Frank

Cheryl,
I have been busy with job hunting and taking MS Office 2007 courses since my last posted comment, so I just saw your comments (#17) today. And I guess I have to agree with your assessment. The only thing I think I would add is that regardess of what my opponents might do, I must always put on the armour of God, as Paul directs in Eph. 6:10-18, and then clamly and patiently teach the truth without compromise, as Paul also directs in 2 Tim. 2:24-26.

Another thing that is keeping me busy is that I’m doing research for an essay I hope to write soon and make available to CBE as a resource, “Jesus the Messiah: Redeemer, Reconciler and Royal Liberator.” And in my research, I came across the following passage that points out a truth about God and his plan of redemption, reconciliation and liberation that hierarchical complementarian, for all their professed devotion to Scripture and its teaching, cannot or will not see:

“All too often in church history God has been misrepresented as suppressing rather than promoting freedom. He has been the heavenly despot who is the model and sanction for oppressive regimes on earth: divine right monarchies in the state, clerical rule in the church, patriarchal domination in the family. It is clear that this is not the biblical God. His lordship liberates from all human lordship. His slaves may not be slaves of any human master (Lev. 25:42). Those who call God their Father and Christ their Master may call no man either (Matt. 23:9-10). This is because the divine Master himself fulfills his lordship not in domination but in the service of a slave (Phil. 2:6-11). But what kind of freedom is it that the biblical God promotes? According to liberal individualism, highly influential in Western democracies, ‘the only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to attain it’ (John Stuart Mill). Perhaps a definition of the biblical understanding of freedom might be formulated in parallel to Mill’s definition: The only freedom that deserves the name is that of freely pursuing the good of others, not by depriving them of liberty, but by promoting their liberty” (Richard Bauckham, “Freedom in the Bible: Exodus and Service,” GOD AND THE CRISIS OF FREEDOM, p. 20).

Thanks, Retha, for the information and advice. I’ll check that out when I go to the web-building site I’m interested in.

Cheryl,

I’m thinking about starting up a new blog site, and the current discussion has brought this question to mind: If set I it up with a certain title under my name, what measures can you take to keep your enemies from purchasing it as domain names and so frustrate their attempts to ruin your reputation and ministry? Hope this doesn’t interupt the current flow of discussion.

Cheryl,

I didn’t realize how deliberate certain of your opponents have been in their efforts to discredit your ministry and to harm you personally. Though I have been accused of being a heretic at times, and have lost some friends for being an advocate for the equality of men and women in Christ Jesus and the New Covenant Community he established–no one has so fiercely and deliberately persecuted me as you appear to have been.

Yet when people attack you and others who uphold and proclaim that in the New Age inaugurated by the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, in the New Covenant, no one may be barred from full participation in Christian ministry and leadership on the basis of race, ethnicity, social status, or gender–it’s not just you they are attacking, they’re really attacking what the NT itself actually teaches (cf. Acts 2; Gal. 3:26-4:7 and 2 Cor. 5:11-21; Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12:1-25; Eph. 4:7-10; Col. 3:9-17; 1 Pet. 2:4-10 and 4:7-11).

However, as one who has visited your website on several occasions and entered into various discussions with you, I would like go on record to state that you have consistently proven yourself a wise, careful, and thorough student of the Scriptures, committed to the accurate explanation and application of its teaching as a whole. Furthermore, in dealing with difficult commentators who were belligerent and gave you a lot of sauce, you genttly, patiently, and persistently interacted with them, sharing the truth–just as Paul admonished all true ministers of Christ and his Word (cf. 2 Tim. 2:23-26)–proving your true metal as Christ’s representative. So you have nothing to be ashamed of, that I can see.

Continue in what the Lord Jesus has revealed and confirmed to you both by his Word and by his Spirit as being true and essential to the Christian faith and life, and teach and preach only that, according to what you know to be your Spirit-gifting and calling. “Don’t worry about how to respond or what to say. God will give you the right words at the right time. For it is not you who will be speaking–it will be the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (Matt. 10:19-20, NLT). And remember his promise to all who suffer in his service: “God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers. Be happy about it! Be very glad! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted in the same way” (Matt. 5:11-12, NLT).

Well, I’m not sure what John Piper hoped to accomplish by giving this speech, other than confirming the faith of those who already accept the complementarian perversions of what the Scriptures actually teach about the Triune God and his intended purposes for human beings, both male and female, who have been created in his image (Gen. 1:26-28). But I think he has started a firestorm of criticism that he and his complementarian associates never dreamed of stirring up, and if they ignore, do so to their own peril. There are a number of websites, such as CBE’s blog”The Scroll” and CT’s blog “Her.meneutics” that really take to task this poppycock that since “God is masculine” therefore “Christianity must be masculine” in its expression.

Rachel Stone, in the CT article, “John Piper and the Rise of Biblical Masculinity,” made this statement, which pretty much agrees with what Cheryl has expressed in this posting:

As to Piper’s specific claim that “God gave Christianity a masculine feel,” which I personally I take as a kind of whistling in the dark, I join many others in regarding this as patently untrue. Leaving aside Piper’s conviction that churches must be led by males–a concept that some Christian scholars believe to be rooted in the New Testament’s cultural context–none of the eight marks of leadership Piper referenced in his speech could be considered specifically “masculine.” Attributes like bravery in the face of criticism and boldly teaching scriptural doctrines in ways that press forward to wise application in life even when those truths are hard to hear cannot be persuasively put forth as qualities that are masculine rather than feminine.

If you would like to read this excellent article in the full, the link is as follows: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2012/02/john_piper_and_the_rise _of_bib.html

As for Piper’s comment, “God has revealed himself to us in the Bible pervasively as King, not Queen, and as Father, not Mother,” I thought of the following response my former mentor and longtime friend, Dr. Robert K Megregor-Wright, wrote:

The first observation on the claim that God must be masculine because he is never called “Mother” is that it is an argument from silence and is therefore invalid. God is never called a Trinity in the Bible either, but all the essential structural elements of the Trinitarian model can be exegeted from specific passages, and only this model of God includes all the textual material without contradiction or residue. Likewise with the biblical egalitarian model of human nature and relations. The Bible never uses the word “egalitarian” to describe Christlike patterns of human relationships, yet this is the only exegetical construct that logically accounts for all the textual evidence. So the absence of such an expression as “God our Mother,” or anything like it, means nothing except perhaps to signal God’s contempt for the pagan goddesses (“God, Metaphor and Gender: Is the God of the Bible a Male Deity?,” DISCOVERING BIBLICAL EQUALITY, p. 296).

An excellent critique of those who misuse the Scriptures to justify male dominance, and to unjustly “keep women in their proper place,” denying their equal status as members of God’s household and as royal ambassadors of his kingdom. And it also shows, if I may say so, their true ignorance of what the Scriptures actually do teach on this subject.

It amazes me that these people regularly read 1 Cor. 12:1-11 and Eph. 4:11-16, and yet cannot see that the gifting, preparation, and calling of the Spirit of a man or woman for a ministry precedes any formal training and approval by the “institutional church”; that the Holy Spirit chooses, gifts, prepares, and calls a man or woman into ministry in full agreement with both the Father and Son, who also want this man or woman to carry on this ministry; that the real purpose of any valid, useful formal theological training is to improve the knowledge, gifts and skills they already have as Spirit-called ministers of Christ, and not for placement in leadership and ministry for which neither they have been gifted nor called by the Triune God. This is a truth that many Evangelical Protestants, if they once knew it, seem to have forgotten.

