Kay

Mark,

This is Kay of comment #36 – I spent a bit of time one day trying to give you some idea of what an egal marriage looks like – as you had asked. I was really hoping to get some of your thoughts on what I posted.

“universal, unilateral male leadership” view is completely impractical and impossible to implement in the real lives of real human beings”

I think that is why we so often observe those teaching this, actually live very “egal” day to day.

“First of all we need to realize that none of us can “make” another be more Christ-like.”

Case closed.

Hey Mark,

Glad you’re back – it’s nice to know that you are still exploring this issue after all!

Without a doubt, Cheryl. I trust that you’re typing as fast as possible. 🙂

gengwall,

You might want to add Gen. 30 and all the naming of sons done by Leah. 2 cents…

The thing that gets me about his interpretation (and others similar) is that it even if women can be saved (which appears doubtful) they somehow can never escape being “deceived” even with the guidance of the Holy Spirit – now that’s a BIG deception, when even the Holy Spirit can’t overcome it!

I sat through many sermons in that comp/patri church I’ve mentioned before being told that women are still easily deceived and “silly women laden with sin.”

I just went over to Neo’s blog – he does show a great deal of pride and bravado. He actually says that if he as layman can refute you, then how much more could a scholar like Grudem and he feels no need to craft a response since it doesn’t take a genius to figure out where you went wrong. Hunh? I just luv it when “patriarchs” use excuses like that.

“By “childbearing,” that is, by adhering to their God-ordained calling, including a focus on marriage, family, and the home. 1 Timothy 2:15 thus turns out to be Paul’s prescription for women as a lesson learned from the scenario of the Fall described in the preceding verse.”

Amen gengwall! And of course that leads straight to the question – What do the barren wives do? Wives married to sterile husbands? Women who never get a marriage proposal or never meet a man they’d like to give one?

Should we give him credit for at least trying to deal with verse 15? ;>

“I would think that it would be a blow to the husband to have her excel at all above him. And I would also think that it would cause a wife to want to tone down her knowledge in the Scriptures in order to make her husband look more spiritual.”

Cheryl,

This is so true and one of the things we witnessed in the comp church that I just mentioned in my last post. Many of the couples were young and new Christians. The wives were at home, of course, with more time to study the Bible, while the husbands were out working as “the provider”, of course.

gengwall,

I really appreciate the way you stated things in your last paragraph.
Co-leaders reminds me of the fact that husbands and wives are “joint heirs” together. And I think you are correct – joint heirs do not need another “spiritual leader” besides the Holy Spirit.

My husband and I relocated earlier this year and had to do the find-a-new-church thing. On Mother’s Day we unknowingly visited a very comp/patri church. The pastor’s Mother’s Day sermon made mothers sound like wombs for father’s children and he elaborated mostly on the importance of father’s “spiritual leadership.” I wondered if he had ever read Proverbs 31.

My husband and I have had an egal marriage for 28 1/2 of the 30 years we celebrate. I say that because during the 1990’s we were homeschooling and attended a church that was comp/hierarchial for a time because it was homeschool friendly, shall we say. Because neither of us came from a strong Christian background, we were influenced and “bought” into much of the teaching. After a bit more than a year of trying to figure out how to apply what we were being to taught at church without continuing to ruin our relationship, we had to get out. Not long after that I “happened” onto Gilbert Bilezikian’s book and then a few others. It was so wonderful to find out that our happy, loving, egal marriage wasn’t a sin.

Cheryl,

Hats off to you for trying to be a more balanced juggler – I’ve always thought ministry and early bed times were somehow diametrically opposed (wink) or maybe putting the two in the same sentence was an oxymoron or the like. LOL

Thanks for sharing your testimony. I hope that Mark is still following the blog.

“I’m not sure what you would clarify John Piper as, but from the sermons ive heard him talk about marriage, it is very similar to what i have said.”

