Kerryn

Hello Greg

not sure if you are still reading this thread…

regarding 1 peter 3:7 and the wife being the “asthenestero” (without strength, ‘weaker’) vessel, Sarah Sumner has some helpful thoughts in her book “Men and Women in the Church”. I haven’t got her book right in front of me know, but from memory her opinion is that the word is better understood as ‘vulnerable’. ie women were more “vulnerable” physically (and socially/ economically etc too i think). If you have access to the book it could be worth a quick read… IMO it certainly is not a statement claiming that women are weaker spiritually or emotionally than men. Life ‘everyday’ around me simply proves that this is not the case.

I think it’s wonderful how God emphasises the importance of the husband showing his wife “respect” (TEV) / “honour” (NASB) and stresses that they are co-heirs in Christ even though ‘he’ may have some advantage in some area(s) of ‘strength’ over her… his relationship with God (prayer) is absolutely effected by how he treats his wife…
what a sober warning for any husband…

(-:
kerryn

Don

thanks for being so specific.
i appreciate your work on my behalf.
unless i can establish a ‘stronger’ case i agree with you no one would have to accept it as fact with just one witness.

i get frustrated when either side (egal or comp) make their arguments without doing thorough research or make arguments from silence.

keep up the great work! i appreciate your regular comments here.

(-:
kerryn

thanks Don and Paula for your responses.

i will check out the references when i can next get up to the library.

if you find further helpful references on this can you pls let me know – either via this blog, or email it to cheryl and she can pass it onto me or give you my email etc.

i want to be as thorough as i can in my search for truth. i do my best to avoid arguments ‘from silence’ to make ‘my’ case… but it’s a constant challenge to not end up falling back on such techniques.

let’s continue share our reliable resources as we find them.

God bless!

Kerryn

Hello Don (or anyone else who can help!)

Can you possibly help me with any firm references regarding the tombstone references to ‘one woman man’. many egal folk refer to this info (seen it on many blogsites now) but i haven’t yet had a ‘formal’ provable reference and would LOVE one if you have it!

My lovely hubby (who is a comp) is really ‘stuck’ on this one phrase and it has meant that i have been limited in serving in our church in certain areas when i have been asked by the pastor (ie – what hubby considers to be ‘eldership’). If you (or anyone else) can offer me any help on this I’d really appreciate it!

Regards
Kerryn

Hi all
everytime i read about the council of Jerusalem it blows me away.
it really is quite incredibe how they council, on Paul and Barnabas’ encouragement agree to do away with this incredibly significant ritual from the days of Abraham…
what is perhaps even MORE amazing is that a few verses ‘later’ in the next chapter Paul ‘makes’ Timothy get the ‘chop’ (just after he’s fought for Christian’s right to NOT need circumcision physically!) so that the gospel is not hindered….
i’d love to have been a fly on the wall when he sat poor Tim down to give him the ‘bad’ news of what ‘had’ to be done ….

i just think that’s ‘amazing’ – but Paul was all about forwarding the gospel …. i think that this illustration of two opposite ‘practices’ in Ch 15 and 16 of Acts is a warning to us on taking too ‘literally’ specific local actions taken in the early church such as stuff that is discussed in the gender debate… ???

on a purely ‘medical’ note… on my dad’s side, my hubby’s side and my brother in law’s side there have been at least one or two circumcisions done after the age of 10 due to serious infections. God has given me three daughters – so i am thankful it’s a ‘non’ issue for us! but these poor blokes went through circumcision at ages where it was not only painful but very embarrasing… not sure about official stats – but ‘local’ ones seem to be a lot higher than ‘1%’. (based purely on medical, not religious reasons that is!)

God bless you all!

kerryn

P41 Mustang,

pls help us (Cheryl) understand the foundation for your accusations against the teaching on this site.
be specific and help us see the ‘error’ you are talking to. if you just make broad brush claims without specifics how are we to understand and repent of any untruths we are “beguiled” by.

pls speak with Christian love and humility rather than an accusing degrading tone as our Lord Jesus would want us to… then i guarantee you will receive a welcome audience here. since i found this site i must say i have been very impressed with Cheryl’s graciousness to anyone who holds a difference perspective – pls pay her the same courtesy.

so – let’s hear your specific reasons with scriptural evidence whey the teaching on this site is erroneous, then let’s dialogue together in love towards truth… are you up for that ?

K

Thanks Paula. you are right about ‘pink he5meneutics i think…
incosistency in the approach to scripture seems to be a constant challenge…

some claim that 1 tim 3:2 ‘excludes’ women from eldership because it ‘only’ says husband of one wife…. yet if the same logic is applied to Ex 20:17… ONLY men are not to covet their neighbour’s spouse…
(let alone the whole issue of ‘having to be married and have children that follow the Lord etc from 1 Tim 2)

k

Hello Sue (re #17)

i sure agree with your statement that we ‘are’ male and female rather than it being a definitive aspect of us being made in the image of God…after all, the animals and plants have gender, right?! i just think that Gen 1:27 is scripture (God) telling us that male and female are equal before God. How wonderful to get that ‘established’ at the beginning of time!