Our Evangelical forefathers and foremothers knew, on the basis of 2 Cor 3:6 ([God] has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”), that any preaching and teaching of the Scriptures, apart from Spirit-quickened interpetation that imparted power and comprehension to live out Gospel truth, often led not spiritual health and fruitfulness, but into deadening legalism and barreness. William Law, who was one of many involved in the Great Awakening of the 18th Century, expressed his concern this way:
“Bible scholars are generally looked upon as having a divine knowledge when they are as ready at chapter and verse of Scripture as the learned philosopher is at every page of Plato or Aristotle. On the basis of prescribed religious education, the clergynman is thought to be fully qualified to engage in that ministry for which the apostles had to receive an endument of power from on high. This scholarly worship of the letter has greatly opposed the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and blinded men to the living reality which the gospel holds out to those who believe. The manner in which Greek and Hebrew scholarship is admired and sought after in the church would lead one to believe that a man has all the divine life and reality of a Paul if he can say his epistles by heart…What would be the advantage if he knew this letter in the original Greek, and had thoroughly mastered all the nicieties of grammar and shades of ancient meanings? Such a man, while more thoroughly grounded in the letter [of Scripture], must remain just as empty of the reality of the gospel, unless he knows in his own experience the immediate inspiration and quickening power of the Holy Spirit” (An Affectionate Address to the Clergy, 1761). And one of the leaders of the Great Awakening in New England, Isaac Backus, put it this way:
“One very great means that God has been pleased to make use of from the beginning for the recovery and salvation of lost men, has been the preaching of his Word. And therefore in every age he has called and set apart particular men for that purpose. Jude speaks of ‘Enoch’s prophesying’ (Jude 14), and Noah is called ‘a preacher of righteousness’ (2 Pet. 2:5). And we are told that God ‘at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets’ (Heb. 1:1)…Hence it is a truth allowed by all persuasions (i.e. denominations), that the public preaching of the Word is an ordinance of divine appointment. But then there is a great diversity of sentiments about how men are to be qualified and introduced into this great work. Multitudes place their qualifications more in human learning than in divine enlightenings, and place their authority more in being externally called and set apart by men, than being internally called by the Spirit of God…And the main argument that is commonly brought to prove this is, that the Bible is completed, and the days of inspiration are ceased. Therefore, to hold that any are by the Spirit and the power of God, in our day, called and sent forth into this, this they say is giving heed to new revelations; for it is nowhere expressed in Scripture that this or that one is, or ever will be, called to preach the Gospel. But though I believe with all my heart that the canon of Scripture is full, and that there is a curse against any that shall ‘add to or diminish from it’ (Rev.22:18-19), yet I am far from thinking that it is just to conclude from hence that the Lord does not in these days as really call and direct his servants by his Spirit as he did in olden times; yea, to deny this is to contradict a great part of the Scriptures” (A Discourse on the Nature and Necessity of An Internal Call to Preach the Everlasting Gospe, 1754).

Now, though these men were products of their time and culture, and so may not have been favorable to women preachers or women leading discernment ministries, what they say about the priority of the Spirit’s gifting, preparing and calling men and women to ministry to the formal preparation and approval of the institutional church, in my judgment, applies to the concerns of the present discussion. Neither Law, Backus, or myself mean to deny the necessity or credibility, of a good, solid theological education. After all, I myself have earned a bachelor of divinity degree, a bachelor of liberal arts, and studied for one year at a Reformed Episcopal seminary. Hopefully, it has made me a wiser, more knowledgable, more skillfull worker for God and his kingdom. However, any such education divorced from a true, vital and humble connection with the Holy Spirit is not only dead and useless, but even harmful to both the minister and those he ministers to. For I agree with Law when he states, “When this empty, powerless knowledge of the letter of spiritual truth is held to be the possession of the truth itself, then darkness, delusion, and death overshadow Christendom. For gospel Christianity is in its whole nature a ministration of the Spirit.”

Hello Cheryl. It’s been some time since I last visited your website. Hope you and your family had an enjoyable Christmas, and I pray God’s blessing on your ministry in the coming year. As for this sermon on Eph. 5:21-6:5 by Pastor Johnson, it certainly is one of the more biblically and theologically sound ones I’ve read in a long time. May more ministers see this truth, proclaim it, pray and work for it to be fully realized in the life of their congregations. Amen!

Hello, everyone. Though I’m not sure how far I’ll get tonight before I subcumb to the alluring voice of the bed monster, I’ll pickup from where I left off, and answer some of your questions as best as I can.

1. Pinklight: I am glad that we agree on 13:1 and that the Lord Jesus is not a “mere” member of his own Body and, as you put it, we are “all collectively” the Body of Christ. Now as to your questions.
   a. “In this analogy Paul provides in 1 Cor 12, who, as a particular member, acts as head of Christ’s body?” Strictly speaking, no one, man or woman, can or should. For Christ alone, as the One in whom the Body finds its source of life, wisdom and power; the One in whom the Church finds its organizing principle and purpose; the One, who through the Holy Spirit, gifts and equips his Body to carry on his ministry of reconciling an alienated and lost humanity; he alone is the Head of the Body and should be acknowledged as such. “Christ existed before all things, and in union with him all things have their proper place. He is the head of his body, the church; he is the source of the body’s life. He is the first-born Son, who was raised from death, in order that he alone might have the first place in all things” (Col. 1:17-18, TEV).
   b. “And when I read that ‘”The head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!”‘ I wonder? Would that be something Paul would even imply Christ would say?” Very good question! Made me take a closer at 12:14-21 in the context of 1 Corinthians as a whole; and I agree that “head” in 12:21 is not a direct reference to Christ himself; rather I see it now as a rebuke to certain people, who see themselves as self-sufficient and independent of the other members who they see as their inferiors; maybe even presuming to be the “head” of the house churches in Corinth. And so some of my previous comments regarding the head, eye and hand can be disregarded since they really are not connected with Paul’s intent in 12:21.

Alas, my friends. I can no longer resist the call of the bed monster. A good night to you all, and God’s grace, peace and mercy be with you all. Amen.

It was certainly not my intention to cause confusion. And I’m sorry if I took us all down a bunny trail, away from the things Cheryl wanted to share with us on this task. And I won’t be able to answer all your questions tonight. So let me begin with those things in 1 Corinthians 12 I think we can agree on, then go on either to correct some of my previous comments, or further clarify them as need be.

1. I think we would agree that Chapter 12 begins with Paul’s instruction of the erring Corinthians as to the true nature and purpose of the various gifts given by the Holy Spirit (vv.1-11), followed by his analogy of the human body with the Body of Christ (vv.12-26), and then after giving an exemplary list of gifted people who form the Body of Christ (vv.27-28), Paul concludes with an appeal that his readers to “earnestly desire the most helpful gifts” (1 Cor 12:31, NLT).

2. In the head-body analogy Paul is making here, the focus is on both the unity and diversity of the body parts and on their interdependency for healthy growth and productive activity together. But it is still an analogy between the human body and the Body of Christ. So even though not specifically mentioned in this text, the implication of this text is, as I see it, this: That just as without its head or source of life, wisdom and power, the human could not function or continue to live, even so the Body of Christ, were it separate from the Lord Jesus Christ, who is its head or source of life, wisdom and power–it could not function or live fully either. I think we would all agree on this, yes?

3. Though there are some similarities to the analogy Paul makes in 1 Cor 11:3-16 and the analogy he makes here in 12:12-26, in terms of diversity and interdependency, true. But it’s the differences that show they are not identical, and are not to be confused with each other. To put it plainly, Paul, in 1 Cor 11:3-16, does not speak of man as the head of woman and God as the head of Christ in terms of “the head and body.” Though he does seem to make such an analogy in Eph. 5:21-33 (which has been discussed elsewhere on this blog), Paul does not do so here in 1 Corinthians.

Well, it’s midnight and I must rise early for work. So I’ll try finish up my reply tomorrow night. God bless and keep you all in his favor. Amen.

Hi Craig,
I was mainly thinking in terms of the Greek anthropology current in Paul’s day, in which the head (kephale) had precedence over the other members of the human body because it was the seat of reason, and so gave direction and purpose to the other members. As for heart (kardia), when used metaphorically of humans, it denotes the center of our intellectual, moral and spiritual life; our inner self; or , if you prefer, our ego, or true person. It’s been a while since I did any thorough study of these terms in the Hebrew and Greek, so if I am in error, I’m sure Cheryl can set us all straight.

But I certainly don’t understand kephale, as hierarchists do, to mean only “authority over,” nor was I seeking to validate their view of hierarchy of authority in the Church. However, if the head, as the Greek philosophers believed and taught, is the seat of reason and gives direction and purpose to the rest of the human body, I don’t believe my understanding of Paul’s head and body analogy is too far off base.

