Kay

“So in the name of “headship” or “leadership” a normally good husband may start tilting towards the side of dominating, while a normally good wife, in the name of “submission”, may start withdrawing or yielding unhealthily to the husband. ”

Nicole,
Good comments! I can relate to the quote above. My husband and I were already 15 years into our “mutually submitting” marriage, when we spent about a year and half in a comp/patri. church. The teaching on marriage began to influence our relationship – and not for the better. It was not helping either one of us mature in Christ and it was ruining the “one flesh” unity and close friendship we had always enjoyed. We had to leave, even though it meant leaving many of our friends and fellow homeschoolers. That was about 13 years ago and we have no regrets – in fact our relationship has continued to grow stronger.
We don’t regret the experience we had seeing inside comp/patrio circles because it made us realise the blessing of our relationship that is built on mutual submission. It also helped us understand the comp/patrio teachings from the inside and gave us a first hand look at marriages and families trying to live under it.
Paradigms that are built on “differences” rather than things shared encourages “separation,” not unity.
Yes, men and women have differences, but “equality is not the same as uniformity.” It’s not impossible to appreciate both our differences and commonalities at the same time. And I totally agree that having equal authority is the foundation for both to develop as mature Christians.

“If one says it is because of “design,” it seems to me that would suggest “design differences”. Therefore, what is the innate difference in females relative to males that predisposes them for the necessity of a male spiritual leader?”
sm,
Yes, if her qualifying difference is defined by males because they possess the “authority” to define, they ought to be able to tell us what that is, right?

Along with what pinklight and genwall have said about naming, I’d like to bring out a point Frank made in his comment #11:
“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” is a term for both of them – it’s not just the first male’s given name. In Gen.5:1:
“This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.”
-the word translated as “Adam” in the first sentence is the exact same word translated “man” in the second.
Eve was “named” woman and she was “Adam” along with the man.

Another interesting translation tidbit is that the exact same word ‘ishshah’ translated “woman” in verse 23 is translated as “wife” in verse 24.

CBWM: in their own words-
Albert Mohler describes himself on his own profile page:
the “reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the U.S”.
“a blue-ribbon panel” member
“writes a popular blog”
“Widely sought as a columnist and commentator”

“When we take the worldly way of leading which is “ruling” and make it “the” way of Jesus, we have distorted the teaching that the one who wants to be the greatest is to be the servant of all. The servant “feeds”. The servant does not “rule over” God’s sheep.”
Cheryl,
Comp/hierarchists have this idea of ruling/authority so deeply ingrained that it’s really difficult for them to see past it. I think part of the problem, especially for new Christians or those who do not study on their own, is with the choice of words by translators.
Recently a comp. sited Hebrews 13:17 “obey them that rule over us”. The problem, I pointed out, is that the word ‘peitho’ sometimes translated as “obey” there, is also translated as:
assure, confident, convinced, followed, have confidence, having confidence, listen, persuade, persuaded, persuading, put confidence, put…confidence, put…trust, relied, seeking the favor, sure, took…advice, trust, trusted, trusting, trusts, urging, win…over, won over.
It’s not as though the elders of the Church are making “rules” that must be “obeyed.” What rules are they enforcing? The comp. had no answer for that.
Further, how could they enforce such “ruling”? Elders cannot force the sheep to obey. If anyone had that authority it would be the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit never forces us either. Doesn’t the Holy Spirit do the convicting? Does the Holy Spirit need a “chain of command” to do it? Really! Like the HS. needs man’s help??

Another comp. asked me, “I assume you don’t think that parents have no authority over their children, do you?”
I replied, Actually, I don’t find one Scripture telling me to take authority over my children – my children are adults with children of their own. But, I didn’t find one telling me to do that when they were young either. I also don’t see any Scriptures telling parents to force their children to do obey. (?) Jesus doesn’t force us to follow Him – He leads by example. “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.” Out of love for my children, I sought to teach them by example. They were intrusted to the care of my husband and myself – we didn’t see that as having authority over. We saw it as a blessing and a challenge to walk out our faith.

“So, the fulfillment of her calling is dependent on another person’s decision to propose, and their ability to have (successful) children. In other words, her calling is defined by other people, opening the door wide open to sin nature’s manipulative powers.”

Nicole,
Precisely, it’s all man-centered.
“In other words, her calling is defined by other people” – not just “people,” but males in particular, because they claim the “authority” to define.

“Adam identifies the animals before the woman is created, but he doesn’t name them, or give them names like “Tommy the cat”, “Leo the lion”, or “Sparky the dog.” The woman’s name was never “Woman”. Her name was Eve, not “woman”. There is a difference between naming a creature and identifying or recognizing one.”

