Kay

Sorry Dave – I only posted my comment because I thought you’d still be asleep and unable to do so. LOL

“Matthew 23:10 ”Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. Matthew 23:11 ”But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
In Jesus we have all the “covering” that we need. Does a woman need a human spiritual “covering” over her? No. Her place is to be in the body of Christ as a fully functioning body part without having to be led and controlled by a human “covering”.”

The question I always have for comps using this paradigm is that it leaves single women and widows who do come from a Christian family out of the picture. This has caused many comp and patri leaders to come up with some really odd practices of having women in this situation seek out ‘surrogate’ fathers and male figures to be their ‘spiritual covering.’

And that whole deal just begs the question – how could an ‘uncovered’ woman ever be certain that she was making a ‘spiritually correct’ decision on the right man????????

“There is quite a disconnect when one does not have the answers to these hard questions on women. What does a complementarian do? If that one wants to remain a complementarian because it is a safe, comfortable place and he/she doesn’t love the truth, they will do nothing. But those who love the truth will be motivated to find the answers.”

Yes, “safe, comfortable” has a tremendous pull for people. Let’s face it, it’s just plain scarry to step out of the popular, acceptable mainstream. If William Tyndale was declared a heretic and burnt at the stake for making Bibles so every one including a plough boy would be able to read it, what can we expect? Some of the new words and phrases introduced by Tyndale did not sit well with the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, using words like ‘Overseer’ rather than ‘Bishop’ and ‘Elder’ rather than ‘Priest’, ‘congregation’ rather than ‘Church’ and ‘love’ rather than ‘charity’.

Not that we should be compared to the likes of Tyndale, but now egals are being called out for wanting ‘source’ instead of ‘head’ and a better translation of ‘authenteo’ than ‘authority.’

“Mark’s comment shows a great misunderstanding of the male/female issue on this blog. The issue here is spiritual equality.”

Cheryl,

Exactly – and I think that is why he would not or could not answer my questions for him in regards to proving qualification to teach or lead by checking ones reproductive organs.

I continue to be baffled that complementarians base the ‘role’ of wives in subordination to the ‘role’ of husbands on the fact that the husband possesses male reproductive organs, while at the same time claiming the doctrine of the eternal subordination (or whatever term Mark may wish to substitute) of the Son, when the only member of the Trinity we know for sure had male reproductive organs was Jesus, because the Scriptures say He was circumcised.

In much of the comp/patri material and sermons, the feminine metaphors have been relatively ignored. This is unfortunate because these images reveal to us, just as the masculine ones do, very important aspects of God’s nature. For instance: God’s life giving properties, His providential and nurturing nature, creativity, His tender and compassionate love, His protectiveness and defensiveness of the weak.

Mark wrote: “I’m glad that you are disagreeing between yourselves as to whether there are physiological differences. It is helpful to see where everyone is coming from. It is hard in my opinion to deny that there are such differences. Women and men most definately are not the same.”

In Isaiah God is described in both masculine and feminine terms in succession.
“The LORD will go forth like a warrior,
He will arouse His zeal like a man of war
He will utter a shout, yes, He will raise a war cry
He will prevail against His enemies.
The Blindness of the People
I have kept silent for a long time,
I have kept still and restrained Myself.
Now like a woman in labor I will groan,
I will both gasp and pant.” Isaiah 42:13-14

“You shall not make a carved image for yourself.” This commandment warns us against shaping God according to human or any other image. God is God and we must never forget that. While God may display emotions of love, compassion, mercy and truth which we as humans can relate to as a part of our humanity, God is more than we can ever be or understand. This commandment affirms the truth that God is transcendent, beyond human comprehension and any image we may use will only reveal to us a small part of who God is. Human language may begin to gain insight into God through metaphor, but the truth of the matter is that all metaphors we use for God will always fall short of describing ALL there is to know and understand about God.

“H1N1?ed” means” Swine Flu…

Sorry to hear that, Gengwall – it seemed you’d been awfully quiet! Hope it wasn’t too bad.

“theos” is the word translated as ‘God’ there in I Cor. 11:3 – it means the Godhead/the Trinity – according to Strong’s.