Hi, Cheryl. Glad to hear the Lord has brought stability back into your life and ministry. I haven’t stopped by and chatted with you all for awhile. I’ve been busy with my work as an audit support consultant, plus I just completed a 48 page booklet, Egalitarians and the Bible: An Exposition and Defense of the Egalitarian View of Scriptural Inspiration, Authority and Intepretation–which I have sent off to CBE for consideration as resource material. If I may say so, I think it a good little piece of work, and I think people would find helpful and useful. But the Lord’s will be done as far as its being published and distributed.
Having studied 1 Cor 12 myself, and in no way disagreeing with Cheryl, the only observation I would make on the current topic being discussed is this: We know from the context that Paul’s emphasis is not only on the unity and diversity of the members of the Body of Christ; but also on the parts being rightly related to Christ and one another, so that the Body works together in love and harmoniously accomplishes what the Head desires to accomplish through His Body. Now it seems to me that a clear implication of 12:21 is that the relatioship between the head, eye and hand is that while both eye and hand respond to the Head’s desire to carry out some action, though each has a separate function, yet the relationship between the eye and hand is one of cooperation and interdependency. The eye guides and aids the hand in doing the work the Head desires, but only the Head has the right to tell the hand to begin or to stop. The place of the eye is never to usurp the rule of the Head, but only to guide and aid the hand. And an eye that cannot or will not properly relate to the Head and hand is a diseased eye. Something to think about.

Hi, Cheryl. It’s been a while since I last visited your site. Sorry to learn about your trials and tribulations with the robbery and the various changes occurring in connection with your ministry. I will remember you in my prayers.

Quite a lively discussion on 1 Tim. 2:15! And there is not much I would add. Just these brief comments and observations:
1. I forget where he made the comment, but Mark said something about Paul being the only one in the NT who taught the doctrine of justification. It would be more correct to say he more fully developed this doctrine; for Jesus, in seminal form, taught it in Luke 18:9-14. However, I agree with Ralph Martin and N.T. Wright that the heart of Paul’s theology and gospel preaching is the concept of “reconciliation”–“God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19)–a vast and cosmic redemption by Christ, of which justification is one small, though important element. So I do not agree with those who reduce the heart of the Gospel to justification alone. There is much more to the Gospel than that.
2. As for Mark’s concerns regarding the Greek word “zozo,” it must be admitted that it has a rather large semantic range in meaning, which is determined by its context. The core meaning of the word, according to The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, is “rescue from some life threatening danger” (p.540). So in some contexts it refers only to deliverance from some physical threat to God’s servants (e.g., Acts 27:20, 31), or from the danger and suffering Jesus predicted that would occur during the future tribulation (e.g., Mt. 24:13, 22). But in other contexts, it refers to God’s action in Christ to deliver us from the power of sin, death and Satan, “which drain life on earth of it joy and threaten each person with eternal loss” (EDBW, p. 541) Therefore, both grammar and context must be adequately addressed by an interpretation if it is to be considered a valid and satisfactory explanation of this text. Now, it might be true that Cheryl’s interpretation is flawless; but it has a far better fit than what is proposed by Mark.
3. Regarding Mark’s comments on biblical hermeneutics, I would again point out that not only do the majority of biblical interpreters agree that all doctrine must be understood and applied in the light of what the Bible, as a whole, teaches on these issues, but the clearer portions of Scripture are to be given greater weight than those that are less clear. Consequently, it is clear from the rest of the NT that Paul was an advocate of women, honoring them as co-workers in evangelism, discipleship and church planting, such as Junia the Apostle in Rom 16:7, and in Phil. 4:2-3, Euodia and Syntche; that he not only encouraged men and women to pray and prophesy together in congregational worship (1 Cor 11-14), but himself also listened to the proclamation of God’s word by Philip’s daughters who were prophets and carried on a continuing prophetic ministry (Acts 21:7-9)–this all ought make us aware that 1 Tim. 2:11-15, which Mark essentially admits is obscure and difficult, is exceptional and circumstantial in nature, and should not be allowed to negate the signficance of Paul’s overall teaching and practice that our role in ministry and leadership is determined on the basis of our maturity, gifting and calling–not on the basis of our race, nationality or gender.

There is so much in this declaration by the Freedom for Christian Women that is so true and right on, I could not help but be moved by it. Though I do agree with Radiance that it would have been good if FCW had gotten other groups, with significant male membership, to join them, confirming this to be, not a “feminist ranting,” but a clear prophetic call to erring Christians to return to a truer and deeper knowledge of the Gospel Faith they profess to affirm and guard. And perhaps such a coming together of like-minded Christians, we can pray for, hope for and encourage?

And when I refer to a prophetic call to confront erring Christians who are blind to their departure from Christ and his Word, calling them back to a truer and deeper knowledge and practice of the Gospel Faith, I have in mind what Timothy Keller wrote in THE REASON FOR GOD regarding Martin Luther King Jr and the Civil rights movement:

David L. Chappell demonstrates that it was not a political but primarily religious and spiritual movment. White Northern liberals who were allies of the African-American civil rights leaders were not proponents of civil disobedience or of a direct attack on segregation. Because of their secular belief in the goodness of human nature, they thought that education and enlightenment would bring inevitable social and racial progress. Chappell argues that black leaders were much more rooted in the Biblical understanding of the sinfulness of the human heart and in the denunciation of injustice that they read in the Hebrew prophets. Chappell also shows how it was the vibrant faith of rank-and-file African-Americans that empowered them to insist on justice despite violent opposition to their demands. Thus Chappell says there is no way to understand what happened until you see the Civil Rghts movement as a religious revival. When Martin Luther King, Jr. confronted racism in the white church in the South, he did not call on Southern churches to become more secular. Read his sermons and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and see how he argued. He invoked God’s moral law and Scripture. He called white Christians to be more true to their own beliefs and to realize what the Bible teaches. He did not say, “Truth is relative and everyone is free to determine what is right or wrong for them.” If truth is relative, there would have been no incentive for white people in the South to give up their power. Rather, Dr. King invoked the Prophet Amos, who said, “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream” (Amos 5:24). The greatest champion of justice in our era knew the antidote to racism was not less Christianity, but a deeper and truer Christianity (pp.64-65).

In our struggle to win our erring brothers and sisters back to what the New Testament really teaches about the true unity and equality of men and women in Christ; of our mutual support and partnership in Christian ministry, based on the gifting and calling of the Spirit; of our having equal Kingdom privileges and responsibilities to rule and reign with Christ because we are all citizens of heaven and God’s royal heirs, as Paul teaches in Galatians, Romans and Ephesians; we must do so in the power Spirit, using rigorous, tough-minded argumentation that exposes the false and shallow foundation on which their view rests, while at the same time showing them love and compassion and expressing a true desire for reconciliation. And here again, Dr. King and his followers give us a Biblical model to follow.

I sometimes wonder if hierarchical complementarians read the same Bible that I do. I wonder how it is that they can read passages like Romans 16:1, 7, and 12 and Phil. 4:2-3, and then. in the further light given on these and other Pauline texts by modern scholarship, continue to deny that men and women–most often married couples like Andronicus and Julia, and Aquila and Priscilla– not only engaged in church-planting ministries together, but also shared in the tasks of evangelism and discipling new believers. Do they really believe what Paul said, when he said of Euodia and Syntyche that they were women who “contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers” (Phil. 4:2-3, TNIV)?

And as for the gifting and calling of God, where does it clearly and unequivocally say in any of the four passages on this subject: Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12-14; Eph. 4:7-16; and 1 Pet. 4:7-11 (the text being discussed–where does it say that any gifting or calling of the Holy Spirit is gender specific? Nowhere. This idea of gender specific giftings and callings, contra John MacArthur is something that hierarchical complementarians read back into these texts, on the basis of their misinterpretation and misapplication of 1 Cor. 14:33-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-18.

Furthermore, for the text we are discussing, 1 Pet. 4:10-11, there is an eschatological context as well, a context that makes common watchfulness, prayer, and “mutual ministries” even more necessary. It is part of an exhortation, which Peter opens up with the statement, “The end of things is near. Therefore, be alert and sober minded so you can pray…love each other…offer hospitality…Use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards…, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ.” This is an exhortation to all believers to use their gifts, as well as to offer up both their prayers and homes, to provide for the common good of all Christians in the hard times to come. Now, will our hierarchical friends please explain how they can parcell out any element of this exhortation on the basis of gender? They certainly can’t do it on the basis of what Peter himself says here.