Well put, pinklight!

“I think PL is onto something here. Why were the animals brought to Adam in the first place? Was it so he could exercise dominion over them in some way?”
No, gengwall,
it certainly doesn’t read that way to me. I think you are right on with:
“Finally! Here is one like me”. That makes “she shall be called woman” not an act of authority but a proclamation of great joy.”

“Men: spiritual leader of the wife and children….
We have been discussing this one extensively too in recent weeks. The simple response is that the bible decalres no such thing. As I mentioned in another post, my response to this is “I thought the Holy Spirit was supposed to be our spiritual leader.” To an extent, men look again to Genesis 3 and somehow pull this idea out of thin air from that passage. But it has no actual support.”

I’ll add that they also devise the “spiritual leadership” or “spiritual headship” from their interpretation of the word “head” in Eph. 5:23 and 1 Cor.11:3.

Cindy K,
Excellent question #25 – As Frank pointed out in #11, comp/patris do not seem to acknowledge the fact that Eve’s name was a direct reference to the promised seed. It’s not as though her name had no particular meaning. It’s not as though Adam just liked “the way Eve sounds” – the way many people choose names for children and pets in our culture today. Names had much more significance to them.

Nicole,
You have a way with words. 😉
That last line reminds me of Gen. 30: “When Rachel saw that she was not bearing Jacob any children, she became jealous of her sister. So she said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die! Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?”

“Playing catch with dad is the epitome of “playing” and “bonding” with him, but why isn’t it considered “nurturing” a child’s spirit?”
-Because that would not fit neatly into their paradigm. I was informed recently by a comp. that any example of men or women switching “roles” is just a result of our sinful nature – so, don’t try to convince them giving examples of people who don’t fit their definition of “lead” or “nurture.” But, then that’s why they must use different words to refer to the same thing.

“What part of//: Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. Mark 10:42-44 //do “clergy” not understand?”
kw,
A fellow believer after my own heart! Anyone reading Cheryl’s blog comments very often knows this is one of my favorite verses.

“Here is the dirty little secret. Men, if anything, because of our testosterone levels, are designed to lust after power. Now, of course, I don’t claim God desires this greed in us. But the fall titls us that way and there is no clearer indication of that than “he will rule over you”.
gengwall,
Good points! and I appreciate your honesty here. Somehow comp./patrios. just can’t imagine that being a negative thing – in fact they seem bent on seeing everything regarding higher testosterone as a necessity for the “leadership” “roles” they claim. They’re either unable to or refuse to separate the concept of equality from the concept of uniformity/sameness.

“Are the traditions of fallen humans really the best support upon which to rest a theological argument? I suppose, if that’s all you got, then they are. But I would hope that we could look more to God’s word for clarity on what God meant and less to the dark and murky realms of cultural anthropology.”
gengwall,
Or as some comps. I’ve encountered recently, they in affect, claim that they can clearly discern what the essential differences are in spite of myriads of cultural influences – but then, of course, they are also the ones who decide what the “essential differences” are in the first place.
One comp. claims it comes down to women are all essentially “nurturers” and men are all essentially “leaders”. He refuses to speak to specifics, no matter how many men and women do not fit his paradigm. As well, he has determined that leadership is of course the key ingredient necessary for being a “head pastor.”

To that I asked: Why do you continue to define those “essential differences” in terms of social roles while at the same time acknowledging that gender roles are culturally derived?
and
I am curious as to how you arrived at believing “leadership” is the defining factor that makes a person better suited for pastoral ministry? Considering that Jesus told Peter to “Feed My sheep,” not “lead My sheep.”
No reply.

pinklight,
Interesting inquiry for Gazza. (#37) The one thing I don’t see in the “subdue” command is either the man or the woman being told to “rule” their spouse. 🙂

“To answer gengwell, some roles are spiritual and some are physical. A father for example is a physical one. A pastor is both. Some are given the gift, but they must also physically do the work. They physically have a job to do for the body of Christ.”
Mark,
What part of the physical work of a “pastor” is it that a woman is unable to do?

“Are you even willing to look at the passages that are difficult for your position? You say i need to answer your tough questions which i have over and over again, but yet you refuse to answer mine and call them rabbit trails? I can only conclude your un-willingness to even attempt to dialogue. It seems that this blog is more interested in slandering other Christians like CBMW and comps rather than discussing scripture.”
Mark,
Cheeze whizz, where did this come from? We’ve been having a more than willing dialogue for several months. And this dialogue has taken so many rabbit trails already, it’s hard to recall how it first began. So, what’s up with this?