It is not just that as it happens some theories of the Trinity often project our “ideals” onto God, but rather it is built into that kind of project that many theorists are involved in that they have to be projectionist. Because for the theorists, God is more appropriately modeled on three human beings than on One. But they do not want to be tritheists, so then they must say that although three human persons make three human beings, three divine persons, even if they are separate centers of a will and self-consciousness and so on, make only one God. For me, this just seems circular. I’m not saying that these believers all have bad motives. But why can’t we just let God be God?
If we follow Augustine and begin from God’s oneness, then the problem of the Trinity is to find a way of accommodating God’s threeness. On the other hand, if we begin with the social theorists from the three persons then the problem is to find a way of making sense of God is One. But again, at some point a finite mind may need to admit that it is just that – finite?

To me, projection is particularly problematic in at least some theories of the Trinity because what is projected onto God is immediately reflected back onto the world, and this reverse projection is said to be what is in fact important about the doctrine.

Usually, the theorist’s concept of the Trinity is filled out suggestively with notions borrowed from our own experience of relationships and relatedness. And then is presented as a resource Christian theology has to offer the wider world in its reflections upon relationships and relatedness. Couldn’t very different conclusions be drawn from one and the same understanding of God because of a person’s cultural background and personal relationships?

I seek to know the Lord, as do my fellow believers, but I struggle to understand why it is not sufficient to simply declare HOW God has revealed Himself without moving into making implications of this revelation to the very inner life of Deity. In my view, God is just too OMNI-Everything to nail down, box up, and categorize so neatly in our finite understanding. It is when that move is made from the revelation of the Trinity to proposed implications on the Divine inner life that I question.
Do we really think we can know everything that goes on in the inner life of God?
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways” declares the Lord” “how unsearchable are His judgments, and unfathomable His ways. For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?”

“Again 1 Cor 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head.
For this cause: what cause, tell me? For all these which have been mentioned, says he; or rather not for these only, but also because of the angels. For although thou despise your husband, says he, yet reverence the angels.”

Mark,
Do you uphold the practice of Christian women wearing a sign of authority on her head?

“In the end, what matters is how much we allow the love of God to flow through our hearts and onto others.”

So true, Mara. Jesus never said the world be able to tell who His disciples were by how well they stayed within designated gender ‘roles,’ but “By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another.” John 13:35
Yup, it’s all about the loving and serving one another.

BTW my spam word is LOVE – how fitting!

“While there is certainly a figurative or metaphorical ingredient in the human terms ‘father’ and ’son’ as they are used in divine revelation, they are to be understood in ways that point utterly beyond all sexist connotations and implications.Both the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit are incomprehensible mysteries which are not explicable through recourse to human modes of thought.”

Beautifully put, Frank. It is not like God has some Eternal use for male reproductive organs. It is not as though He needs to distinguish Himself from female “goddesses.”

The only member of the Trinity we know for sure had them was Jesus (the Scriptures say He was circumcised), but neither the Holy Spirit nor the Father are ever expressly said to possess them.

So now, if authority lies in the possessing of male genitals, wouldn’t that put the Son in authority and the Father and the Holy Spirit in subordination?

Mark wrote: “I am amazed at the amount of time you have to respond to blogs while running a church, very impressive.”

Mark,
I’m convinced that Dave and Cheryl never sleep!

“So yes, I believe that the issue has caused and will continue to cause fracture at the local level. Will it split the Presbyterian Church of Australia? Not yet! I pray that it doesn’t. We really should have that coffee!”

Dave,
Make sure it’s a nice fresh pot of coffee. 😉

“It is always a red flag when people are not open to discussion. This is a trademark of the CBMW movement. None of their websites allow discussion.”

TL,
True. It’s also a trademark of abusers, cult leaders and those in fear. I want others to see that egals have nothing to hide – ask me and ask away, “iron sharpening iron.”

“Great idea, Dave! Yes, I would welcome Mark to email me his paper and I would be happy to post it as a comp view that we can discuss.”

Cheryl,

Can I second that! Sounds like a much more efficient way to see what Mark believes than question by question.