I’m sure Cheryl and others will agree with me, that it was the logical fallacies and moral conondrums of complementarianism that led us to give up that understanding of Scripture and become egalitarians. For example, consider what the Apostle John wrote:

“So you must remain faithful to what you have been taught from the beginning. If you do, you will remain in fellowship with the Son and with the Father. And in this fellowship we enjoy the eternal life Jesus promised us. I am writing these things to warn you about those who want to lead you astray. But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives with in you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know and what he teaches is true–it is not a lie. So as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ” (1 John 2:24-27, NLT).

In the context of this passage, there were false teachers claiming new revelations from the Spirit, which offered a superior relationship with God to that offered in the Gospel that John had “taught them from the beginning.” And he is warning his spiritual children, both women and men, against those who want to lead them astray. Yet, while he does not deny that either men or women can profit from good teaching from himself or others, he reminds them that they are not dependent solely on any human teacher to enable them to discern truth from falsehood, nor to keep them from being led astray. Why? Because the Lord Jesus himself gave all Christians the gift of the Holy Spirit as our Teacher and Guide, who “teaches us everything we need to know” to abide in that fellowship with Christ that is eternal life itself, and the Spirit never teaches us nor leads us to ever believe anything that is false and contrary to the Word of Christ and of God.

Now when someone says a person is more susceptible to deception because of either their race, social status, or gender–consider how slanderous and even blasphemous such talk is! First, it indicates that the Lord Jesus is foolish enough to believe that the Spirit alone can be trusted to equally teach and lead each disciple in the way that both he and the Father wish them to go. Secondly, it implies that either the Spirit is incompetent in the counseling and instruction of believers in discerning, with the aid of Scripture, between good and evil; that somehow he needs the aid of a more competent human teacher to accomplish his work. Thirdly, it implies that in certain cases, based on what I will call “prejudiced criteria,’ the spirit of deception has a greater power and ability to lead a person astray than the Spirit of truth has to lead them in God’s way? It boggles the mind that any Christian would even entertain such thinking. But these are some of the absurd, but logical conclusions I perceived in complementarianism which led me to give it up.

Grant and Cheryl, I didn’t know what to make of kw’s “comments,” but I think your responses were appropriate, and so I won’t say any more about it. However, Grant, I think you need to understand where some of us are coming from, and why our response to hierarchical complementarians appears to be so, well, firm and uncompromising.

Many of us were at one time of that same persuasion ourselves, you know. Yet when someone challenged us, on the basis of Acts 2, 1 Cor 12-14, 2 Cor 5:11-21, and Gal 3:26-4:7 to carefully examine and rethink our position, because we cared about the truth, justice, righteousness and shalom of Christ’s present and coming kingdom, which is to be expressed in our individual and corporate lives as both citizens and representatives of his kingdom–because of this commitment, we investigated the inspired and authoritative Word of God, using the historical-cultural-grammatical method of interpretation, to see if our egalitarian friend’s challenge held any water. And lo and behold, the Spirit of truth revealed to us, through those same Scriptures, that our friends were right and we were wrong!

But what happened when we told other complementarians how we came to know the truth? They accused us of abandoning the inspiration and authority of Scripture, and of capitulating to a godless, secular and Scripture-twisting philosophy! And when we tried to reason with them from Scripture, we found that they were closed minded–unwilling to consider that the traditional inteprepretation might be wrong and demanding that we turn away from our error and folly.

Now, I don’t know much about Mr Duncan or his writings. But I do know John Piper and R.C. Sproul, whose writings on Christ’s atonement and the Attributes of God I have read with profit. And on most other issues, I would consider them orthodox. But as regards their teaching on the hierarchical relationships existing not only between men and women, but also those between the Three Persons of the Trinity–from my studies of Scripture, theology and Christian history, I would have to say they have become heterodox.

So as one trained to be a teacher, preacher and defender of the Gospel Faith, I am going to speak out against them on those points where I am convinced they have departed from orthodox Christianity, and I will make no apology for doing so. Now, Grant, you may still disagree with me about these issues, but I hope you understand why some of Mr. Duncan’s comments come across as insults and attacks against our intellectual, moral and spiritual integrity, to which we do not take very kindly.

Well, Cheryl, I’m glad I was able to share something that was significant and helpful on addressing this topic. Though, in transferring my comments from a MS Word document, the format of my paragraphs got skewed a bit. Still, I am glad it was readable and useful, despite that little glitch.

And there was so much more that I would like to have said about these people who are preaching a different gospel other than the one that was preached by Christ and the Apostles. Which means, of course, that it is not truly “the good news” of the new life and freedom through union with Christ that we find in Galatians. For it denies that all of Abraham’s family, both sons and daughters, are to have their full inheritance rights as those who, with Christ, will possess and reign over the earth–which is a key element of the covenantal promises God gave to Abraham (cf. Gen. 17:3-7 with Gal. 3:26-4:7 and Rom. 4:13-18).

However, with learning necessary skills for my new job as audit support consultant, working on a third Trinity essay, and preparing a study on 1st John, I find my time to prepare comments a bit more limited than I would like. Nevertheless, whenever it comes to contending for the Gospel Faith against those who seek to pervert it for their own self-serving agendas, I will make an effort to do so.

The Unadjusted Gospel, or the Paganized Gospel?
Once again, our hierarchicalist friends show their true colors by not only defaming and misrepresenting those who disagree with them, but also by engaging in a distorted and misleading revisionism of both of the history of biblical intrepreation, of Christian theology, and of the Gospel of Christ itself. Cheryl Schatz and other egalitarian scholars have given full and satisfactory answer to the various, absurd assertions being made by the leaders of this T4G2010 Conference, so I don’t intend to outdo their excellent and well-written articles and essays on these matters. But I cannot help but point out that the so-called “Unadjusted Gospel,” as regards its teaching on the relations both between men and women and between the Persons of the Trinity, is actually a “Paganized Gospel,” resting on the concept of the Chain of Being that was at the heart of the pagan Greek solution to the question, “Is reality utimately a unity or a diversity?”

Now this pagan Greek answer involves a hierarchy of being, contrary to the Creator-creature distinction of the Bible, where the most Superior and Perfect Being is at the top. And every being derived from this Being, as we travel down the chain, becomes progressively imperfect and inferior, until we reach the level of non-being. Unfortunately, as every student of philosophy and theology knows, it was through former Neo-Platonists, such as Origen, who in their understanding of both God and the created order, mixed this pagan concept with the Christian Faith. Dr. Alan Myatt, a long time friend, in a recent ETS paper criticizing the hierarchicalists position on the relationships existing between both the members of humanity and the Trinity, made this perceptive and revealing criticism:

The similarity of the notion of a chain of command of authority in the Trinity and in male-female relations to the non-Christian theory of the Great Chain of Being is no coincidence. Such notions originally were derived from the infusion of the Chain of Being philosophy into
Christian thought, which formed the presuppositional lens through which ancient, medieval and early modern Christians read their Bibles. The ontology of hierarchy is derived from this presupposition, a metaphysic at odds with the Christian doctrine of creation and the notion of the self-contained Triune God as presented in Scripture. It places the value and limits the function
of things according to their position in the hierarchy of Being. Current attempts to define the Trinity as an eternal hierarchy of authority and submission may be understood, then, as examples
of reading the Great Chain of Being back into the biblical text. The motive for this seems to be the preservation of an understanding of male-female role relations in the home and church that is also structured around the Chain of Being concept. It should be noted that this hierarchical understanding of these relations, indeed of the universe itself, is virtually ubiquitous in non-Christian, pagan thought throughout the world, both ancient and modern. Ancient mystery religions of the near east, as well as Hindu pantheism among others, show this tendency to structure the universe in a hierarchy of Being, with rigid social structures. In its more pure forms, unimpeded by any biblical influence, the tendency is for some type of cosmic evolution through which humans eventually become divine. One common factor is a hierarchy of divinities and a hierarchy of male over female. Patriarchy has been so universal in human society that it could be said to be the default mode of human existence (Cf. On the Compatibility of Ontological Equality, Hierarchy, and Functional Distinctions, p. 10).

