Kay

pinklight,
Personally, I prefer the term ‘mutuality’ and ‘mutualist’ over “egal” – because so many people I encounter believe the definition of it is either “identical” or “androgyny.” Of course, it’s neither. I continue to use egal in most online venues because it has become the common term.

There just seems to be a whole bucket load of redefining. So much so, that fellow believers can barely communicate in their native language. (@ #615)

“The verb in Eph 5:21 is in the passive voice. Check it out for yourself at http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/5.htm
Its a description of the mutual subjection/dependence of Body life and there is another witness in 1 Cor 12:12ff…”

Charis,
Another good illustration @616!
I hope you don’t mind me adding more of 1 Cor. 12:
“But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.”

“No one is suggesting that we should all be running around doing nothing but blindly washing one anothers feet whether they have dirty feet or not. True submission, as Paul describes, is doing (or not doing) what is in the best interest of the other. This means it cannot be identical for everyone – but Paul calls for it to be reciprocal.”

Dave,
What an excellent illustration! It seems that Mark, like many other people, has redefined “egalitarian” to mean ‘identical’. But that is not what it means.

SM,
A lovely thing about Cheryl’s blog is that she doesn’t divide us into different leagues. 🙂 I’m glad!

“Egalitarians want Eph 5:21 to be reciprocal in all relationships (especially marriage) but where do you draw the line to this mutuality?”

Mark,
We (like all Christians) draw the line at condoning sin in any relationships. I can’t believe you even suggest that would be possible.

“Mark #599,
You ask Dave:
“You then say that your wife ought to submit to me the same as to you. Does that then mean marital rights? If not, why not?”

Mark,
Surely you jest?? I’m still in shock that the question was posed in the first place…

Mark,
Are you and your wife excluded from the group addressed in Ephesians 5:21?

“Both NN and I have repeatedly said that Biblical authority is loving, self- sacrifice, nourishing, cherishing, my-life-for yours.”

authority = self-sacrifice, nourishing, cherishing, my life for yours

So is authority the English word that best captures agape used by the author and as described in Eph 5 as self-sacrificing, nourishing, cherishing?

If so, then would your definition of authority be lost on the unbeliever or the Believer if we said a fundamental principle of Christianity is “authority your neighbor as yourself”?”

SM,
I’ve wondered the same thing.

Tiffany,
I do wish you could hang around a couple more days – I’m barely skimming here due to Memorial Holiday events, but would love to follow up on Tues.

NN,
Are you saying that you don’t believe “submit to one another” includes husbands? Because Paul states that it includes “wives to husbands,” how does that exclude husbands?

NN,
At some point (and probably sooner than you think), you’ll find that physical force is no longer an option in exacting obedience from your children. Not without repercussions harmful to them, you and any relationship you may hope to have with them when they are adults. You must love and nurture them in such a way that they willingly follow you…Jesus doesn’t force us to follow Him.

NN:”(fortunately my children are still young)”

NN,
I hear that! Thankfully, my children are adults now with children of their own.

“And this brings us back to the question: How can you tell? When Paul says “all christians should submit one to another” you say ‘that’s a transcendent truth of the christian faith” when he says to exactly the same group “wives submit to your husbands” you say ‘well, that’s just a result of the culture that he was speaking to.’ But how do you think you can know?”

NN,
Are you saying that you don’t believe “submit to one another” includes husbands? Just because Paul states that it includes “wives to husbands,” how does that exclude husbands?

“Or do you disagree?”
I disagree – it is a responsibility not an “authority.” It’s love in action.

“Do you think that when we find ourselves in a position of authority (for whatever reason) that the Bible teaches that we should use it in some other way?”

Of course not – we can’t invalidate “love thy neighbor” simply because we might be occupying a position of authority.

N #328 “So your claim is that “authority” is not nurturing, self-sacrificing or centrally focused on the good of others.”

You are trying very hard to somehow morph & equate “authority” into/with self-sacrifice. Hmmm…won’t happen – these two different things are not synonymous.