Mark,

Perhaps to give you more understanding about why some of us have so many misgivings about John Piper’s teaching, I’ll offer this quote by him concerning a wife’s submission to an abusive husband from his website on Aug. 19th:
“She’s going to say, however, something like, “Honey, I want so much to follow you as my leader. God calls me to do that, and I would love to do that. It would be sweet to me if I could enjoy your leadership. But if you ask me to do this, require this of me, then I can’t go there.”
Now that’s one kind of situation. Just a word on the other kind. If it’s not requiring her to sin but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, and she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church.”

I feel for women who because of their circumstances have no other support then pastors who give this kind of advice. “then she seeks help from the church” “Then?” what if she does not survive until “then”? It is obvious from his advice that Piper has never worked in a women’s shelter or been the victim of domestic violence because his advice is the kind that escalates the abuser’s behavior and gets victims killed. By allowing husbands to sin against their wives like this, isn’t Piper allowing them to proclaim they know better than God? These are the kinds of statements that give me great pause about Piper.

There are no limits set in the scripture concernint the rulership of a man in marriage because there was no rulership given to him by God. When a man believes that denying his wife her freedom to live by her own choices is the best way for her, then he has no help from the scripture since there is no rulership program there. The question that we should be asking is why God hasn’t made these limits clear? Why are there so many grey areas in whether it is a sin or not for a woman to do certain things? Why is it that all these limits and role duties have to be set by writings outside the Bible? Like, for instance by CBMW – they spend so much of their time working on the restrictions.

” Isn’t it presumtuous for her to even have an opinion about how the mini universe of your family runs if you are the “lord” of your house and she is to submit to you as the church does onto Christ? If any of this makes you uncomfortable (I sure hope that it would), then you must think to yourself: “maybe I am not understanding Paul precisely when he is talking about Christ and the Church”.

gengwall,
You have a way with words – Excellent observation.

Mark,

I believe that in an earlier post you mentioned comp as being the model traditionally held by the church. But I submit, that the church has been in error for long periods of time on many issues. Isn’t that one reason for the Reformation?

Would anyone really want to have Inquisitorial trials back? No, I think about 700 years worth 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?

Don’t forget the Puritans and the Salem witch trials in the 1690’s. The patriarchal beliefs that Puritans held in the community added further fuel to suspicion. Women, they believed, should be totally subservient to men, because by nature, a woman was more likely to enlist in the Devil’s service than was a man, and women were considered lustful by nature. Courts convicted twenty-nine people of the capital felony of witchcraft. Nineteen were hanged. In 1695, Thomas Maule a noted Quaker, publicly criticized the handling of the trials by the Puritan leaders stating, “it were better that one hundred Witches should live, than that one person be put to death for a witch, which is not a Witch”. For publishing this, Maule was imprisoned twelve months. Church error dies hard.

Mark,

I believe the surrender required by mutual submission is so radical in its demands that it causes “wife/obedience to husband/authority” to pale by comparison. The beauty can be seen in Jesus example of washing the disciples feet. Mutual submission pertains to the very nature of Christ and His ministry. It’s the disposition of one’s whole being for another, the exercise of total servanthood in every aspect of shared lives. This is worlds away from mere “obedience to authority.” Among spouses it is possible to submit without love, but it is impossible to love without submitting. (Just ask a radical Muslim’s wife) I believe this is why Paul began Eph. chapter 5 telling them to “walk in love” and “be filled with the Spirit.” Every day soldiers obey their commanders without love or the Holy Spirit, but Christians cannot submit to one another without them.

“One flesh” is not an organization. “One flesh” does not need one of them to be the leader- that would be dividing – that would still be “Two flesh.” Oneness is never about who’s in charge. Marriage is about godly love. It’s about selfless giving, about mutual understanding and concern. It’s about the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

In real life marriage just isn’t always a perfect scenario. Even the most Christian of marriages between God loving spouses can and do encounter circumstances and tragedies beyond their control that render the husband unable to lead anyone. How could this possibly apply to the life of my friend whose Christian husband suffered a head injury in an auto accident that has left him in near vegetative state? She has no loving choice, but the one God has given her – to lead, protect and provide for her husband. My grandmother also walked a very similar road for the last 15 years of my grandfather’s life as his mind and then body were overtaken by Alzheimer’s. My brother-in-law developed bipolar disorder many years ago and so his wife has never had the luxury of depending upon her husband. On the contrary though, she has developed a wonderful dependence upon her Lord and Savior. If a “biblical role” can have even one small exception, then it cannot possibly be a command for every marriage. This is obvious in the lives of Christian friends and family members with disabilities, illness and aging who cannot fulfill that even if they wanted to.

