Kay

“Comp: “Because Adam, who was created first, was in authority over Eve and was the head – therefore, first in order means authority – that is head!”

This reminds me of a website I visited yesterday that stated “God’s Plan” for marriage was to be fruitful and multiply and that children are your fruit. Well that leaves off several couples I know personally and thousands of others as well, who can’t have children. So, to this group my friends are just destined to be outside “God’s Plan for Marriage”

Dave, You are up way too early! or maybe waaaay too late.

Dave,

Nope. And I don’t think any of us would, could or should!
And that, my brother, is my point.
🙂

“I can’t fathom how it doesn’t make you wonder why they didn’t say this directly when there are plenty of ways both in Hebrew and Greek to say it directly – ways that are used abundently even by the same authors in other writings within the bible.”

And I can’t fathom how the church could be 100% sure who has this ‘authority’ unless we started medically and genetically testing every member.

Does anyone else besides me see the irony (or the obvious) in the fact that Not Once does Paul expound on the proper “role” or “function” of eunachs or hermaphrodites?

“It seems to me that we are not actually moving forward into having a meaningful discussion, but rather playing around the edges.”

Me, too, Dave!

TL,
Thanks. Andy also had a good comment on that earlier today – I hope you saw it.
You’ve probably noticed that this entire discussion has boiled down to one thing for me – if (and I say if) there was any “authority” relegated to males over females (or by necessity over hermaphrodites & those with ambiguous outer organs) short of sending every church member for a medical exam and genetic testing we could never be 100% sure that everyone was in their assigned ‘function’ or ‘role.’
Not only that, but by necessity
we would have to figure out what the ‘function’ and ‘role’ was for those not fitting neatly into either catagory.

Mark wrote: “Sorry one last point for Kay,
I in no way am intereseted in keeping my authority and i find it hard to see this in anything Piper has said. We hold to this view because we believe in the authority of the bible, and believe this is what the bible teaches. It has nothing to do with wanting authority.”

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

How do we tell who is relegated this ‘authority’?

There are people with both ovarian and testicular tissue and others with ambiguous outer organs.

What is the Church supposed to do with a true hermaphrodite, or a woman born with testes?

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

Cheryl, et. al,
Has anyone else, besides me, wondered about this? I felt so sad for Caster Semenya, the South African runner. I certainly wouldn’t want my reproductive organs photographed and talked about on the national news.

“We can look in classical Greek or koine Greek and we will find many general usages of a word and some specific or special usages… we have tons of this in English: “He lives in a vacuum.” No one can really live in a vacuum, they would die. We didn’t invent broad usages of words.”

Andy,
I luv your example using ‘vacuum’!

“Is that not the point that Jesus made for the husband, to lay down his life for his wife as He did for those He called out? The head is to be the strong man of the house and protect his home. He is not to be a hireling that runs in the sight of danger. He is to protect them and provide for them.”

And many times, as for a friend of mine, these have been “roles” are reversed. Her husband suffered a head injury in an auto accident that has left him in near vegetative state since 1998. God has given her the “role” to lead, protect and provide for her husband.

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

Dave,
I don’t like assigning motive either, but I have also wrestled with the question of him being manipulative. Especially, troubling is the way he continually interchanges ”submission” and ”subordination” as though they are the same word.

“Kay – coffee is good, tea is bad. Coffee good. Tea bad. Good coffee. Bad tea. Not sure if I can say it more clearly than that…coffee makes the world go round…”

Say it ain’t so, Dave. You’ve just spoiled all my fond childhood memories of tea and crumpets!

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

“Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the 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 your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Matthew 20:25-27

“Not so with you”

I find Jesus to be the Ultimate evidence.

Mark wrote: “Kay, maybe my aussie slang is confusing you. When i refer to ‘manhood’ i literally mean his reproductive organ. This is part of the male anatomy but is not the determining factor in making someone masculine. Does this help or am i confusing you more!”

Mark,
**What** then IS the determining factor in making someone masculine?

Males have more than the ‘one’ reproductive organ – don’t forget the gonads.

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

Absolutely, Dave. We need to be careful not to change the main subject of the passage – that would make a bad ‘proof’ text to support your view.

Mark wrote: “I dont have a right to demand my authority from my wife, that was point one. I’m not arguing for comp view to keep my authority point 2. Male authority is not linked to his manhood point 3.”

Mark,
Then to what is it linked?

