Dave

Interesting observation pinklight!

Thanks for that Mark! I am happy to throw my 5 cents worth in…
The second and third of your first three points I do not agree with, but it is good to know what we are not agreeing on. But I think I agree with your first point!!
With regards to 1 Cor 11…
1 – No body part of the metaphor mentioned…very true!
2 – Paul draws back to the created order…in which case he got the order wrong in 1 Cor 11:4! I am not seeing a created order. Could you elaborate?
3 – Where is the head of authority in verses 4-7. I see no evidence of authority here. Please point me to the words used to show this?
4 – “The use of kephale in verse 3 is in the context of people, which according to how we know the word was used in this context, must denote authority.” Perhaps this is how you see it, but you have failed to establish this. Your first point was that kephale had different uses depending on context, but this does not mean you can lock in the formula kephale + people = authority. This is not an adequate look at the context to determine what the context is saying.
5 – Yes…angels etc, unusual and weird!
6 – “Some egalitarians think verse 11 somehow cancels out the proceeding verses. This is not true. Although the man is in authority over the women, niether should be independent of the other.”
But what of verse 12? It appears, contextually, to be talking about the origin of man and woman. Does this not relate somehow to what has followed created order and make it relevant? That being that everything comes from God (through Christ)…like he is the head? I do not believe that egals think verse 11 simply dismisses the preceding verses, but how do you dismiss what it brings to the passage…including verse 12?
7 – “Do i think the head covering is a mandate for all time, no. It is cultural, but the use of kephale to denote authority to the husband is. Paul draws right back to Gen to support his argument for mans authority, which he applies the the cultural context of head coverings.”
As mentioned earlier, I do not see where Paul is appealing to Genesis, nor how you can make the statement that kephale here denotes authority to the husband. It is not there. Please show me the exact words that indicate this!

Finally, you said, “Here head connot mean ’source’, because source is the translated word for heads(plural). The singular is translated ‘mouth’. So should we say the man is the mouth of the wife?”
I believe I read pretty much this argument from Grudem. It is typical of Grudem. TL has responded correctly and said that it is not referring to the mouth we speak out of. Why would Grudem suggest it does? I am not sure of their motives! BUT, the singular very much relates to the plural meaning. The mouth of a container, such as a jug, is the source of where what is in the container comes from, and it is the “mouth”, the opening. Grudem does make much of the “mouth” being the wrong end of a river to be the “source”, but egals never said that kephale only referred to rivers, they said it referred to source, “like the head of a river”.
Sorry for the rant but I get very tired of word games.

Mark said, “It seems like people are skirting around the issue that kephale is understood to mean authority both in biblical and other ancient greek literature. Is this a fair presumption?”

No, I don’t think so. I believe that most people in this conversation have very much grappled with this issue. I think people have been very clear about this. I am a bit confused about where this conversation is (not) going! If I can make some observations…

1 – Mark has claimed more than once that we have not understood comp arguments, and yet many of us here are recovering comps! We understand very well what “true” comps believe and can point to examples, and have done. Saying we have not understood where they are coming from is not good enough. Please show us exactly where and how we have not understood Piper and Grudem etc.
2 – Why are we waiting to have everybody agree on the different uses of kephale when the important thing is how Paul is using it in the texts in question? Do we want to have a conversation about kephale in the specific texts or not? The essay I linked above talks about how the Bible uses words such as water and fire with essentially different meanings. Fire, for example, can be a metaphor for judgement, trials or the Holy Spirit! The context is the key, not what was happening 500 years later in extra-biblical writing.
3 – Kay has raised a very good question that has gone un-answered. How is “manhood” defined? I understand the way you were using the term Mark, but how do you define it in the context of this discussion so that Kay can have an answer to her question. I get the feeling she is not going to let go of this one!

It seems to me that we are not actually moving forward into having a meaningful discussion, but rather playing around the edges. Perhaps this is a test of my patience? In which case I have failed 🙁

Mark wrote: “I would like to be pointed to an actual egalitarian paper which is not about debating anothers paper, and which shows there evidence for why they understand ‘kephale’ to mean source always in the New Testament. I would like to see evidence which actually shows that when a person is called the ‘head’ it means non authoratative source.”

I like your suggestion Kay…but I have another which I discovered and looks pretty good to me… http://searchingtogether.org/kephale.htm
I would love to know what others think of it as a resource. The primary purpose of the essay is not to rebut anyones else’s work.

Kay…crumpets…hmmmm…now your talking…coffee and crumpets…
😉

Lin, you said, “Can you point out where anyone has been disrespectful of Piper? Or questioned his motives?”

I am not sure, but I think Mark was referring to my comments about Grudem, not anyones comments about Piper (I agree with everything you said about Piper by the way!).

I did question Grudem’s motives. He has proven he is a very clever man, and so what he has written at times must either be seen as manipulative and sly, or dumb…and I just think he has proven he is not dumb! At the same time, I guess I do not know his motives for certain…so I will try and play more nicely in the future.