We all presently live in a world where tragedy and sin are the reality. A husband who has lost his cognitive function cannot exercise “authority” over anyone. They don’t even know what they are doing themselves. A man who cannot recognize his wife (or anyone else), feed himself and rarely opens his eyes is incapable of exercising authority. Logic and facts in reality are not un-Godly.

If Paul had intended to mean authority, he could have used the word exousiazo as he used in I Cor. 7:4 “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” Instead he used kephale.

Kephale was used in Greek writings to mean “source, origin, or sustainer” – Paul had just used it that way in the preceding chapter Eph. 4:15-16 saying “grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself.” Paul even explains how this works treating your wife as your own flesh in Eph. 5:29-30 he “nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of His body.”

I believe making “head” to mean authority also raises difficulties with the doctrine of the lordship of Christ. In what sense can Christ have authority over man and not over woman at the same time? I believe Christ’s lordship extends to all believers, whether married or single – we are all to be lead by the Holy Spirit. Can a woman trade the Holy Spirit for the “Husband Spirit” when she marries? “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”
2 Cor. 11:3

If a woman needs man’s authority over her, then why in I Cor. 7 did Paul write so much explaining “to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I” and “the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord…this I say for your benefit..to promote what is appropriate and secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.”?

Since Jesus redefined leadership as a form of servanthood, (“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 – Mt.20:25-27) then I’m at a total loss in understanding how that servanthood then suddenly reverts back to “having authority over” when applied to the marriage relationship.(?)
“For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another.” Gal. 5:13 NRSV How does “nourishes and cherishes it” become lead and have authority over?

I do not understand – why do complementarians want to place authority and obedience in these passages? It goes against Jesus’ teaching about being servants to one another rather than seeking authority over one another. “But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.” (Luke 22:26)
“He called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” (Mark 9:35)

The two conditions of true greatness are humility and service. Not authority and service.

“3. Whenever we have to change the meanings of words to fit our theology, that rings alarm bells for me.” ME, too!!

Frank,

I’m glad you are posting on the Aussie blog – dealing with the ESS heresy is vital. It is one of the main reasons I feel so strongly about defending the true position of women in the church and home. Subjugation and subordination of people (women) is one thing, but when you start messing with my Savior – you have definitely stepped over the line.

Am I the only U.S. citizen participating here? Years ago I lived in Australia, but sadly have never even visited Canada …as yet.

LOL. Maybe you should celebrate by turning in early…I’m sure you’ve earned it!

Cheryl,
Thanks for pointing out the details – right on as usual. Suppose I shouldn’t have stayed awake reading so late last night until all the fine points disappeared…. );

Cheryl,

Have you ever considered Dr. Kenneth Bailey’s use of chiamus regarding I Corinthians? It appears equally as plausible as the gloss or insertion possibility in Ch. 11 & 14 IMO.

Cheryl,
Peter’s comments about your argument as being like the emperor that had no clothes is so often what I encounter because it is just so easy to charge such a thing without actually engaging the argument. I confess that at that point in each dialogue, I must fight to keep my very dry sense of humor and a penchant for sarcasm “under” as Paul might say.

Dave,
I’m thankful that you stumbled upon Cheryl’s blog as well. It’s a blessing to know that this issue has supporters around the globe. I’ve also enjoyed your input here.

Cheryl,

You’re so right, this issue cannot be won merely by logic or argumentation. The Holy Spirit must pave the way.

I do feel rather frustrated at times just trying to get the word out there so that it can even be considered by them though. Today I needed your reminder to be gracious…thank you.

