperation. The comps/pats are now changing scripture and the historic understanding of the Godhead in order to shore up their need to be in control and to have primacy. That doesn’t look good at all.

Is it your argument that people who do not agree with CBMW’s statements on the eternal subordination of Christ to be without understanding? That CBMW and those agree with this new wind of doctrine are those who a greater understanding of God?

I beg to differ.

I can’t quite wrap my mind around the whole concept because the Trinity is a mystery but since Christ and God cannot go against their perfectly unified will as God, their will is one. Christ is God. He is “I Am”. Through Christ the world was made. He and the Father are one.

Not so for puny humans. A man’s will is not God’s will nor are two sinful human beings going to be perfectly in accord with one another at all times. And at times we are to resist the will of man in order to remain in the will of God. To compare a husband to God and the woman to Christ is not greater understanding. It is poor understanding and poor hermeneutics. Why do what the Bible does not? Are not the instructions left for husbands and wives enough? Why must we elevate where God has not? This to me is the sin of pride and not seeing one’s self as they really are.

Cheryl,

This was a very good post. I have been thinking a lot about this issue lately and your post helped me flesh out my thoughts even more.

MacArthur’s comments kind of startle me.

Men are given divine dominion? It seems from my reading of scripture that men and women are both given dominion. I don’t know what adding “divine” really means when he uses it that way. Is it significant that he says that men are given “divine dominion” instead of regular old “dominion”?

You are right that women have everything a man has spiritually. We receive all of it from God as His gift to us. Spiritual insight and wisdom is not given according to gender.

God said that man was in need. It would seem that would be something that would be humbling to a man instead of cause for grabbing the number one position?

In our humanness, we often don’t want to admit that we are in need because it hurts our pride. When I come to realize that I am lacking and I have need, it causes me to be dependent and in a position of humility and gratefulness to those (or God, Himself) who supplies what I lack.

When someone comes to me and supplies what I am lacking, I don’t immediately grab the opportunity to claim superiority and authority over them. When we are in need and lacking we are not in the position to have this sort of attitude.

This will be my last post for a while. I don’t want to hog your blog!

“But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped. (Page 461-462, Systematic Theology, ch. 22: Man as Male and Female).”

Every time I read this, I have the same reaction. My jaw hits the floor. I am stunned. I am flabbergasted. This is in his systematic theology book? Yikes! It is just so nonsensical on so many levels.

I guess I can now better see why he would tell a woman who is giving directions to a man over the backyard fence to make sure she recognizes his manhood and remains submissive to him in the way she gives him directions. When a woman helps a man, she cannot do it from a position of strength and knowledge. It must be done from a position of weakness, subservience, subjugation and inferiority. So, that means, we better understand the 1950’s handbooks on women when they tell women to pretend they are not as smart as the men around them. Men must not know that they need help because they are in need of help. I know that some teach that “help” means in the way of providing sexual intercourse, birthing babies, cleaning homes, cooking meals and doing the laundry. That hurts less than believing that they are truly needy and not just for sex and a housekeeper. 🙂

I was looking up the word “help” in my English dictionaries since Grudem asserts that anytime a person gives help that means they are in a subordinate position. Not only is this nonsensical but it is dangerous. Do I want to help someone at the grocery store or when they run out of gas because that would make me their subordinate. When a police officer helps people in distress, he is their subordinate? When a man helps his wife, he is her subordinate. When a woman helps her children, they are her master?

Look at the following English definitions for the word “help”. Certainly does NOT imply subordination or inferiority. It does imply strength. It does imply having the strong resources in order to help someone who is LACKING or IN NEED. And that is much more in line with what God does as an ezer for man. God helps us with His strength to supply what we are lacking and when we are in need.

“When I look in my English dictionary help simply means this:

to make it easier for someone to do something by offering your services or financial or material aid; improve a situation or problem (be a benefit to); to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need; contribute strength or means to; render assistance to; cooperate effectively with; aid; assist: He planned to help me with my work. Let me help you with those packages. to save; rescue; succor: Help me, I’m falling! to make easier or less difficult; contribute to; facilitate:

Antonym of help: hinder or impede

The word help doesn’t seem to say what Wayne Grudem would have us believe it means.