Dave,
Don’t tell me you all have quit drinking tea “down” there – is the whole world hooked on coffee now??
Yes, since this “authority” is not determined by virtue of possessing male reproductive organs, but instead by possessing “maleness” – I’m very interested for Mark to define how one knows one does possess it. Hey, who knows, I might have it too! Afterall, I don’t want to keep or demand authority over anyone.

Mark wrote: “Secondly, as far as i know, that means for 450years the church understood kephale to not mean ’source’-this is significant.”

The church has misunderstand many things for hundreds of years before. Church history is littered with examples, both before and after the Reformation.
I think that about 700 years worth of Inquisitorial trials was more than sufficient. What about the Geneva Council with John Calvin burning “heretics” at the stake? How would we like that out on the church lawn after Sunday services this week? For hundreds of years the followers of the church of England and other Protestants regarded slavery as an old established and necessary institution which supplied Europe with the necessary workforce.

Mark,

Would you please give me the definition for the word ‘authority’ that you are using?

That would help clear up a lot of confusion.

Mark wrote: “I hold that none can demand or exercise their authority.”
“I in no way am intereseted in keeping my authority”
“I DO NOT link maleness with the need for the male reproductive organ, whether born that way or otherwise.”

Mark,

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

Mark wrote: “Let me try to be clear in what i mean. I DO NOT link maleness with the need for the male reproductive organ, whether born that way or otherwise.”

Mark,
Really? So, what is ‘maleness’ then and how can a person determine if they possesses it?

No, no, now Frank; I should have been more accurate. (tongue firmly in cheek) Hierarchialists do let the Spirit lead the women part time. You know – on the rare occasion that her husband asks her to outright sin.

Seriously though, Frank – I agree – I’ve missed your commenting lately.

Mark wrote: “If a man looses his manhood, it doesn’t make him any less a man, or unable to fulfill his roles.”

Mark,
Not what I’m referring to. The scripture says some people are born that way.

“There are eunuchs who have been so from birth…” Matt. 19:12

There are people who are born with BOTH male and female organs.

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

Lin,
OMe, seriously? Are there any portions of this book (?) online? – As in would I have to buy it in order to quote him in full?

“There is no issue with being fundimentally different in design when neither design paradigm is “better”.”

Exactly, gengwall! And there is so much variation among human beings, some just plain won’t fit neatly into choice ‘A’ or ‘B’.

“The Patriarches like Voddie Baucham were more honest as they said her being a VP was a sin. Because she would be in a leadership position over her own husband and that would be a sin even in a secular venue.”

And when Deborah was judging Israel (Judges 4) do they think her husband, Lappidoth, was excluded. It does not say, “Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging everyone in Israel *except her husband*, at that time.” It appears that Israel, meant Israel.

“Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” Matthew 22:24-30

I had to throw this out here for discussion – don’t these Sadducees seem just a little too focused on who has authority over “the woman?”

In my last post, I was in no way referring to homosexuals or endorsing homosexual activity – just for the record.

Lin wrote: “The only obvious functions are biological. Child bearing and nursing. Other than that we have Gen 1 which says they are to have dominion TOGETHER.”

And this is why I brought up the situation of eunuchs – they, (along with people who are born with both male and female organs), can’t be easily pigeon-holed into either of the two functions and roles groups that comps have set up. So, we would need a third set of functions and roles set up for them.

Mark has said his “view is this- men and women are equal in essence, in the image fo God, but not in function.”

To which I asked:

Mark,

Are you saying that a male’s authority is not in his essence, but by being born with male reproductive organs?

However, Mark has never answered my question.

I also gave him a concrete (nothing hypothetical here) example in scripture that I believe discounts ‘function’ based on reproductive organs.

“There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” according to Jesus in Matthew 19

Mark wrote: “Do you agree that there are different roles/functions for Adam and Eve?”

List for me what the role is for Adam and Eve, and I will answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’
List for me what the role is for Eve, and I will answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.
List for me what the function is for Adam, and I will answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’
List for me what the function is for Eve, and I will answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

Mark wrote: “But again like i said to Kay, before we get to hypothetical on how these functions play out, let’s investigate”

And as far the ‘ezer’ defined simply as a ‘helper’ –
If she’s the ‘helper’ well, how much help is it for a man to have some else to look after besides himself?
Is it like giving your child a pet so they can learn to be responsible?

“If so, when they brought death upon themselves, that light of holiness and purity likely went out.
what do you think??”

Hmmmmm…mulling, mulling…