Mark, you said, “2. That it is used as source in other greek literature.”

Does this mean that you do not see it used as “source” in the NT? I assume not. Personally I like to see it as meaning “origin”, even though this is essentially the same as “source”. What about Colossians 1:18, especially in the context…surely it means origin not authority?

From verses 15-18, Jesus is the origin of all creation (as the firstborn) as all things were created by him (including rulers or authorities). He is before all things (he is primary…things have their origin in him). He is the head (origin) of the body the church – as he is the beginning and the firstborn (from where others find their origin) from amongst the dead.

I just think it you want kephale to be either a physical head or authority in this passage you are introducing something foreign to the text. The only mention of authorities in the passage is where they find their origin…in Jesus!

Kay – coffee is good, tea is bad. Coffee good. Tea bad. Good coffee. Bad tea.

Not sure if I can say it more clearly than that…coffee makes the world go round…

You are a bible college student…so I know you drink coffee 😉

“O.k., you say that you have some type of ‘authority’ that:
1. you can’t exercise
2. you are not interested in keeping
3. is not determined by possessing male reproductive organs”

Interesting summary Kay! We have talked before about comps who live like egals, such is the confusion between what they are told the bible means and what the Bible does say.

It is also interesting that Mark does not think there is any connection with hierarchy and abuse, but then if you cannot exercise or even want to keep you authority, then you are hardly being hierarchical enough to see the link with abuse.

I personally believe that Grudem is manipulative with regard to his research/writing and I am happy to refer you to examples of this Mark, if it is helpful. His own reasearch with regard to kephlae backs up the egal position, not the comp…he has just distorted it, but if anyone cares to look at what he has written the lies are easily seen for what they are. He appears to be a man who wants to keep and exercise what he sees as his right to have authority, even to the extent of distorting the Gospel. Perhaps we should have that coffee?

“okay now I am curious. What does “Aussie Aussie Aussie oi oi oi” mean? Sounds like a “you go girl” kind of anthem??”

If you look at any footage from the 2000 Sydney Olympics you will probably hear it in the crowd.

Or, you should be able to go here and see/hear it happening live!!

Brother Mark – we will have to have coffee some time. That way I can remind you about how we don’t do the “Aussie Aussie Aussie oi oi oi” thing around foreigners!

“Grudem are so inclined to male preeminance that he teaches in his book on feminism that God is subordinate to us when HE helps us.”

Once again he has swapped “submission” for “subordination” – but this time in relation to God with us! He will stop at nothing!

Due to the influence of culture, and the fall, and biology etc, how can we establish in a concrete way what “difference” there is between male and female other than differing roles in reproduction? I only feel safe talking about biblical distinctions, which to me does not work along gender lines as much as individual lines. We are each, as believers, individuals – dealt with personally by our Father who gives his Holy Spirit to us to work in each of us as He desires, so that we are all a part of one body, though different parts.

Why would this be outlined to us in scripture, but not male/female distinctions, if indeed they are of such importance?

Hey Mark, I am in Australia (Sydney). Where are you from in Oz?

Great to see you guys playing nicely together! I tried to read all 206 comments…but failed. 🙁

Thanks for the contribution Frank, it is good tohave your thoughts on record at the Conference!

“So when does it become a sin for him? I suppose that this will now become an issue where CBMW will have to judge since apparently they are the only ones who can interpret the incomplete complementarian law which never makes clear the division between the what should be considered good and what is now evil or sinful.”

I find it difficult to see how Biblically they justify setting themselves up in this way, as judges over what is right and wrong in matters the Bible does not dictate.

I hope the debate continues Cheryl!

Sorry it has taken me a while to get back to this conversation. I have been enjoying some time away from the computer lately!

Yes, Cheryl is correct, I was hoping Frank would post his comments on our Blog so his great comments can be included in the pdf. I could cut and paste them, but in case some think I am simply trying to unfairly help the egal cause post conference I would prefer if it was done by Frank!

I also wanted to thank you for your prayers Frank, they were greatly appreciated.

Great thoughts Frank!

Please continue to make your comments at the post if you still have anything to say. Because so much of the PCAus is computer illiterate we are making a pdf of the Conference as well as a little booklet. From my perspective it is important that we put forward as strong a case as possible. I am assuming that Ken has not blocked any more comments as it is letting me still post comments on Peter’s post. Let me know if you cannot and I will try and get the window of opportunity to comment enlarged!

Just wanted to thank you Cheryl for all your work at our blog while you neglected your own. It has been greatly appreciated, and I have marveled that I stumbled upon your blog and felt led by God to invite you along. What a great God!

Just to join in the current discussion, Cheryl I think your logic and ability to think through these issues is a gift of the Holy Spirit. I guess we should not rely on ourselves alone, but God does (amazingly) choose to work in us and through us as he has through you over the last couple of weeks (not to mention your other areas of ministry)!

Nice graphic!