Furthermore, our understanding of the unity and coequality of men and women in Christ, contrary to what is often charged against, is rooted both in Scripture and in the true renewal and transformation of the Church’s intellectual, moral, and socio-political life by the Holy Spirit himself. Again, as Dr. Myatt points out:

While complementarians persist in accusing egalitarians of yielding to the pressure of non-Christian culture in their handling of Scripture, it appears that just the opposite is true. If hierarchicalism is the fruit of a non-Christian world view, as I have contended, this has important implications. Traditional hierarchical biblical interpretation has been filtered through the lens of a cultural vision of human relations compromised by the absorption of a pagan world view grounded in the Great Chain of Being. This effectively blinded it to the egalitarian implications of the biblical text. Contrary to being a capitulation to culture, the egalitarian impulse is a historical development running against the tide of
these assumptions, that surfaced in Britain and America as the implications of Reformation theology began to saturate
the culture in the wake of the Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th centuries.38 It came into full bloom among evangelicals in the abolition and suffrage movements of the 19th century. Under pressure from egalitarian readings of Scripture, the hierarchical vision has been in a steady retreat ever since. The Bible’s teachings of the ontological equality of all persons has done away with the rule of kings in favor or democracy, the enslavement of Africans in favor of equal civil rights for all races, and the political and social subordination of women in favor of suffrage and the rights to education and a career (Ibid, p.11).

And so instead of teaching the Liberating Gospel of Christ, which Paul sets forth before us in Gal 3-5, where the people of God serve on the basis of their maturity, Spirit-giftedness and calling–these self-appointed “super champions of the faith” are teaching a different and harmful message, which focuses on the pagan chain of being, understood in terms of gender and gender-specific rules. For these particular teachers and those inclined to follow them, Paul’s rebuke is most appropriate: “I promised you as a pure bride to one husband-Christ. But I fear that somehow your pure and undivided devotion to Christ will be corrupted, just as Eve was deceived by the cunning ways of the Serpent. You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preached, or a different kiind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed” (2 Cor. 11:2-4, NLT).

Well, Cheryl, I can’t speak for other men. But I have to admit that, at least once or twice, despite my training to think logically and analytically, “through the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming,” I was duped. And also led astray to accept accusations regarding people and organizations, that after I really stopped to think about it and did a little research, found I’d been conned into buying a false bill of goods. But when you blindly trust a speaker, whether due to their credentials or reputation, and turn off the “critical analysis” switch in your mind, then you are more apt to be taken in by those “people [who] try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth” (Eph. 4:14, NLT). And being male, I will testify, does not in and of itself make you immune to the wiles of a clever and crafty con-artist.

And as for the idiotic statement that ““Women are less prone than men to see the importance of doctrinal formulations, especially when it comes to the issue of identifying heresy and making a stand for the truth.” Well, I think anyone familiar with either Cheryl’s ministry to people trapped in the cults, or her exposure of the serious errors connected with the Eternal Subordination of the Son heresy being promoted by Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware, will agree that at least here is one woman who both sees the importance of doctrinal formulations and of making a stand for the truth.

But then, she is not alone. There are many more bright, trained and committed women, who along with their Christian brothers, are contending for the true Gospel Faith, as Paul urged: “Above all, you must live as citizens of heaven, conducting yourselves in a manner worthy about the Good News about Christ. Then, whether I come and see you again or only hear about you, I will know that you are standing together with one spirit and purpose, fighting together for the faith, which is the Good News” (Phil 1:27, NLT).

And as for developing and promoting heresy, who is it that has revived a form of unitarian subordinationism (Neo-Arianism) where the Father is taught to be greater and superior to the Son? Who is it that has defined the divine Father/Son relationship in terms of a limited understanding of the human father/son relationship, and then arbitrarily applied it to the man/woman relationship? Who is it, while claiming to be champions of the Reformed Faith, that at the same time have ignored the strong anti-subordinationism of John Calvin, Benjamin B. Warfield, James R. White, etc.,–who taught that the “roles” of the Three Persons in redemption was not due to a hierarchical ranking within the Triune God, but to the mutual consensus they reached among themselves in what Reformed theologians designate as “the Covenant of Redemption”?

Well, certainly not any egalitarian man or woman I know. But we do know those non-egalitarians who do hold and promote ESS. And so I close my comment on those who think themselves less prone to deception and self-delusion to consider these words by my friend and mentor, Dr. Robert K. McGregor-Wright: “The error of Subordinationism was long ago declared a heresy by historic Christianity in Church Councils, and the result is summarized in the “Athanasian” Creed in Articles 25-26. The argument for the eternal subordination of the Son and the Spirit is only plausible by abandoning the orthodox distinction between the Ontological Trinity (as it was in Eternity before creation) and the Economic Trinity (as it is viewed during the drama of redemption in time). To blend time and eternity is a philosophic disaster for Christian theology, and leads to pantheism in which the world and God are part of the One Ultimate. The appeal to the eternal subordination of the Persons in the Trinity is probably the most dangerous heresy to reappear in many years, and it will decimate the Evangelical movement. There can be no compromise with it. It just goes to show how far redeemed sinners will go to protect their male supremacy.”

I wonder what Jude would think of this poppycock and falderol!? You may remember that he wrote a little tract, calling all Christians to contend for the Gospel Faith when it’s being perverted by heretics. “I am writing to all who have been called by God the Father, who loves you and keeps you safe in the care of Jesus Christ…Dear friends, I had been eagerly planning to write to you about the salvation we all share. But now I find that I must write about something else, urging you to defend the faith that God has entrusted once for all time to his holy people” (Jude 1, 3-4). Jude may have expected the leaders to teach the people healthy doctrine, but he expected everyone to know the Faith so well that when they heard someone teaching heresy, they not only could recognize it but also refute it. And he also urges the entire Christian community to “build each other up in your most holy faith” vs 20. Doesn’t seem he held the view that Christians in general, nor women in particular, were incapable of learning and defending Christian truth.

Cheryl,
There are a number of problems with the complementarian interpretation of Gen 1-3 that you and the others have pointed out. In the comments and observations that follow, I am expressing some ideas suggested by a sudden flash of insight I had from what you said about the prophetic/typological significance of these chapters. But don’t take anything I say without measuring it by the Scripture, because I could be wrong. Here we go:
1. Let’s consider the first in terms of what you earlier referred to as “prophetic naming.” In their discussion of Gen 3, the complementarians never seem to see or discuss the possible “prophetic” connection between 3:15, 20-21; 4:1; and Gal. 4:4-7. God declares that “the seed of the woman” will be the one who defeats Satan, redeeming humanity and bringing them back into a new life of restored fellowship with God, 3:15. Adam, by faith claims the promise, and to encourage his wife, gives her a name that indicates she is, not the mother of the doomed, but of those who live because of the Deliverer who come through her Eve, “mother of all who are to live.” And then Eve, also believing the promise will be fulfilled, in 4:1, when she says she given birth to a son “with the LORD’s help,” seems to believe her first born son is the fulfilment of the promised Seed. However, as Paul tells us in Gal. 4:4-7, it was at God’s appointed time when the Seed of the woman, who is also the Seed of Abraham, came and fulfilled the promise of redemption and reconciliation to which Adam and Eve, by faith, looked forward to and received, as signified by the God’s provision of a sacrifice, the animal skins with which they were covered being a sign or symbol of the righteousness with which we are covered when we appropriated, by faith, the redemption and reconcilation we are offered through Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. In this light, I think the complementarians miss the prophetic/typological significance of this story, in terms of Christ as the promised and long awaited Seed of the woman.