“Yes, Corrie, this is heresy, and possibly worse: blasphemy, because it puts man in the place of God. You’re right, “If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor.” (Voltaire) They have indeed fallen for the serpent’s lie, “you will be as God” (ironically, this is what they think only females have a weakness for).”

Oops! Is blasphemy worse than heresy? Here I thought I was trying to hold back with strong words!

They do forget that their mother was Eve and that Paul reminds Christ’s followers of this in 1 Corinthians and tells them to be careful that they are not deceived like their mother Eve.

It is not only girls who inherit things from their mothers, after all.

“But Grudem’s problem is that God and Eve share the same “ezer” label, and desperation is truly the reason he would go so far as to start with presumed female inferiority and end with divine inferiority.”

You are right and I am finally beginning to see the problem very clearly. Instead of searching for the Truth and being unafraid at what they find, they suppress the truth.

If God, as an ezer to mankind is mankind’s subordinate and inferior, then we are in a heap of trouble. Goddess worship is the least of our worries.

“So if WOMAN can be strong, then that automatically weakens MAN, in that world view. MAN can’t be anything that WOMAN is. So it’s a whole lot easier to change the meaning of the Holy Scriptures than it is to change a hardened heart and a made-up mind.”

Psalmist,

I guess it is easier. I have seen where patriarchalists constantly slice and dice character qualities and attributes into pink and blue groups.

Add to this that scripture refers to women as the “weaker vessel” and “ezer” cannot mean strong! You are right, being strong is a masculine quality.

And since Grudem defines “ezer” as helping someone, then do not men also help others? When a man helps his wife or children, is he not then also like God, a subordinate to the wife and child? Or, are they higher than God? IOW, when a patriarch helps his child and wife it isn’t in an “ezer” sort of way because that is a word that is fit only to describe what God and women do for others. When they help it is in a leader/ruler type of way. No wonder they only use the first half of Paul’s statement without using the correcting and clarifying part of his statement. When Paul states in 1 Cor. 11:

“8For(M) man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but(N) woman for man. ”

They like to forget that this was only HALF of the equation/truth. If woman was made for man, then woman helps man and he defines her use to him but since he was not made for her, he does not help her and she does not define his use to her. In fact, he has no use to her since he was not made for her, right? Wait…… Well, I guess if I remain consistent in their teachings it will actually undo some of their deeply held paradigms.

“1Nevertheless,(O) in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And(P) all things are from God.”

And here is where Paul delivers the missing part of the equation. Neither the woman or man is independent of each other (that speaks of mutuality and interdependency) and now the man comes from the woman so that all things are from God.

“Or maybe it’s fear of the idea that woman can be strong FOR THE MAN, rather than him being the he-man protector of the universe. NOBODY’s stronger than the man! Sadly, sometimes, God is even weakened to keep that “true.””

The Proverbs 31 woman was strong for her husband. We didn’t see her husband rescuing her and saving her over and over again like some helpless, weak damsel in distress. (Not that husbands don’t sometimes save and rescue their wives but I also know of many wives he save and rescue their husbands. In fact, I have saved my husband’s life more than once (he is a Type 1 diabetic) ). But, I look at the marriage relationship as one of mutual rescue. When one falls the other is there to lift them up, as Ecclesiastes so clearly illustrates. We saw the Proverbs 31 woman ministering to her husband from a position of strength. There seems to be no heirarchy to be gotten out of that portion of scripture. She seems to be a doer, a mover, and an initiator. She doesn’t seem to be a woman who sits back and waits to respond. She is like the ant:

“Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.” In fact, she is prepared beforehand so that means she must be someone who actually initiates much of what is going on around her.

Doesn’t seem to gel with the responder/initiator/little helper stuff I have read. I guess King Lemuel’s mother taught her son that he needed to look for a woman who didn’t wait to act. I would think that most men would want to be married to a woman who could look around and see what needed to be done and do it instead of waiting for their husband to direct their every step.