NN:”What then are the implications of raising children as described in the Bible? What then shall we call the actions of a parent who nurtures their child by disciplining them for getting into the medicine cabinet? Or insists that they do need to finish their homework despite the pressing allure of a video game? ”

You must be unfamiliar with the term ‘parental guidance’. Why do you try to put “authority”

NN:”(fortunately my children are still young)”

Wives do not = children

NN:”Are these actions characteristic of “authority?” – Absolutely”

No, they are not. A person with ‘authority’ can also have the characteristics of ‘nurturing’, etc, but they are NOT synonymous.
(ie.Hitler, Saddam Hussein)

NN:”Is this type of authority rightly nurturing, self-sacrificing and centered on the good of others. – Completely”

Again, there is no such thing as that “type of authority.” A person can be both “in authority” and “self-sacrificing”, but they are not the same thing.

“And on the matter of patience – I have taught physics to the intellectual equivalent of labradoodles before and they did not test my patience so much.”

This really doesn’t seem to resemble Christian charity.

“Which incidentally is exactly the approach that my original post details:

A straightforward reading of passages such as Col 3:18, Eph 5:22, 1 Pet 3:1, etc. suggests a hierarchy implicit within the nature of the marriage relationship.”

NN is attempting to claim the “straightforward reading” of scripture – problem is, he does not consistently follow his own method as he introduces, from thin air, the concept of “eros”.

“Most comps I know don’t see erotic love as a place for male authority over female.”

Mara,
That has been my experience as well, although I have encountered many who teach on the importance of the husband’s sexual satisfaction to the near exclusion of the wife’s. It’s difficult for comps to outright deny 1 Cor. 7:4, but they try various means to qualify it.

NN: (239) “[Eros] fits by far the best with all available evidence provided by Scripture that I have seen…”

SM: “Ok, I thought it was a hypothesis. Once again, would you be so helpful as to provide the scripture that you claim establishes “eros” as the basis for patriarchal hierarchy in marriage, other than Eph 5:22 which you cover already in your article under discussion and up to this point have yet to use effectively to support this claim.”

sm,
He’s going to have a fine time finding that one since, as gengwall pointed out, ‘eros’ is nowhere to be found in the NT.

*pinklight*,
Done!

“But the reality is you can’t have it both ways. If you are going to use Jesus’ lordship and authority as the model, you have to go the whole 9 yards (ok, enough cliches). The husband has to be everything that Jesus is to the world and the church…”

gengwall,
You beat me to it –
Paul simply illustrates the love and mututal submission inherent in the “one flesh” relationship by likening that relationship to the self sacrafice and devotion that Chist has for His Church. At the same time, he stops short of extending Christ’s Lordship to the husband. Rather, the sacrificial giving and caring of the husband is a two way street which invovles mutual submission as a matter of course (Eph 5:21).

“Hopefully we can agree that the apostles give different instructions to husbands and to wives? (regardless of what the difference might mean or why the apostles might have said it)”

NN,
I think that was established some time ago. The problem is what you try to infer from this.

“Both our proper love toward God and His love toward us is described by the word “agape” – yet He is in authority over us. Whether you think it paradoxical or not it clearly is possible.”

Yes, it is possible….when one of us is God. When one of us is not – I see no absolute correlation.

“He doesn’t say “Don’t have leaders, Don’t have people ‘in charge’” – It says “the kind of leadership that I am calling you to is different that what is natural to the world”

NN,
I appreciate you responding to me, but I really do wish you would have answered my question instead. The word “leaders” was not the subject of my inquiry. I asked about “whoever” – how do you get ‘authorized males only’ out of “whoever”?

Where are you finding male only servants of the Lord? Are you saying that female believers aren’t servants of the Lord? How does “whoever wishes” qualify only male believers?