2. Paul tells us in Eph. 5 that before the fall, the “marital” relationship Adam and Eve (before the Fall I would argue) is both typological and prophetic of Christ and His Church. And here, I will let Jon Zens, who expresses it better than I can, how the complementarin interpetation destroys the typological/prophetic significance of Gen 2 (Cf. ST: A Review of John Piper’s WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?):

What burdens me as I listen to the contemporary rhetoric surrounding the issue of marriage and the roles of husbands and wives is that the typological nature of marriage is minimized or omitted. This arises because most believe that marriage is fundamentally an institution or creation ordinance started in the Garden of Eden. Yet it seems quite clear that earthly marriage is a type – a picture of Christ and his bride, the ekklesia (Eph.5:31-32). So to talk about marriage as isolated from the typology of Jesus and his church is to miss a Christ-centered perspective. Marriage is given real meaning and significance only when it is vitally connected to its purpose as an earthly picture of Christ and his people. We must not sever what God has joined together. Consider these beautiful parallels:

** Before the fall into sin, “Adam” as the first human being was looked upon by the Lord as “male and female.” Gen.5:2 makes the astounding, but crystal clear observation that “When God created Adam he made this one in the image of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Adam when they were created.” Adam looked like one person, but he was actually a plurality — he had a woman within his body. “He named them [plural] Adam [singular].”
The Lord Jesus is called “the last Adam” (1 Cor.15:45). He looked like one person, but he, too, had a bride in his side. He came to purchase the ekklesia of God with his own blood (Acts 20:28). The unity between Christ and his people is so deep that to touch his flock is to touch the Savior himself – “why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4).

** Adam was put to sleep in order that his wife might be created. “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept.” Adam was completely passive in the creation of his wife. Likewise, Christ was put to sleep in order that his wife might be created. She could not become his bride without being saved from her sins. Her redemption required that Christ be put to the sleep of death as her substitute. Christ’s death was a part of his passive obedience to God. He took upon himself the death His bride deserved.

** Adam’s side was opened, and his wife was made from that which was removed. “And [God] took one of [Adam’s] ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the place from which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman.”

Likewise, Christ underwent an opening of his side and from what came forth redeemed his wife. “But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.” The church of God was redeemed with this blood, and birthed through this water.

Interestingly, Eve is pulled from the “side” of Adam. The Hebrew for “side” is tsela and the Greek is pleura. When Jesus died it was his “side” (pleura) that was pierced with a spear, and from that redemptive act the church is, as it were, pulled forth as a new Eve (cf. John 19:34; 20:20,25,27).

** Adam was married to his wife: “and [God] brought her to the man. And Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman [Hebrew, Ish-shah], because she was taken out of Man [Hebrew, Ish].’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

Likewise, Christ is married to his wife. As Eve was united to Adam in the most intimate of physical relationships, so is the church united to Christ in the most intimate of spiritual relationships. Adam and Eve were united into “one flesh.” Christ and his church are united into “one body.” She is therefore called “the church which is His body” (1 Cor.12). And as God designed the union of husband and wife to last a lifetime, so the union of Christ and his church will last forever. Nothing will ever separate the bride from the love of the heavenly Bridegroom. ** We discover another parallel in this: as a man leaves his father and mother in marriage on earth so he can cleave to his wife, so Christ left his Father in heaven to come to earth, redeem his people through his death, burial and resurrection, and so cleave to his Bride forever.

From a biblical perspective, specifically in God’s promise in Genesis 3:15, it can be said that the whole unfolding of human history is ultimately about the coming of Jesus the heavenly Groom who secured the forgiveness of sins and the fellowship of his Bride — folks from every people group on earth, a people so great in number that no one can count them. We are given, by the apostle John in the Book of Revelation, these glorious descriptions of the end of history:

For the wedding of the Lamb has come and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear . . . .I saw the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband . . . .Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb . . . . The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come!” And let the person who hears say, “Come.” Those who are thirsty, let them come; and those who are willing, let them take the free gift of the water of life (Cf., Donald Joy, Bonding: Relationships in the Image of God, Evangel Publishing House, 1999, pp.19-29; Daniel Parks, “Christ Typified in the First Marriage, Gen.2:18,21-24,” http://www.sovereigngraceofgod.com/parks.htm).
Once we begin to see marriage as an earthly pointer to the ultimate marriage of the Lamb with his bride, it puts the issues dealt with in What’s the Difference? in a completely new light. The emphasis in Genesis 1-2 is not on differentiated roles but on a one-flesh partnership. The issue is not “Who’s in charge?” but “How can we in our relationship enhance our love and service to God?” It’s not about the “creation ordinance” of marriage. It’s about a passionate relationship – “she is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!” This is ultimately Christ’s proclamation to his ekklesia.

Connecting human marriage to Christ and the church also opens the door for understanding the crux issue in sexual sins. People tend to look at sexual sin as a violation of God’s will – and it is. But the most fundamental problem with sexual deviations is that they mar, violate and contradict in various ways the beauty and purity of Jesus’ relationship with his Bride, the ekklesia. Adultery, same-sex relationships, fornication, promiscuity, bestiality, rape, using women/ children/men in the sex industry, female circumcision, etc., are all destructive perversions of “the beginning” when God created them male and female, and of “the fullness of time” when Christ came to gather a Bride from all the nations.

Without sin, Adam and Eve were fully naked and had no shame. “There is now no condemnation to those in Christ” (Rom.8:1). Sexual sins that twist the image of Christ and his Body practice all kinds of nakedness attended with the fullness of shame. They ruin and disfigure the wonder of Christ and his ekklesia becoming “one flesh.”

Ephesians 5:21-33

With this “profound mystery” as a backdrop, we better understand Paul’s words to husbands and wives in Eph.5:22-33. In Eph.5:18 the apostle gives an imperative to be “filled with the Spirit,” and five participles follow showing the fruit of such a life. Verse 21 sets forth the fifth evidence of the Spirit-filled community, “submitting yourselves to one another out of reverence to Christ.” Here we see a mutual submission among all the parts of the body. This is the setting for the specific relationships that follow, beginning with husbands and wives.

Verse 22 has no verb. It reads literally, “wives to your own husbands as to the Lord.” Then why do most English translations read, “wives submit to your own husbands…”? Because they have correctly inferred that submission is implied. In the English language a sentence is not complete without a verb. In the Greek, a sentence may be complete without a verb, but in such cases, the action is assumed to continue from the preceding sentence. The verb in verse 21 is “submit.” The assumed verb in verse 22, therefore, should also be “submit.”

But that’s not the whole story. Since verse 22 was written in such a way as to make it deliberately dependent on verse 21 for its action verb, it is also appropriate to assume a continuation of any previously established qualifiers to that action. In verse 21, the act of submitting is not a one-way street, but mutual – “to one another.” If Paul did not intend for that same spirit of mutuality to be assumed in the submission implied in verse 22, he would have supplied a new verb and structured the sentence differently. Even though Paul’s focus in verse 22 is on “wives,” therefore, there is no justification for stripping the implied “submit” supplied by the translators of its previously established mutuality. A wife should indeed voluntarily “submit” to her husband. But that does not cancel out her husband’s responsibility to just as willingly submit to his wife. Indeed, husbands and wives should “submit to one another.”

It should be clear, therefore, that Paul’s motivation for instructing believing wives to submit to their husbands was not to establish a hierarchy in the marriage relationship – nor in any other relationship between believers. It is the unique, “one another” quality of life within the body of Christ that is its most essential characteristic. Just as elders (pastors) have no inherent right to lord it over those whom they shepherd (cf. 1 Pet. 5:3), husbands have no inherent right to lord it over their wives. In Christ, earthly marriage is an equal partnership, with both husbands and wives willingly submitting to one another as unto Christ. Paul’s only reason for underscoring the wives’ need for submission to her husband is because her role in marriage, as the following verses so beautifully reveal, is to be an earthly reflection of Christ’s bride, the church. And in the “oneness” of that relationship, there is neither male nor female, “for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

Because of church teachings, personal leanings and cultural practices, words like “submission” and “authority” are laden with potential misunderstandings. Dennis J. Preato reminds us that we need to think things through a little more carefully:

The Greek word, hupotasso, is often translated as “submitting to” or “being subject” in Ephesians 5:22. However this Greek word has more than one use and a range of meaning that is quite different from what people today generally think. “Hupotasso” actually has two uses: military and non-military. The military has a connotation of being “subject to” or “to obey” as if you are under someone’s command. Most people would probably think of this meaning. However the non-military use means “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden” (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon #5293). In ancient papyri the word hupotasso commonly meant to “support,” “append,” or “uphold” (Ann Nyland, “Papyri, Women, and Word Meaning in the New Testament,” Priscilla Papers, 17:4 (Fall, 2003), p.6) . . . . [W]hy would Scripture need to command Christians to be filled with the Spirit in order to be subject to, follow orders, or be under someone’s authority? A person does not need to be filled with Spirit to follow orders, for even nonbelievers demonstrate this fact when they “submit,” or obey their superiors (“Empirical Data in Support of Egalitarian Marriages & A Fresh Perspective on Submission & Authority,” Presented at the Evangelical Theological Society, April 23, 2004).