Please, tell us what anyone said here that is slanderous of CBMW? Direct quotes from some of their materials are posted and commented upon.

This reminds me just a bit too much of last week when decided to characterize me as “misleading” for not listing all the evidence of both sides of the discussion in each of my comments, when you weren’t doing that yourself.

Mark wrote: “If this passage is dealing with eldership what is their ministry? Are elders instructed elsewhere i the bible to be over 60 and only pray (not to mention be widows)? No i don’t think so. They are to shepherd the church. Now because this passage clearly deals with younger and older issues it is not sensible to translate this passage as some sort of obscure eldership, not backed up by other scripture nor reliant on the context of the passage.”

Mark,
One of the main points of the passage IS sorting out who should and should not be on the “role.”

In context we must take into consideration the very young age a woman could become a widow at that time. Betrothal followed as soon as possible after puberty and consummation of the marriage shortly after that. Many, if not all, the younger widows could have been mere teenagers. It appears Paul may have been trying to discourage teenage widows from hastily making “pledges” they would grow up and regret. I can tell by your last comment that you do see that somewhat.

You know that the daily duties of any elder are not listed in Scripture. We have our modern day notions of what an elder is expected to do, but that is not outlined in Scripture either. How is praying not an aspect of shepherding the church?
Our example, The Great Shepherd “He always lives to make intercession for them.” (Heb.7:25)

“What you have done here is flipped the passage. They are dishonouring Christ because they abandon him, not because they get married. It’s not the marriage which is wrong, it is their sensual desires that they put before Christ. In fact Paul instructs the younger ones to get married to avoid straying after Satan.”

Mark,
It is not a dishonoring Christ to get married unless one has made a pledge not to be married.

You even cited these two examples yourself:
1 Cor 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
1 Cor 7:1-2
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Neither of which states that marrying is abandoning Christ.

Mark wrote: “Again you ask “Why was the pledge necessary?”
Now i assume you ask this because you only see the pledge as a commitment to eldership. Since i have shown this is not the intention of the passage, rather a pledge to service to Christ i would think such a pledge would be necessary in order for the church to see she is a ‘true’ widow.”

Mark,
They already had the “pledge” in operation.

If the “pledge” itself made it plain for all the “church to see she is a ‘true’ widow” why did Paul have to give the qualifications ??

The “pledge” certainly wasn’t making the church see which ones were the true widows.

This is obvious by the fact that they had a lot of widows on a roll where they didn’t belong. And Paul had to tell them who did not belong.

” The glaring reality of those two “roles”, if hierarchialists want to use that term, is that neither contains an element of authority. In fact, both are positions of sacrificial service!”
“But those differences don’t grant authority! The only time Paul grants authority in marriage – in 1 Corinthians 7 – it is reciprocal, equal, and astonishingly still balanced by selflessness.”
gengwall,
Good points as always! I couldn’t agree more.

“It appears that it is true that if you tell a lie long enough and often enough, people will believe it. But a lie is never changed into the truth by repetition.”
Cheryl,
Thankfully! And I, too, feel for my brothers and sisters in Christ who have had the “truth” remolded by revisionism.

“Hi Kay,
I agree with your points. And I’d like to add something speaking of “faith”.
In faith, can a person break the second greatest commandment?? This is a very serious question. What do you think??”

pinklight,
I see that you reasoned out the answer (#53) for yourself…
All that is left for me to say is: Great point! and isn’t comment #52 your longest one to date? 😉

“Now CHeryl answer some of my questions.
1. Do you agree with Kay about this obscure over 60’s club eldership?
2. If not, how to you reconcile that only widows over 60 can be ‘elders’.
3. If you believe this is about women elders, therefore can women elders only do this sort of ministry since verse 17 it”
Mark,
I think Cheryl answered your questions in her #142. Maybe take another look there.

Mark,
To sum up: in 1 Tim.5 we see Paul addressing a particular problem that Church fellowship was having. They had a ministry done by “widows indeed” that were placed on a “roll” for financial support – just like many people today in “full time” ministry.
However, some other unqualified and perhaps unbelieving (re:vs.6 & 15: “dead while she lives”) young widows had been put on the roll because either they falsely pledged or because the individual members or families in the congregation were not doing their personal duty to care for them. So, Paul must tell the congregation:
“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” vs.8 & “If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed.” vs. 16

The fact that there is one group of widows who was to be fully supported financially does not mean that other needy widows who lacked families couldn’t be helped.

Mark,
Paul wrote in vs5 “Now she who is a widow indeed and who has been left alone, has fixed her hope on God and continues in entreaties and prayers night and day.”