Lin, thanks for the encouragement and the feedback. Thanks Cheryl for the encouragement of knowing you have been through so much but consider it a joy to have suffered for our Lord’s name. That is powerful.

Perhaps my hope of unity comes about more because of what might be unique to our church, the PCAus. The way we deal with conflict is to simply bunker down and ignore each other. Very functional! I wanted my church to see that you can have a constructive conversation, you can get to know each other inspite of differences. I hoped that we might appreciate the seriousness with which both sides take Scripture.

All that said, over the last couple of weeks I have come to the conclusion that I have been a bit idealistic (though I am still hopeful!). I listened to Matt Chandler the other week when he was in Sydney, and he made it very clear the his church and the Resurgence have a “closed fist” policy in regard to complementarianism. They see this “law” as crucial to the purity of the church. This explains why a family left our church over the issue of women (this family just returned from visiting Mars Hill before they left us).

Ironically, I have never looked at this issue as one worthy of breaking fellowship over, I have not seen it as a Gospel issue, but rather an issue where some have not fully applied/understood the Gospel. For some though, it is a hill they want to die on. Sorry for the rambling!

My anti-spam word is “woman” (singular!).

I really enjoyed your post Cheryl, thanks for all your work!

I would love any feedback that people might have regarding our Blog Conference and whether or not it is going to be positive in working towards unity and understanding.

But his wife critiques his sermons?

Thanks TL, that was helpful!

Australia is not ahead in many things…!

Hi TL…you said,

“In Grk. hupotassomai (passive) has nothing to do with yielding to authority. Rather it is about arranging oneself under another. Whether that arranging is done voluntarily depends upon whether one is doing so at one’s own discretion (passive) or at the requests of another. Even if at the request of another, it does not indicate the authority of the other.”

I was thinking about this and was thinking, the whole thing can get very fuzzy. For starters, if we submit, and it is not voluntary submission, we might be submitting externally in action, but have we submitted internally – in our hearts? Also, if we are “forced” to submit, then does that not imply that the one who is forcing us is more powerful, has more athority etc…which surely leads us back to subordination!

I guess I am just wondering, can submission really be something that is not done passively – at our own discretion?

Frank, I have Webster’s, but I also used other dictionaries when I formulated my understanding of submission and subordination.

Kay, yep I am an Aussie living in Sydney Australia (I wondered when I referred to myself as a “bloke” if I was being too Aussie).

Frank, I did a quick check and I can find consistant and fundamental differences between submit and subordinate. Submission has to do with the will of the person submitting, while subordination has to do with hierarchy. Subordination works on the principle of a natural order, strength, authority and power etc.

It seems to me that this is fundamental stuff is we are going to understand what happens in the Trinity. I cannot see any evidence for subordination of the Son, only submission. Obviously this then comes back to how comps view hierarchy in the church and marriage. God created us all equal, and so we, like the Trinity can submit to each other. It is actually impossible for us to be subordinate to one another (in my understanding), because “order” does not allow for you to be “below” me while I am also “below” you. Can’t happen! I would be interested in knowing your conclusions!

Cheryl and Karen, as one of the blokes, it is a joy.

Thanks for the info Frank…I wished I had read some of that before I prepared my post!

You quote Dawes as referring to “mutual subordination”. I have also read debates before where the words “submission” and subordination” are seen as meaning the same thing or swapped with one another. I have not read Dawes except for what you just quoted, but it seems to me that submission and subordination are fundamentally different. One has to do with the “natural order”, the other has to do with how you “choose to relate” to someone. Would you agree? Because I think that we can submit to one another, but I do not think we can be subordinate to one another…especially in CHrist (Gal 3:28!). Perhaps I am pedantic?

I like Dawes’ thinking on “one another”!

Great suggestion Frank, I too concluded that 1 Tim 2 was all Mike had to hold onto (see my comment on his blog).

The only prob with the argument you suggest is that he will probably go where Grudem goes (concerning Ephesians 5:21) and say “one another” does not mean “everyone to everyone”, but “some to others”. In other words, Colossians more accurately says “some should teach and admonish others”!

Grudem, naturally, is wrong! My contribution to our Blog Conference starting in a few days deals with this if you are interested in checking it out (how was that for a plug!). I cannot speak so much for Mike, but it appears that some comps you cannot tie down with logic, because logic is not what is of greatest importance, maintaining the hierarchy is 🙁

It was alluded to before by SM and Cheryl, but I did not think it was made really clear…there is no difference between Piper’s two examples, unless you really believe that “smacking” your wife is NOT a sin. The law in Australia does not agree with Piper…so I do not think he should ever come here!

Also, to me this is another example of comp confusion about where to draw the line in the mixed up world of hierarchy. It is left to the comp men to sort out and dictate what a woman should endure and what she should not. Islam means ‘submission’, and it faces the exact same problems Piper is presenting here, and yet Piper is supposed to be following a faith with a God of love…not submission (in the Islamic sense).

I should add that it was ok for her to lecture us because it was not Biblical exegesis…apparently Paul mentioned something about that somewhere…