Because of a couple of family medical emergencies, I was unable to see much of the debate until it was over. I’m disappointmented over Peter Barnes running out on the discussion. As with other debates, the complementarians always seem to excuse themselves from answering any of the very “meaty” questions at this point. If it was not such a serious topic, it would be laughable – they follow the same pattern over and over when the discussion gets to a certain point – they quote some things other Christians have always taught that 1 Timothy 2 means and then they excuse themselves or run. Every time. As usual, I was hoping Peter wouldn’t run like all the rest.

CLC,

You brought out some wonderful fine points for this discussion. One of the main things I’ve learned from Cheryl & her commentors here is to read what the Scriptures really say and not what we’ve always had superimposed on them to say.

I posted this on another blog:

In real life marriage just isn’t always like the perfect scenario you describe. How could this possibly apply to the life of my friend whose Christian husband suffered a head injury in an auto accident that has left him in near vegetative state? She has no loving choice, but the one God has given her – to lead, protect and provide for her husband. My grandmother also walked a very similar road for the last 15 years of my grandfather’s life as his mind and then body were overtaken by Alzheimer’s. My brother-in-law developed bipolar disorder many years ago and so his wife has never had the luxury of depending upon her husband. On the contrary though, she has developed a wonderful dependence upon her Lord and Savior. Or what of my cousin whose husband was killed in Viet Nam and she raised two children on her own? I could go on, but I think you can see my point – marriage just isn’t always like the perfect scenario you describe.

Even the most Christian of marriages between God loving spouses can and do encounter circumstances and tragedies beyond their control that render the husband unable to lead anyone. Besides the differences I’ve mentioned in a previous comment about the meanings of kephale, hupotasso, my perspective regarding husbands having the protector/provider leader role is not the same because of situations I’ve encountered in the lives of Christian friends and family members with disabilities, illness and aging who cannot fulfill that even if they wanted to.
If a “biblical role” can have even one small exception, then it cannot possibly be a command for every marriage.
I think this goes along with some of the recent comments here also…

CLC,
Good thoughts! This is something I posted over on Mike Seaver’s blog Part 6 of the debate – just throwing it out here for you to mull over and see what thoughts it may spark.

*Mike,
After reading the last few lines of your rejoinder, I’m feeling baffled also. How can we both read 1 Peter 5 and “see” it so differently? I don’t see the word “authority” in any of those verses. I see in verse 2 the word translated as “oversight” has the meanings of “to care for, to look after” but no mention of “authority” in the definition. I do see the shepherds being told “And do not lord it over those entrusted to you, but be examples to the flock” a) Don’t try to be lords to those you care for. b) Do be examples. It is a warning for elders in the faith to be responsible. What could be more plain?
Not one time is being in authority mentioned.
But “all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Not one time is being in authority mentioned here either. So, I am left to wonder – where are the verses setting up an “authority” structure? *

TL,

Thanks so much – so it’s just more of Grudem & co. posturing. Has anyone requested a copy of this “letter” from Grudem? Surely comps would be jumping to verify it – if it were real??

I’m going to read on Sue’s site and hopefully come up with a post to refute that blog commenter’s claim. Seems a shame to just let it stand unchallenged. On the other hand, I’m not a “scholar” and don’t always know all the chit chat going on in academia.

Cheryl,
Someone posted these comments on a Christianity Today blog. I’m wondering about the validity of this claim. Can you (or someone) help me out on this?

“Further, the newest edition to Liddell-Scott does not have this definition listed. The editor of Liddell-Scott, P.G.W. Glare, in response to a letter Wayne Grudem’s sent him regarding “source” as a definition for kephale said, “The supposed sense ‘source’ of course does not exist and it was at least unwise of Liddell and Scott to mention the word.”

Concerning the definition you site in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (copyright 1965) the updated version (copyright 1972-1989) says: “It will be seen that in secular usage kepahle is not employed for the head of a society. This is first found in the sphere of the Gk. OT.” The Greek OT is the Septuagint, the translation Paul and the early church would be most familiar with; and thus, contemporary with Paul. By then kephale had taken on the meaning “authority over’.”

pinklight,
It seems they have no idea how much they are bound by tradition and
must keep redefining what the Bible means so it keeps the social norms they prefer.

Trying to say that one could prophesy without ever teaching others ??? To far out for me