Paul also says “But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives.” vs.6

I ask you, what kind of person is “dead even while she lives?” A person who is dead while physically alive is not a Christian. I see Paul here clearly contrasting the two for Timothy.

Because of that, it’s reasonable that those “dead” widows are the ones referred to in vs.15:
“for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.”

You wrote:”But how can we justify such an interpretation that is simply based on hypothesis or guess

Mark,

Well reasoned interpretations about verses are made all the time
– obviously none of us were there when they were written and the original human writers are no longer available for consultation, so there is no other choice.

As I pointed out (in #149) Paul has no unchanging iron-clad rules about widows and their remarriage requirements that pertain to all younger widows, in all places, for all time.

Mark,
We also have to take into consideration that Paul gives various advice regarding marriage, widows, and singles, according to each congregation’s specific situation .
He says this to the Corinthian Church:
“But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
1 Cor. 7:8-9

“But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord;
but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.” 1 Cor. 7:32-35

By taking these verses into consideration, it appears that something else very specific is going on with the “younger widows” of 1 Timothy 5.

Otherwise, Paul would have simply instructed them to stay single as he did the Corinthians.

“Therefore i see the ‘pledge’ as abandoning their committment to being on the ‘roll’ of widows needing help.”
“But how can we justify such an interpretation that is simply based on hypothesis or guess work.”

Mark,

In context we must take into consideration the very young age a woman could become a widow at that time. Betrothal followed as soon as possible after puberty and consummation of the marriage shortly after that.

Many, if not all, the younger widows could have been mere teenagers. It appears Paul may have been trying to discourage teenage widows from hastily making “pledges” they would grow up and regret.

Think back for a moment on your own youthful enthusiasms in the past – would you wish to be bound by them for the rest of your life?

“Therefore i see the ‘pledge’ as abandoning their committment to being on the ‘roll’ of widows needing help.”

Mark,

Since when does a needy person have to make a “commitment” to receive help from the Church?? That concept is not found in Scripture.

The Greek word here translated “pledge” means “a solemn promise to be faithful and loyal, assurance, oath, troth” (BDAG lexicon)

You say,”Therefore i see the ‘pledge’ as abandoning their committment to being on the ‘roll’ of widows needing help.”

That defies logic. You are saying that they had made a “commitment” to continuously live in a state of needing help.

You also say, “Also a ‘true’ widow was one who devoted themselves to supplications and prayers (verse 5)”
But you believe it had nothing to do with their “pledge”?

So, you don’t think that devoting one’s self to supplication and prayers is ever a type of ministry at all?

“If you cannot do it to your neighbor, by God then you cannot do it to your wife or sister in Christ without breaking the Law.”

pinklight,
I’ll add to that – “For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died… But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” Rom.14:15 & 23

There is no qualifier given for wives. If a wife cannot do something in faith that her husband asks of her, then it is sin for her. Even if she is wrong in her understanding, if she cannot do it in faith, it is sin. Verse 12 “So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.”

Mark wrote: Can you explain more for me what you mean by this question. Cheryl asked the same thing but i dont understand what you are meaning.
“Does this mean you are willing to contend that the church was instructed to demand celibacy in exchange for food?”

Mark,
So why is it a dishonor for widows who have been supported by the church to remarry? It can only be a dishonor if there is a vow that they have taken for ministry.
1 Tim. 5:11-12 “But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, **thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge**.”

The Greek word for “pledge” means “a solemn promise to be faithful and loyal, assurance, oath, troth” (BDAG lexicon)

Younger widows generally want to remarry and this required them to break their promise to Christ to serve him and the church as widows.

The place of these widows is that of Christian service, not just that of being cared for financially.

5:11–16 Younger widows presented a different problem because of the possibility of remarriage. This excluded them from the list mentioned in v 9.

Any younger widow who was poverty-stricken would qualify for help/food. Agreed?

You asked: Also if you do believe it is about the office of eldership how do reconcile that only a widow over 60 can fulfill this role?

I’d say each elder serves uniquely as led by the Holy Spirit and these widows were serving in a way that we are unfamiliar with in our congregations today. Timothy, the person Paul wrote the letter to, undoubtedly knew what they did, so Paul would have no need to write down what that service was.

The daily duties of any elder is not listed in Scripture. We have our modern day notions of what an elder is expected to do, but that is not outlined in Scripture either.

While we do not know what the widows pledge was precisely, it would not be reasonable to say that these widows made a pledge to Christ in order to be fed and clothed by the Church.

It’s Sunday here – a busy day, so, I don’t have time for more today.