” In Matthew 23, Luke 22 and elsewhere. He taught his disciples about the temptations and abuse of power. Christ does not say that greatness does not exist: He says rather that our ideas about “greatness” are all wrong. The whole point of the authority which Christ commands is to be looking outside ourselves, just as the love to which we are commanded differs so fundamentally from the selfishness of worldly love.”

NN,
I’m still wondering how you make the leap from “greatness” to “authority”?

It seems to me that you are trying to hold two opposing views at the same time – one hand says Christ redefined “greatness” as serving others and the other hand says that serving is transformed back into “authority” over when done by male believers.

It seems like you are saying that male believers have been given “authority” to be servants. But Jesus doesn’t say that He is dispensing “authority” to “whoever wishes” or to male believers in particular. He simply says, “whoever.” What causes you to think that male believers need a particular authority to do what Christ says that “whoever wishes” may do?

Tiffany,
You are probably aware that the patriarchist’s view currently teaches that all women, (single, widowed, or married) must constantly be under a male’s authority. I’m curious as to what the particular type of complementarian view you hold teaches concerning single (adult) women and authority?

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

Jesus said, “whoever.” He did not say “the males” or “men only.” This was not a transfer of authority or power to male believers.

” In Matthew 23, Luke 22 and elsewhere. He taught his disciples about the temptations and abuse of power. Christ does not say that greatness does not exist: He says rather that our ideas about “greatness” are all wrong. The whole point of the authority which Christ commands is to be looking outside ourselves, just as the love to which we are commanded differs so fundamentally from the selfishness of worldly love.”

NN,
How did you make the leap from “greatness” to “authority”?

“The fact that we have authority structures in human relationships is irrelevant. What must be demonstrated is that there is authority of the literal anatomical head over the anatomical body. Without that, it can not be proven that Christ as the metaphorical head over the body has any authority over that body.”

Well put, gengwall.
Case in point: slavery – the authority structure of the master/slave relationship which we now find abhorrent, was once unquestioned.

gengwall asked “NN – How is Matt 28:18 related to the marriage relationship of Christ and the church?”

I wonder what NN’s view is on that. Yes, just how much of a smidgeon of His “All authority” did Jesus hand over husbands? And which verse shows Him doing that? How much of “All” is not ‘all’?

“Any complementarian male who feels smug or complacent with the idea that they “have authority” has misunderstood every lesson about Christian authority which Christ Himself lived out for us…”

NN,
I can certainly agree with the latter part of your statement, but not the first part. We can search and search for the words “authority” over anyone, but they are not there. They are not there in other verses used by hierarchists. Like:

“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive theunfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders.Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

We don’t see the word “authority” in any of those verses either. 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. No authority given by God to anyone is mentioned.

NN wrote:
“Rank clearly exists in relationships such as within the coastguard, parent to child, governor to citizen. If both people involved are christians, does this then negate the “rank” and authority intrinsic in the relationship?”

It baffles me each time I see comps/hierarchists make this claim. There is no Scripture telling Christians to take authority over their children.
There are not any Scriptures telling parents to force their children to obey them. Jesus doesn’t force us to follow Him – He leads by loving 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.”

Jesus explicitly told us NOT to conduct our relationships according to the government model – But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

“How does this double payment reconcile with a Just God?”

Gazza,
The unrepentant unbeliever did not acquire Christ’s atonement, which is only applicable through faith. The unrepentant unbeliever did not take what Jesus accomplished for them because it is only applied through faith.

The only way for there to be a double payment would be if Jesus paid the price for one’s sins and the sinner received the atonement by faith and then *was still* sent to hell. In that scenario we would find an unjust double payment.

The condition which God established for the sinner to be justified is faith in Christ’s blood (Rom. 3:24-26). Since the unbeliever is not justified, having failed to believe, in what sense can it be maintained that Christ’s sacrifice was applied to his or her account? A genuine offer of atonement was made in the unbeliever’s stead. However, the unbeliever failed to receive it by faith. A person is saved to the uttermost by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone (Acts 4; Eph. 2:8-9).