“In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped. (Page 461-462, Systematic Theology, ch. 22: Man as Male and Female).”

Wow, Paula. Excuse me while I try and pick my jaw up off of the floor.

When God helps his people He is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped? This sounds blasphemous to my ears. It seems that desperation is driving some of these statements. Maybe they think that to give an each, that all you egalitarians will take a mile or something? 😉 This sort of thing seems fear-driven since it it totally irrational.

So, that means that God is my subordinate and/or inferior on a daily basis? After all, isn’t He my ever present HELP in times of trouble? Isn’t God, the Holy Spirit, our Helper who *leads* us into all wisdom? And, Jesus, the Son of God, came to serve and not to be served.

This is really a dangerous thing to say about God. He is our subordinate and inferior when He helps us? That, imho, is desperation. The meaning of ezer must be preserved at all costs and if that means making God subordinate to man, then, by golly, that is what needs to be done. Ezer must mean subordinate and/or inferior so whenever it is used, even of God, it means subordinate and inferior. Talk about presuppositional! They have their minds made up about ezer, for sure, if they would pervert a puny human’s relationship with God in this way.

I am not sure I have read a feminist or egalitarian saying anything even close to this at all. Maybe heresy is too strong of a word but that is the word that comes to mind.

What is that old saying? “God made man in His image and man has been returning the favor ever since.”

Wasn’t Satan banished from heaven for doing the same thing? He wanted to ascend higher than God? Well, can’t get much higher than God to refer to Him as a subordinate or inferior.

When I help my children, I am not their subordinate or inferior, am I? Would Wayne Grudem also say, in order to be consistent, that when a man helps his wife he is then her subordinate and inferior? Or when a father helps his child, he is that child’s subordinate and inferior?

I guess defining ezer as being a help from a source of strength is too scary of a concept. So, since God is above all others and is frequently referred to as an “ezer” then God must necessarily be put into a subordinate position in order that the inferiority of women be maintained lest someone get the crazy idea that ezer has nothing to do with rank or position and more to do with strength. We must keep God down in order that we can keep woman in her rightful place.

Interesting and dangerous.

Psalmist,

I should have read your posts first because it sounds like I am copying you! LOL I am reading from the bottom up so I just now read your posts after what I wrote.

Paula said this: “But an eternally subordinate Christ is something they cannot bring themselves to model, even though Jesus told his male disciples point blank to do exactly that.”

No kidding! I never thought about this. Why are some claiming to be like Christ in all His glorious functions but when it comes to being subordinate, they then turn the tables and liken women to Christ? Makes no sense. Especially when the Bible specifically likens men to the subordinate Christ.

Also, I love Psalmist’s term “masculoidolatry”. I am not going to comment on the etymology (I will leave that to all the scholars so that I can worry about getting the stains out of laundry) of that word but it seems like a very accurate description of what is going in in some of these teachings.

It seems to me that this teaching is a new thing, am I right? In my reading, I seem to find scholars saying that Christ was only subordinate to God during His time on this earth.

About the Titus 2 thing and older women teaching younger women….that is sure true! Another thing is that there are many women who presume to be teachers of other women who should not be teaching but be learning. There are some who give their followers the impression that they have been married for a long while when they have actually been married for a shorter time than many of the “younger” women they are teaching. I am baffled why so many people are willing to follow people who they would readily disqualify as teachers in any other situation.

I am not ashamed to give my age or tell the pertinent details of my life. We should be transparent as believers. We don’t have to hang our dirty underwear in public but we should be transparent. But there are some who present a false picture to their followers and it is very concerning. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. When I see leaders fudging facts and rearranging the sequential order of their life and not being upfront about some very IMPORTANT details about their families (esp. when they have ministries specifically targeting the redesigning, bettering and reformation of the family and the details of their own histories as BELIEVERS go against what they teach), I get a bit leery. Those who want to be leaders and teachers should not hide pertinent info.

That is why I am glad people like Karen Campbell are trying to reach out to the younger women. She has been married to the same man for 33 years and has raised 6 children who are walking with the Lord and has her 10th grandchild on the way.