Yes, you really were missed – I know it’s difficult to tell they way we’ve carried on and on here. 🙂 I thought about you every time the Weather Channel showed the piles of snow in Pennsylvania – and you there with no boots. 🙁 My feet were sympathizing. Brrrr…

“I was just re-reading an email that I got in early 2008 from an old friend who removed his friendship from me because of the women’s issue. It is obvious that his gender-related “authority” to demand obedience to his view and silence my opinion is a trump card that is almost impossible to give up without the grace of God. I am again reminded that the male trump card has harmed many relationships and separated friends.”

Cheryl,

And I’ll bet he did this without even letting the church check his “male trump card” to see if it really did “qualify.” How sad to judge one’s friendship this way – I’m sure it was very hurtful.

Cheryl,

So glad you’re back!
I apologize for spending so much times discussing reproductive organs here, but they are THE determining factor in Mark’s comp position.

“Mark, that is how scholars make their living. It needs to be complicated so they can keep writing books and papers.”
“One human, because of male genitals, is to have authority over another human without those genitals. For some reason, the genitals make them in charge of the woman. (Sorry but that is really what you are saying)”

Lin,

Apparently, comp theologians have managed to make it so complicated that Mark is unable answer simple straight forward questions about how we determine whose genitals qualify.

Mark,

Since you wish to start assigning motive to me – I think turn about is fair play.
“Obviously” you are not answering my questions because your stance is untenable.

If one of your children was born with ambigous organs, I find it highly doubtful that you would find mine to be “ridiculous senarious.”

“Kay,
You are obviously trying to use ridiculous senarious to disprove my point of view. Men and women are simply different. Why is it that men are generally more muscular? Why is it that physiology is different in the sexes. This is medical proof. We are not the same. Some things both physical and practical are more masculine, and vice versa for women. You can argue all you like about hermaphrodites but it doesn’t help your egalitarian view nor distort mine. I dont know how else to respond to you regarding this.”

Mark,

No, I am not. And this is why you must make statements like: “Why is it that men are generally more muscular?”
Precisely because gender has such a wide range that one can only say “generally” men are more muscular.

No one has been able to put exact size and variation limits on reproductive organs or muscular structure. Their are simply too many variations and those people who wind up in the middle as hermaphrodites.

I am not the one speaking in generalities here. I am speaking to specifics. Wouldn’t it be a matter of church discipline to make certain that only those “qualified” to preach and teach were doing so?

“1. I am not arguing that man is superior in being or function. I am saying we are equal in being (essence) and have different functions. I am not saying a mans role is more superior than the womens. Obviously you haven’t read me properly.”

Mark,

I’m not saying that you are arguing that man is superior in being or function. I am not saying that you are saying a man’s role is more superior than the woman’s.

I just want to know how the church could ever be 100% certain who is and who is not “functioning” in that proper “role.”

Wouldn’t it be a matter of church discipline to make certain that only those “qualified” to preach and teach were doing so?

“But verse 12 is describing what happens NOW…and how it is fundamentally different to the Genesis account (not created order – but origin). Paul is introducing new info, is he not? “…for as woman was made from man, so man is NOW born of woman.”

Precisely, Dave. No one gets into this life from Adam’s side anymore, we are ALL now are “born of woman.”

or Maybe we’re just all getting here “out of order.” ???

Mark,
Why would the order in which God created or His words to Adam and Eve be a mandate for all marriages?
That leaves an awful lot of couples in a terrible spot – either “multiply” or you are outside “the plan.”
It cannot be, or else God has purposely made it impossible for every infertile couple to be part of His plans!

Mark,
My questions are not tough – there is not even Greek usage to haggle over in my questions.

What does creation order matter, when to enforce that paradigm we would have to ask every fellow believer to disrobe?

Mark,

I am interested in how we, as individual believers and the Church as a whole, determines who possesses this ‘authority”?

Is the Church to begin medically testing everyone who teaches Sunday School or preaches like they do in International Athletics?

What is the Church supposed to do with a true hermaphrodite, or a woman born with testes or Caster Semenya, the South African runner?

I cannot understand why you are refusing to answer my questions.

Yes, pinklight. I think this is why Grudem & associates must “soft peddle” it a bit by saying that men and women are “the same in essence” (but males still have authority over females in “function.”) It’s quite a web.

gengwal,
You did a masterful job on that post. Not only is kephale not used the way comps try to use it, there is no realistic way to enforce their use of it.