And since John said to pass on copies of this review, I don’t think he would mind this short quote being shared; it just seems so appropriate to what we’re discussing.

Cheryl,

Does Chris, er “NeoPatriarch,” mean literally “Evidence based on presumptions”? Or did he perhaps mean to say, “Evidence based on our presuppositions”? Either way, for someone who claims to be Reformed in his theology and apologetics, Chris reveals his ignorance of Cornelius Van Til, a Reformed apologist. Van Til once wrote that our presuppositions are like the settings on a skill-saw. If the settings are wrong, no matter how hard you try, you’ll never cut a straight piece of lumber. Likewise, if our underlying presuppositions are incorrect or false, we’ll never cut our way through a straight interpretation of Scripture, theology, whatever. We’ll always have a crooked and useless interpretation.

Greg,
I know you meant to tell a joke and to be funny. But I would testify that the various ways in which patriarchy brutalizes and desensitizes men towards not only towards women, but also towards other men, is no laughing matter. I think the mortal wounding of a woman’s or man’s soul “To keep white trash, negroes, and uppity women in their place” (as the old slogan goes), is far more deadly and terrible than any physical death inflicted by a murderer’s weapon. Let me explain.

Some years ago, I read a book on men and their relations with others that, besides the Scripture and egalitarian literature, finally convinced me how bad patriarchy really was for both men and women. I forget the author’s name at the moment, but in the book, THE MEN WE LONG TO BE: MOVING BEYOND MALE DOMINATION TO TRUE CHRISTIAN HUMANITY (Harper and Row, 1995), he argues very convincingly that the dominate manhood we see being reasserted by CBMW and other such groups is not only harmful and destructive in terms of women’s human worth as God’s image bearers, but also of men’s human worth as God’s image bearers.

Why? Because at heart, as the author so strongly argues throughout the book, patriarchy is both in conflict with and a denial of the new humanity taught and modeled by the Lord Jesus Christ who, though Lord of all, dominated neither men nor women, but so served and nurtured them as to enable them to realize, by God’s redemptive grace, their full potential as God’s image bearers. And he also argues that until men realize how harmful patriarchy is to themselves, as well as to the women they love and care about, then they will not be as ferverent and uncompromising in the fight against patriarchy as, new men in Christ, they should be.

And to drive home many of his points, the author uses not only the Scriptures, but the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Reformers , along with the discoveries of modern psychology and social science. Of course, I don’t agree with everything he says; he’s far more lenient towards homosexuality than I would ever be, or that I think Scripture would permit. However, his expose and critique of what patriarchy really is and how it brutalizes and deforms men, especially men who wish to truly be like Christ, outweighs this flaw. And if you want a Christian man to read a book that will really open his eyes to what patriarchy is and how it deforms Christian men, and does not transform them, then have him read this book.

Now that I’m back home and on my own little computer, I can finish my comment. (I was at the library, doing job hunting research, having been umemployed for some time). As I was saying, Gordon Fee explains how Paul addresses this very shame/honor issue we’ve been discussing in 2 Cor 5:11-21 and Gal 3:26-4:7. So now I’ll complete my quote of Fee’s explanation:

…Thus the Gentiles had all the advantages over thew Jews, so Jews took refuge in their relationship with God, which they believed advantaged them before God over the Gentiles. The hatreds were deep and natural. Likewise, masters and slaves were consigned to roles where the advantages went to the masters; and the same was true for men and women, where women were dominated by men and basically consigned to childbearing. In fact, according to Diogenes Laertius, Socrates used to say every day: “There were three blessings for which he was grateful to Fortune: first, that I was born a human being, and not one of the brutes; next, that I was born a man and not a man; thirdly, a Greek and not a barbarian.” The Jewish version of this, obviously influenced by the Greco-Roman worldview, is the rabbi who says that “every day you should say, “Blessed are you, O God,…that I ‘m not a brute creature, nor a Gentile, nor a woman.” It is especially difficult for most of us to imagine the effect of Paul’s words in a culture where position and status preserved order through basically uncrossable boundries. Paul asserts that when people come into the fellowship of Christ Jesus, significance is no longer to be found in being Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. The all-embracing nature of this affirmation, its counter-cultural significance, the fact that it equally disadvantages all by equally advantaging all–these stab at the very heart of a culture sustained by people maintaining the right position and status. But in Christ Jesus, the One whose death and resurrection inaugurated the new creation, all things have become new; the new era has dawned. The new creation, therefore, must be our starting point regarding gender issues, because this is theologically where Paul lived. Everything else he says comes out of this worldview of what has happened in the coming of Christ in the Spirit (cf. “Gender Issues: Reflections on the Perspective of the Apostle Paul,” LISTENING TO THE SPIRIT IN THE TEXT, pp. 60-61).

And when I was a Bible college student, I can remeber the lively discussions that went on regarding “the heart of Paul’s theology”: Was it justification, reconciliation, sanctification, union with Christ, oneness of the Body of Christ, whatever? Well, after much study and thought of Paul’s letters, I agree that it is only Paul’s doctrine of the New Creation, inaugurated by the death and resurrection of Christ and his pouring out of the Spirit upon the Church, that really unites and explains Paul’s theology.

Consider, for example, his teaching in 1 Cor 11:2-34. Apart from his directives that men are not to wear a head covering while the women are so as to maintain proper sexual distinctions in worship–i.e., not engage in unisexist or androgynist worship–yet he otherwise commends the Corinthians for not only keeping the “tradition” he had given regarding men and women praying and prophesying together, but other authoritative teachings pertaining worship which maintained in all the churches he had established. But it is not until 11:17, that he actually and directly reukes them for violating these traditions.

Now, I would ask our hierarchicalist friends, what “tradition” called for Paul’s “gentle” rebuke of the apparent unisexism in 11:2-16? I believe it was a misunderstanding of the tradition he first sets forth in Gal 3:26-4:7, a vital element of his “New Creation” theology, “the adoption to sonship of all believers.” And this doctrine of adoption and all it means is further developed by Paul in such passages as Rom. 4:13-17; 8:9-25; 1 Cor. 12:12-27, and Eph. 2:11-12. According to this teaching, through “the Christ event”–i.e., as a result of Jesus Christ’s life, death, resurrection and pouring out of the Spirit upon his new covenant people–the eschatological promise of the Abrahamic Covenant is now being realized at the end of the Old Age and at the inauguration of the New Age, which will be fully manifested by Christ’s Second Advent and his Millennial Reign. And this fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise is now manifested by the new covenant family of Abraham, the true Israel, united with Christ, the Seed of Abraham (Gal 6:15-16, NIV)–“the new humanity” in which distinctions of ethnicity, race, age and gender are no longer valid barriers in either having fellowship with God, nor in how and where they serve him. They are heirs of Abraham and co-heirs of Christ, destined to rule and reign with him in the future, while serving as priests, prophets and ambassadors of God’s Kingdom in the present time (cf. Matt. 28:18-20 and 2 Cor 5:11-21).

So I think that part of our challenge in winning our hierarchicalist friends over to our view has to do with convincing them as to the nature of the New Creation in Christ and its centrality to Paul’s theology. But as Gengwall has pointed out, the various presuppositions governing their understanding of the Scripture regarding Adam and the Old Creation vs. Christ and the New Creation, as well as their supporting arguments, have to be constantly exposed and challenged, in but the spirit and methodology of 2 Tim. 2:23-26. Or at least that is how I see it.