I think I have read that the Holy Spirit is likened to the children in the marital relationship. How bizarre is that? God the Father and God the Son having a baby together and calling it God the Holy Spirit? It boggles my mind.

The fact remains that husbands are NEVER likened to God. They are told to be like Christ in their sacrificial love for their wives. Period. They are not told to be like Christ in His resurrection or in His glorious return. They are told to be like Him in His love. Period. Husbands are NOT Christ to their wife nor do they represent Christ to their wives. They are not mediators, prophets, priests or kings. The Bible tells us we are ALL a royal priesthood, husbands are never singled out as priests/mediators for their wife.

Elsewhere, Christ set the example of leadership when he girded a towel about His waist and washed the feet of His disciples. That was the lowliest of jobs that a slave could do. A Jewish slave would NEVER wash feet because that was reserved for the lowliest of slaves. So, Christ was saying that we are not to be like the Gentiles who lord their authority over others but we are to be as the lowliest slave who does the most lowliest jobs for OTHERS. This hardly leaves room one person in a relationship to be lording anything over the other.

I do not believe that Christ is eternally subordinate to the Father. He was temporally subordinate in His incarnate state in order to do the work He came to do. Remember, Christ was crucified from the foundation of the World. Before Adam and Eve were created, Christ’s death, burial and resurrection were already planned. Christ is the Word who became flesh. All things were made through the Word/Christ. Christ is Creator. Christ is God. How can God be subordinate to God?
Christ came to set an example for all of us to follow.

I don’t know about you all and I am certainly NOT a Bible scholar nor any other type of scholar, just a lowly housewife who is self-taught and who has lived a LOT of life, but it is hard to wrap my mind totally around the implications of the trinity. I know scholarship is really important to people, which is ironic because they are the same people who claim that girls don’t need to go to college to be as smart and respected as college-educated daughters! If you doubt what I am saying, go and read the thread over at Thatmom that Lin linked to in her post and see the very thing I am saying. The patriarchal movement is often schizophrenic in its behavior. Either that or they have a dissociative disorder that prevents them from seeing how inconsistent they really are.

One thing that I do know is that Christ is God in the flesh. Through Christ all things were made. God the Father and God the Son are ALWAYS and EVER in agreement. They are ONE and it would be impossible for one to go against the other or even have a thought that would be different from the other.

Not true when it comes to two sinful, imperfect, fallible human beings. Husbands are not God. Wives are not Christ. And patriarchalists really must stop taking analogies to this length because it borders, imho, on idolatry. Who would have the hutzpah to compare themselves to God?

Hi Jayne,

I appreciate your desire that some people be very accurate about the things they say on blogs but I would also appreciate it if you endeavored to be accurate in your assessments, too.

Karen’s blog is NOT an egalitarian blog. Lin is exactly correct. You are just repeating the same lies that you have heard elsewhere.

And talk about being banned from blogs? The Baylys banned me for absolutely NO reason. I was polite and on topic and I was respectful. The Baylys ban people simply for asking questions or disagreeing with their stance on some issues. Karen has NOT banned you! You are free to post on her blog whenever you want. In fact, you did that very thing after she asked you and I and others to cease from a certain topic that was OFF-topic.

I find it funny that you call men “nice” who come onto blogs calling the host (Karen) and other commenters “cackling hens” and other various demeaning names along with a host of false accusations about how they don’t take care of their families but then you get up in arms when people have a problem with that sort of rude behavior?

I think the way that many women have been treated over on the Bayly blog is horrendous. The way they treated Suzanne is just more proof of that. Tell me, did Suzanne deserve the response she got from Tim and others? The way they have treated Light is also more proof. Oh, and let us NOT forget about Rebecca and how she was called a “feminist” and a “seminar caller” for simply making some very intelligent statements. All of these women were polite, well-spoken and knowledgeable and they were asking some very good questions. What did they get for being nice, Jayne? They were gracious but they were not treated with graciousness. I do not understand why people would agree with this sort of behavior at all.

