Craig

Thanks Dave, Kay and Cheryl for your responses. There are still some things going way over my head, and I am struggling to get my head around them:)
On the “sister” post to this one, @ 19 Gengwall wrote,
“1 Cor 11 is a little different animal. The body is not in view so we can’t use the anatomical context. That doesn’t mean 1 Cor 11 is speaking of hierarchical relationships. Ironically, that is why “source” fits so well there, but doesn’t exactly fit in Ephesians 5. But that is a discussion better left to the sister post of this one.”
On this post @ 252 Cheryl wrote concerning 1 Cor 11,
“The wife is so connected to the husband’s honor as a body is intimately connected to the head”,
Am I correct in thinking that Cheryl is seeing the husband/wife in a head/body metaphor relationship in 1 Cor 11:5 just as in Eph 5, wheras Gengwall is not?

Thanks Dave. I can see how that would make sense of the Christ and man bit in v3 and “head” would have a similar meaning of “origin” in each of the three relationships.
Regarding the wife and husband(or woman and man) bit in v3, if Paul is referencing Adam and Eve, I can see how Adam was the origin of Eve. I can see how this is the same thought as v8.
But then I get to v5 and run into a bit of trouble connecting the thought of v3 with “every wife” (or woman) having a husband who is her head in v5. To put it another way, Paul moves nicely from every man having a head (Christ) in v3 to every man who…..dishonors his head (Christ) in v4.
It would be easier for me to follow if Paul was talking about “every wife (rather than just Eve) having a head (husband) in v3 to every wife who…….dishonors her head (husband) in v5.
Also, the way in which Adam was the origin of Eve, would seem quite different from the way every other husband is head.
Any thoughts to help my confusion? Thanks.

I am not sure if this is the best place to ask this question.
In 1 Cor 11:3, I think I can understand the comments about man being the origin of the woman and relating this to v8.
I think I understand how “God” (Godhead) is the origin of “Christ” in the incarnation.
I am not sure that I understand how “Christ” is the origin of every man. If Paul is thinking of the creation of man, why did he use the term “Christ” rather than “Word” for example. It was emphasised in some comments how “Christ” refers to Jesus after his birth, but he didn’t create man then.
Thanks.

Gengwall @ 232,
Thanks for the link to your site and for the suggestion to search Cheryl’s site for kephale. I found Mark’s post about headship and 1Cor 11 and have just begun reading the (over 200) comments.
The information available is very helpful. I have learnt a lot over the last few weeks about both the comp and the egal positions. I have had to think about a lot of questions for comps that I had never thought of. I have also seen a lot of questions answered very well by egals.
At this stage, I can see a lot more problems with the comp position, but I still have some questions for the egals to help put it all together. I might spend a bit of time reading past posts and comments because the questions may well have already been answered somewhere. Thanks again everyone for all your input.

Thanks SM for #221,
I looked up the whole answer in my RBMW book. Very interesting.
I had wondered if Egals could argue that the comp definition of “authority” was wrong because……
The only answer to that seems to be that “you are changing the meaning of the word depending on the relationship- you can’t do that- words have meanings.”
But then the comp will say “but isn’t that exactly what you do with the word ‘head’- you change its meaning to suit different contexts?”
So really it is hard to argue this one conclusively, we just have to accept that the definitions are different to understand each other. Is that correct?

I asked in #142
“Would more Comps agree with Egals when they argue against authority if they had the same definitions? What is the bible evidence for these distinctions in definition?”
and #162
“I think I can agree with your conclusion if the definition of authority and its contrast with leadership is correct as I outlined @142. That’s why I was seeking some more support for these definitions @142. I may be wrong, but I don’t think comps see such a sharp contrast and therefore don’t agree with your conclusions.”

I’d like to repeat the question in another way. Say I become an Egal, and my comp friend asks me about it. If I think that the meaning of “authority” and its difference to “leadership”is a good argument for the egal position, and my friend says “I don’t think they mean that” what would I say to back up the meanings as given in #142?

TL @186,
“I’d like to see what you would say, so I’ll answer that serving sacrificially is broader in scope. Leading sacrificially is just one way of serving sacrificially.”

Actually, that works for me. Anyone can lead in certain circumstances and everyone should be serving in pretty much all they do, but not everyone is called to lead in broader scopes. Broader scopes of leading would be in ministry, which anyone can be called to but not everyone is called or equipped to do so. Leading in non ministry is a matter of being equipped in some way with knowledge, skills, or experience. In Christian ministry there is also knowledge, skills, experience but in addition there is a spiritual equipping by God linked to a personal calling.
What say you to that Craig? 🙂

Not sure if you have understood what I meant, or that I understand what you mean. I would like to see what others say about this before I comment more. Note I said “serving is broader in scope”, not “leading in broader scopes”. What do you mean by “ministry”?