Cheryl, I don’t know how familar you are with the writings of Gordon Fee, but in his book, LISTENING TO THE SPIRIT IN THE TEXT, he has a discussion on how Paul’s teaching on the New Creation in Christ, as found in 2 Cor 5:11-21 and Gal 3:26-4:7, radically changed this whole shame/honor mindset for the earliest Christians. Here’s what he says:

Our difficulty with understanding the truly radical nature of Paul’s assertion [in Gal 3:26-28] is twofold. First, most contemporary Christians have very little sense of the fundamental eschatological framework which was common to the entire New Testament experience, and which in fact was the only way the earliest believers understood their existence. Second, Western culture in particular is quite foreign to that of these earliest believers at some fundamental points. In the culture into which Paul is speaking, position and status prevailed in every way, so that one’s existence was totally identifed with and circumscribed by these realities. By the very nature of things, position and status gave advantage to some over others; and in Greco-Roman culture, by and large, there was very little chance of changing status.

Well, I’m at the public library, and my time on the computer has run out. So I’ll finish the rest of my comment later.

Cheryl, your article is a wonderful reply to that old saw: “If Jesus were really counter-cultural in his treatment of women, why didn’t he choose any women to be his apostles?” And a complementary response to this question, which you might interested in, is the article by Aida Besancon Spencer’s column in MUTUALITY, “Short Answers To Tough Questions.” I quote in part:

LET’S REPHRASE THAT QUESTION: “If Jesus were really counter-cultural, why didn’t he choose any Gentiles to be his apostles?” or “Why didn’t he choose any slaves as apostles?” Jews thanked God that they were not born a Gentile, an untrained person (or a slave), or a woman, so wouldn’t Jesus have been really counter-cultural if he had Gentiles and Jews, untrained and trained (or slave and free), and women and men among his twelve disciples. Paul refers to the equality of all believers (Gal. 3:28), and recognized the ministry leadership of Titus, a Gentile; Onesimus, a slave; and Pheobe, a female. Were Paul and Jesus’ other disciples more counter-cultural than the Lord they followed? I think not. Perhaps we need to understand further the significance of the twelve for Jesus. Twelve Jewish men symbolized the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 11:30). Jesus’ own call to ministry was focused on reaching Israel (Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24; John 1:11; Rom. 15:8-9), because the earlier covenant was made with Israel (see Gen. 35:10-12; 1 Kings 18:31). The twelve were a witness to Israel, representing God’s first covenant with them and reminding them of God’s promises that were about to be fulfilled through Jesus…Building on this Old Testament symbolic base of the twelve, Jesus began expanding the numbers for the new covenant. The new covenant was begun by the apostolic witness of women and men. An apostle is someone sent with orders, an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus…After the resurrection, “apostles” were comprised of many who “had been” with Jesus and were now also witnesses to the resurrection (Acts 1:21-23; 4:33), including the women at the tomb (Matt. 28:1, 7; Mark 16:1, 6-7; Luke 24:5-10) and the more than 500 brothers and sisters (1 Cor. 15:6). In the post-resurrection, post-Pentecost new covenant community, apostles are no longer limited to the twelve, but are multi-numbered because Jesus’ ministry has refocused from the Jewish people, the twelve tribes, and the old covenant, to the Gentiles, the nations, and the many tribes. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit became a permanent indweller of every believer–both male and female–to be priest or intercessor between humans and God (1 Peter 2:9).

Well, it is a good article, and it certainly complements all that you have said, Cheryl. I would recommend it to both you and everyone else. And if I may make an analogy, your article and Dr. Spencer’s would, together, like a twelve-gage shotgun, would be more than adequate to bring down this old partridge, named “The Twelve” that complementarians like to let loose in their discussions. Anyway, you’ve written a great article.

Congratulations, Cheryl. I agree with Mara that your careful scholarship and gracious, patient interaction with those who may have disagreed with you certainly qualified you and your blog to receive this recognition. And even if you didn’t disagree, you certainly were certainly challenged to thoroughly examine the Scriptures and their true bearing on the issues being discussed. And may your work, carried on in faithfulness to 2 Tim. 2:24-26, continue to bear fruit, to the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen!

Oh, dear, have I really gotten so tongue-tied I am not clearly stating what I meant to say? I did not mean to criticize either Dave, or KR Wordgazer. So let me clarify.

Dave, you and I are on the same page. We agree that Scripture is the Written Word of God, the final rule of all Christian belief and practice. And we also agree that the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Scriptures, has been given to all believers. And as our Divine Counselor, one of the primary tasks of the Holy Spirit is to teach us all from these same Scriptures all that we need to know about our Lord Jesus and how to truly live in fellowship with him and do his will. John the Apostle made this clear, when he stated in the letter bearing his name: “I am writing this to you about those who are trying to deceive you. But as for you, Christ has poured out his Spirit on you. As long as his Spirit remains in you, you do not need anyone to teach you. For his Spirit teaches you about everything, and what he teaches is true, not false. Obey the Spirit’s teaching, then, and remain in union with Christ” (1 John 2:26-27, TEV).

Dave, I erred when I said that the other person’s “words were similar to yours”; I should have said his “concerns were similar to yours.” Unlike you, he felt that my insistence on the inspiration, inerrancy and authority of Scripture somehow indicated I viewed the knowledge of the Written Word as having priority over the knowledge of the Incarnate Word, whereas what I tried to convey to him that the purpose of knowing the Written Word was that we might truly know the Son, who is the Incarnate Word. Scripture is never an end in itself; it is the divinely appointed means which the Spirit uses to bring us into living, vital fellowship with Jesus Christ, the Living Word, of whom it testifies. But if Scripture is not a true and infallible revelation of Christ, the Living Word, then how can we be sure we know him or what his will for us is? And that was the point I was trying to make with this other person. But, again Dave, I think both you and I agree on this.

KR Wordgazer, I think I may have slightly misunderstood your original comment. I had thought you’d encountered some people who, while affirming a belief in God’s sovereignty, foolishly declared he would never reveal himself to a woman nor call her to be his messenger. I was thinking such people obviously had forgotten about Deborah, who was both judge and prophet. And that is why I responded the way I did. But since I didn’t get your real point, my response was off the mark. I apologize for that blunder on my part.

Hello, everyone. Thought I would stop by and see what’s been going on since I last participated in the discussion here. I have spent some time on Wade Burleson’s website, discussing with some people my understanding of the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture; the Council of Nicea; and my position on what really happened at the Council of Jerusalem, according to Acts 15:1-35. I had gone there to take a break and recharge my batteries, after having had a long, exhausting debate here with Mark about the Trinity and the misuse of 1 Cor. 11:3.

Anyway, Dave your comments regarding Jesus and the Scripture were similar to someone who thought I was a Bibliolator–i.e., that I worshipped Scripture rather Christ, who was the Word of God. I affirmed that while I did indeed truly believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture, and so it was the final rule of all I believe and do as a Christian, it was never to stand in the place of the Triune God, but the means by which the Spirit enables us to enter into a saving knowledge of that God, through Christ.

And then I pointed out that Jesus himself had told this to the Pharisees who, if anyone, were bibliolators, when he said, “You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! Yet you refuse to come to me to receive this life…Yet it isn’t I who will accuse you before the Father. Moses will accuse you! Yes, Moses, in whom you put your hopes. If you really believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me. But since you don’t believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?” (John 5:39-40, 45-47, NLT) So it is one thing to recognize and honor Scripture as the true and reliable guide as regards Jesus’ teaching and lifestyle, which we are to follow as his disciples, but quite another to make Scripture his replacement. That is biblioatry of the worst kind.

KR Wordgazer, not everyone who “is big on the absolute sovereignty of God” believes God never will directly reveal himself to a woman, nor ever gift or call her to be minister and teacher of his Word. I am a firm believer in the sovereignty of God in the salvation and preservation of his people in Christ; but I also firmly believe, on the basis of 1 Cor. 12:1-13 and Eph. 4:11-16, that not only does the Holy Spirit equally gift call men and women to ministry and leadership, both he does in full agreement with both the Father and Son.

Now to anyone who denied this, the only thing I could say to them is what Jesus said to the Pharisees, “Your mistake is that you don’t know the Scriptures nor do you know the Holy Spirit” (Mark 12:24, my rendering). Moreover, to someone who, like Grudem, demanded “just one example” of such a woman who so spoke God’s word to his people, then I would point to Mary, the Mother of Jesus and her prophetic word, The Magnificant, in Luke 1:46-55. And every time the Christmas story is read, and we recite her song, Mary is again proclaiming God’s Word to us. End of discussion, as far as I am concerned.