The Baylys are NOT complementarians. They, in fact, left CBMW because they thought that CBMW is too wimpy as far as being patriarchal. David wrote a public letter about leaving CBMW but did not even bother to go to those on the CBMW board FIRST before he wrote it. I wrote CBMW to tell them about David’s public statement (10/05) and at that time they had only my email and one phone call telling them of his statement. They think that the word “complementarian” is a compromise to make the egals happy. They are patriarchalists and would rather be known by that term. Most of what they teach is just personal opinion passed off as bible doctrine.

Lin is right that Karen and many others, including myself, are against the patriarchal excesses and legalism but we are not egalitarians. It is not fair to paint people like you and others do ( Stacy McDonald- “white-washed feminists” and “professional mommies”) just because we disagree with how patriarchalists interpret scripture.

Lin is exactly correct that Karen is a gracious hostess and she allows anyone to post on her blogs. You are certainly not banned from her blog nor were you ever banned! She simply asked US to stop talking about a particular subject because it had been talked to death.

Wow!! In Clip #6 he tells us that a woman’s greatest and deepest spiritual resource is a man…a man.

So, God’s living Word and the Holy Spirit takes a backseat to a man? In 1 Cor. 7 it would seem that it is better for a woman to remain single so that she can devote herself totally to the Lord without worrying about how to please a man. Now, if this is true, then how can a single woman actually devote herself fully to the Lord when she has no “greatest and deepest spiritual resource” in her life?

I can’t really buy other statements about men and women being equal but just having different roles. Not with these teachings.

Women are clearly lower created beings and they are but a dim reflection derived from man of God. Women derive their significance from men. He states that men are giving the duty of taking divine dominion but in my Bible it says that God told both the man and the woman that it was their duty to take divine dominion. And it never mentions anything about having dominion over other human beings.

Cheryl, I recently ordered your DVDs and I will be viewing those. These quotes from MacArthur really spur me on to watching your DVDs in order to see how you flesh out these verses.

Do you cover what it means when 1 Cor. 11 says that man is the image and glory of God but woman is the glory of man?

Thanks!

In clip #2 it sounds as if he subscribes to the theory that all men are over all women. He says that a woman demonstrates her significance in the world in response to the direction of men who are given divine dominion over the earth. He says that this is a general truth in that it goes beyond the walls of Christianity and is seen in the world.

In clip #3 he says that a woman is made to manifest man’s will and man’s authority. So, does that mean men manifest God’s will and God’s authority and women manifest man’s will and man’s authority? Basically, women are not directly accountable to God. Women have a mediator, man, between themselves and God.

Well, that would stand to reason that a woman would ask her husband at home since he is the one who manifests God’s glory and authority in her little world. She is not to go directly to God or His word for truth. She is to manifest man’s truth and man’s will not God’s truth and God’s will.

“Man is the sun and woman is the moon. She shines not so much with the direct light of God but that derived from man.”???????????????

And he gets this from 1 Cor. 14 where it says that if a woman has a question she is supposed to ask her husband at home?

Because he is the sun and she is the moon and he shines with the direct light of God but she shines with the light of God derived only when she derives it from the man?

I wonder what he would say about the importance of women reading the bible? I wonder what he would say about the many men who couldn’t even begin to answer her question. I wonder what he would say about the scripture that says that we are in need of no teacher because the Holy Spirit is the One who guides us into all truth? I wonder if that verse is talking about a disruption of the Corinthian service where women were asking questions out loud (up until that time they were not allowed to be taught because it was considered a waste of time)?

I do not see that verse having anything to do with the sun and the moon.

Also, if MacArthur wanted to be consistent both the man and the woman are both moons. The moon only reflects light. The sun gives light. Unless he thinks that the man is actually the light of God and the source of His light and women are merely reflectors of man’s glory, then his statement makes no sense. The man is a moon and the woman is a moon and they both get their light from God, the sun. He could have said (not that I would agree) that the man is the greater moon and the woman is the lesser moon and she shines God’s light more dimly than man.

It sounds as if he is confused about what it means to be the glory of man and the glory of God in 1 Cor. 11?

I was considering ordering another John MacArthur study Bible but I think this makes my decision for me.

Isn’t it a great day to be a woman! LOL