Kay @183,
You asked
“So, is there any other option/qualifier for ‘leading’ than “sacrificially”? If so, do tell. :)”

Not sure what you are after here.
Leading……… competently/ incompetently; wisely/foolishly; unselfishly/selfishly; humbly/ proudly or arrogantly. These and others could qualify the leading. Or do you mean sacrificially/authoritatively?

Gengwall @181,
“So, I was just pointing out the contradiction in a typical comp argument, not trying to pin that argument on you as a practical example of your own marriage. Sorry for the confusion”
Thanks for clarifying this. I can follow what you are saying now.

Hi Dave,
You asked
“Craig, where in Australia are you?”
I sent you a private message to your email address on your blog with some details.

TL @ 172,
You asked
So, what is the difference between leading sacrificially and serving sacrificially? In your opinion….
I think this is a really good question, and ties in with what others have said and my summary in #177. I need to think more about this issue.
I understand that you would say none (correct me if I am wrong), and if I tried to distinguish them you could push me into very uncomfortable positions.
I’d like to see what you would say, so I’ll answer that serving sacrificially is broader in scope. Leading sacrificially is just one way of serving sacrificially.

SM @169
you asked
“Are you saying that you always were/are the one responsible to make a decision if no agreement could be reached?”
Yes. But it never happened.
you asked
“On what basis does your responsibility lie?
I would have used the well known passages 1 Tim 2, Eph 5, 1Pet 3 etc
You asked
“Was/is this a responsibility that is non-transferrable?”
Do you mean to my wife? I would have answered no.
You asked
“Are their time limits or some type of criteria that had to be exhausted before you would have had to make the decision should you have come to an impasse? Were these agreed upon?
Never really thought about these things. Sounds too much like a legal contract! I just knew I had to put her needs ahead of mine, be willing to die for her- to love her as Christ loved the church. If I did that, the situation was never likely to come up because my wife is godly and loves me too.

Thanks, Craig, for you input. I know you are searching, too, so no pressure.

In the interests of accuracy, I probably should just address a couple of things, although they may not have much bearing on the overall discussion.
Gengwall @168
You quoted me
“This idea of authority is new to me. The most “authority” meant to me was that if some situation arose (and it never did) where my wife and I couldn’t come to some mutual agreement after prayer, discussion, time, counsel etc, I would be responsible to make the decision.”
You said
“And I would respond that you neither have “made the decision” or exercised “authority” in this scenario.”
I would totally agree. The situation never arose for me to have to make the decision or exercise authority.
You continued
“Aren’t the phrases “mutual agreement” and “mutual decision” the same? Or are you saying that you would declare “I have decided that we will do the thing we mutually agreed to do”? Doesn’t that sound rediculous? Nor is any authority exercised because there is noone to exercise it over – your wife and you are in agreement.”
Not sure what you are getting at. I would have always said we mutually agreed on things, and mutually decided- no authority was exercised. I would never have tried to claim some “leadership points” (if that is what you are meaning) by saying “I have decided that we will do the thing we mutually agreed to do.” Maybe “soft” comp is too “hard” 🙂 to describe the way we operated. I have said before that in practice, from day to day, our marriage has operated more like an egal marriage. I remember discussing in bible study groups a few times just what this “authority” looked like. The best we could come up with was that I had an authority card up my sleeve, but it has never been used or been remotely necessary. I have hardly even thought about it, unless someone else raised the subject and I had to think about it.

I am beginning to understand some of the things you are all trying to say in these last few comments. Thank you. Can I restate some things to see if I am on the right track?

Virtually all acts of loving sacrificial service can in some way be considered leadership. It is impossible to draw a line and say some acts of service are not leadership but after that line they are. Therefore, women cannot be excluded from acts that involve leadership because they would then not be able to serve others at all.
“Authority” as defined @142 is not compatible with sacrificial service.
“Authority” as defined @142 contrasts with leadership.
“Leadership” is compatible with sacrificial service.

Gengwall @ 170
“Sorry if it sounds like we are picking at you”
That’s OK. I knew if I put my comp hat on I would need my suit of armour as well 🙂 If I am going to think these issues through properly, I need to be able to expose my comp arguments and receive your replies. You are all playing nicely and trying to be helpful. Thank you.
Your replies to me also give me a model to work on in discussions with others if/when I become convinced of the Egal position.
I will try and reply to the questions as I get time.

SM @148′
“Craig #93 “We have always mutually decided on things and worked together as a team. I wore the leader badge but have never had to use it. So in this aspect, I am not sure if our marriage would practically change at all if we became egal.”
Craig, when I read, “I wore the leader badge but have never had to use it,” it sounded as if you do believe you have some degree of authority (to command obedience or compliance either by reward or punishment). I know you don’t mean a literal badge, but it sounds as if you believe(d) you inherently had some type of authority to wield should you deem it necessary.”
I am sorry if I misled you with the “leader badge” idea. I have never believed that I have had authority to command obedience or compliance either by reward or punishment or any of the “authority” words from #142. This idea of authority is new to me. The most “authority” meant to me was that if some situation arose (and it never did) where my wife and I couldn’t come to some mutual agreement after prayer, discussion, time, counsel etc, I would be responsible to make the decision. I have discussed this with a few comps over the years and they had a similar opinion. I think I have been a fairly “bad” comp in both my marriage and church leadership situations because I have never thought about having or exercising the type of authority envisaged in #142.

Gengwall @147,
“Craig #93 “The comps I know focus very much on loving, sacrificial service as the way of exercising leadership and authority.”

I agree Craig that they would say that but that doesn’t make it a practical reality. In particular, loving sacrificial service is the opposite of authority (although I think, as we have been discussing, that leadership can be done in a loving and sacrificial way). The key continues to be authority. One can not be servant and master at the same time. If comps want to be master, then they are not engaged in loving sacrificial service no matter how hard they claim to be. Conversely, if one offers the kind of loving sacrificial service that Ephesians 5 calls for, then they, like Christ, have relinquished authority and taken the role of servant. It is a practical impossibility to have it both ways.”
I think I can agree with your conclusion if the definition of authority and its contrast with leadership is correct as I outlined @142. That’s why I was seeking some more support for these definitions @142. I may be wrong, but I don’t think comps see such a sharp contrast and therefore don’t agree with your conclusions.

SM @146,
“So, I am trying to get to the bottom of what observable qualitative difference is there between the sexes that makes loving, sacrificial service from a female different than when practiced by a male for whom the same motivations and actions would be leadership and authority.”
Not sure I fully understand what you are seeking, but I will find my comp hat again and make a comment.
We may not be able to know a qualitative difference. There may or may not be one. Our task is to obey God in all things. There are many times in the bible people are asked to do things by God that they do not fully understand. We will know the reason one day…..

SM @146
“Craig #93 “The comps I know focus very much on loving, sacrificial service as the way of exercising leadership and authority.”
If a woman exhibits loving, sacrificial service is she exercising leadership and authority?
As a “soft comp”, Craig, would you (have) concede(d) that if your wife were exhibiting loving, sacrificial service that she was exercising leadership and authority? I am new to this doctrinal debate having not heard the comp/egal terms until a couple of years ago.”
I may be painting myself into a corner here but if I put on my comp hat for a moment (getting a little harder to find it these days!) I would have to answer no. The man is to lead in a sacrificial, loving way. A woman is also to exhibit loving, sacrificial service, but not as a leader in marriage or the church. There are many ways besides leading, that she can serve God. The man should carry out the leadership of #142 in a sacrificial, loving manner, not in a bossy, demanding, self-centered way. Sacrificial loving service can be carried out without having to be a leader. Is that a reasonable comp answer?

If I try and summarize some key points from what you have all said:
AUTHORITY over others is about commanding, demanding obedience, punishing wrong, rewarding right, able to use the final “trump card”.
LEADERSHIP is about guiding, directing, pointing, protecting, assisting, giving encouragement and example to follow what is taught. (I will also add sacrificial love for christian leadership.)
In my fairly sheltered “soft comp” church experience, I think these two terms have not been so starkly contrasted. I may be wrong, but I think that if I asked many of my comp friends what it means to exercise authority in their marriage and in church they would talk more in terms of the words for leadership above. They would shrink back from the words used above for authority.
Is this unusual? Do most comps or CBMW really teach the kind of authority I have summarized above (I have only read one chapter so far of the 1991 book “Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood)? Would Mark really believe in this kind of authority? How much of the debate is a definition problem? Would more Comps agree with Egals when they argue against authority if they had the same definitions?
What is the bible evidence for these distinctions in definition? (I know some has been given but any more would be appreciated)
Thanks again.

Cheryl @4,
“I am so happy that you understand the message! ”
Well at least I now have a much better understanding of that bit :).
I still have many more questions though on how it all fits together.

Thanks Cheryl for your explanation. This helps me to understand what you mean by “trump card” and I can better understand what a terrible thing this would be.

You said
“May I respectfully suggest that if the husband and wife disagree over a decision and the husband resorts to taking out his male trump card to take advance of a perceived male right to make the final decision, he will always choose his own way. It is because there is always selfishness tied to a trump card.”
Doctor: With this operation Mrs Smith, you will be able to walk much more comfortably, with less pain.
Mrs Smith: It is just too expensive, I will just have to manage as I am.
Mr Smith: It is expensive dear, but I am sure we could find a way. I insist that we go ahead.
How does this sort of situation fit in with “always selfishness” tied to a trump card?

Thank you for all your comments. There is a lot for me to digest.
I have had a very busy day and hope to have a bit more time to comment in a couple of days, but just for now, may I ask these questions to help me understand your thoughts:
1. Is there any form of legitimate authority of one human being over another(apart from possibly parent/child temporarily)?
2. Would anyone be able to define authority please? and
3. How does leadership differ from authority?
My apologies if these questions have been asked and discussed before. A link to any of these posts or discussions would be fine. Thanks.

Cheryl,
you said @109
“I think it has to be more than “having” authority. We could substitute “exercising authority” rather than “taking authority” but merely “having” an authority without the use of such an authority is quite meaningless.”
“Exercise authority” sounds fine. I may be wrong but “taking authority” may have some negative connotations that aren’t necessary to the point being made.
You said “I would like to see how someone can show how authority is exercised as a humble servant in his act of service. Thoughts?”
I remember that some don’t believe that parents have authority over children. My understanding at present is that they do. What do you think? A parent can exercise authority humbly, for the good of the child, and at great sacrificial cost to the parent.

Cheryl@105,
You said
“Mark’s point seems to be that the warning to not be “lording it over” others proves that taking authority over others was an expectation for church leaders.”
Can it be “having authority” rather than “taking authority”?
You then said
“If this was the case, one would expect that Jesus would have told the disciples how to take authority without lording it over others.”
Could it be that he tells them how to exercise authority by saying that it needs to be in totally the opposite way to what the world does- through “humble, sacrificial, loving service”- and not “lording it over”.
He is either saying “there is no authority” or He is saying “there is authority, but it is exercised through servanthood.” Do authority and servanthood need to be opposites in the kingdom of God? They are in the world, but God’s Kingdom is not of this world.

Mark,
I’d like to thank you for contributing so much to this discussion. I can relate to many of your comments and questions (being a fellow Aussi may help!) and it was very helpful to see what responses there were to your challenges. When reading a book on a subject, you often only get the one point of view and can come away thinking that a certain position is clear and easy, and you would be a liberal, or silly if you don’t agree. You have helped me to see both sides more clearly and what is at the heart of the debate. I will be sorry to see you leave the discussion.
Your closing sentiments :
“I look forward to worshipping Him with you all in the new heavens and earth, where perfection reigns, sin is no more, and where the glory of God gives light for the day.
God bless!”
thrilled my heart and I likewise return them to you.

Kay@92,
“clearly we’ve all encountered exceptions in the lives of Christian neighbors, friends and family members with disabilities, illness and aging issues, who cannot fulfill that “role” even if they wanted to.
If a “biblical role” can have even one small exception, then it cannot possibly be a command for every marriage.”
Thanks Kay. I think this is a good point. It is a bit the same as some comps “allowing” for women to lead in missionary situations for a short time until the men are able to do it. These practical “exceptions” go against the idea of a universal law since creation that is sin to break.

“6. Why can we not see that focusing on who is in charge, who is most important, etc, in Christian marriage or the Body of Christ is a very worldly and unChristian focus? So many try to turn “servant” into authority. The entire meaning is lost and it becomes a ‘religion’ of man and works. And it “usurps” the function of the Holy Spirit in believers lives.”
This may be true of some comps, but not all. The comps I know focus very much on loving, sacrificial service as the way of exercising leadership and authority. So they would not see this as an argument at all and I can agree with them.
A related issue is one I am thinking through though. Is there such a thing as “soft” authority? Leadership is exercised in a sacrificial loving way and so “taking authority” never really comes up. After 27 years of very happy marriage as a “soft” comp I have never used the “authority card”. We have always mutually decided on things and worked together as a team. I wore the leader badge but have never had to use it. So in this aspect, I am not sure if our marriage would practically change at all if we became egal. I am just seeking to know the truth. The question does the authority really exist if it is never exercised is a good one.

“5. Why would women be allowed to prophecy only on Pentecost and not for the church age? What would be the point of the Joel Prophecy”
This does get into an area where there seems to be a lot of “messiness” and “fiddling” with meanings and passages to work out what is correct practice for the comps I know.
I think Cheryl termed it “where do you draw the line”. The comps I know do believe in women “prophesying” but not being allowed the “authoritative teaching” role in the church. Women are allowed to teach children but to what age? They are allowed to take part in all manner of ways in home groups but not to lead them. They can pray and do lots of stuff in the church meeting but not the sermon from the pulpit. All these issues seem very messy. Trying to differentiate prophesying from teaching. Trying to differentiate teaching one on one or in a home group to the “authoritative teaching” from a pulpit (which didn’t exist in the early church)etc. The practical difficulties of the comp view seem to favour the egals.