For some (complementarians) it ‘all’ seems to link together into one big ‘connected’ (circular!) argument :
God ‘is’ male (or at least ‘more male’ than female’?! because he is called ‘Father’ and ‘Son’), therefore males have some kind of ‘generic’ authority/responsibility/ability ‘over’ females… therefore women must be restricted to be ‘under’ this authority in the home / in ministry – regardless of their actual personal ability/character/position in Christ….
recently (since the late 70’s) the whole thing about the subordination of the Son to the Father has been used by some to support the other doctrines above…

If God is ‘male’ and our gender is ‘eternal’ – based on the claim that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father …. and therefore women are generically to be subordinate to men…. what do we make of the fact that all believers (male and female) are going to be ‘married’ to the Son in heaven… ?
(Jesus said there is to be no marriage in heaven b/w humans mt 22:30 …because we are to be married to ‘him’ Rev 19:7-9)
If gender is going to continue in heaven, it sounds very much against the concept in scripture that marriage is between ‘a man’ and ‘a woman’…

It just doesn’t hold together for me… for me it seems that gender cannot be an essentially ‘spiritual’ thing – rather it’s just how we are here on earth…necessary for mulitplication (fulfilling our mandate Gen 1:28!) and earthly marriage is a forshadow of what God intended for us with Christ in heaven as his Bride… (As Paul says in Eph 5 – the marriage b/w Christ and his Church is a profound mystery – illustrated in some humble way through human marriage). There is no male and female (in a spiritual sense) in Christ (Gal 3:28).

Anyone disagree? Agree?

it seems to me that each of these comp ‘arguments’ above are built upon each other and round and round they go…it’s a bit like a bowl of spaghetti all mixed together into one big supposedly ‘convincing’ dish – but if they are individually assessed scripturally on their own merits they fall way short of being convincing (in my humble opinion!)
i guess when it’s all said in a rush ‘together’ the argument seems stronger and more comprehensive, but when ‘dismantled’ and studied at each level it seems to me to fall apart.
as someone who currently finds myself to be sitting in the egalitarian side of the fence , I am trying to learn how to discuss the egal-comp stuff with those who are on the ‘other side’ in a helpful way… so much emotion seems to come into play… my approach at the moment is to try and ‘break’ the argument down in to these (supposedly interrelated) individual claims and assess them for their ‘own’ merits… i am praying it will help!

(I sure can ramble on – sorry! Just processing my own thoughts again I guess!)

(-: kerryn

Great stuff Cheryl,

thanks as usual for your clear points on a crucial aspect of the patriarchal -egal debate.
hope you are getting the rest you need!

Kerryn

Hi Tiffany, (and Cheryl…) (re #21)
Great questions and discussion. thanks.
Regarding the whole husband = Christ = head and wife = Church = Body… i think (apart from the whole ‘kephale’ meaning debate) that one of the biggest challenges is how ‘far’ do you take this metaphor? after all, we do need to remember that this is ‘just’ a metaphor. Yes, it’s a God-inspired one – but it’s just a metaphor – not a literal comparison on ‘all’ fronts. Is Paul saying the ‘husband’ is the ‘saviour’ of the ‘wife’? Few would argue so! Yet obviously Paul wants us to understand some similarities in the manner in which the Church/Christ and wife/husband are to relate to each other. What I’d like to ask you (as I ask myself too!) is what exactly is Paul (God’s!) ‘emphasis’ through the metaphor? I don’t believe that with metaphors like this that we are to ‘stretch it as far as we possibly can’ – but rather ask ourselves what is the critical point(s) being emphasised.
I’ll be brave and suggest some thoughts first but I’d love to hear your thoughts too Tiffany.
I believe that the metaphor is being used to emphasise the ‘unity’ of the husband and wife – just as the Church as the Body is to be unified with Christ. I don’t think (and pls do correct me if I am wrong cos I am still learning and studying all this stuff in a big way at the moment) that the other metaphorical uses of ‘kephale’ referring to Christ in relation to his church (Eph 1:22-23; 4:15-16; Col 1:18-19; 2:19); ever ‘emphasise’ his authority over his Church, but rather his unity and close relationship with Her and the way that Christ nourishes, supports (serves?) the Church. I love how Paul brings the focus of the metaphor back to God’s original pre-fall intent – that the man and woman be united and ‘one’ (Gen 2:24), even as Jesus does when he is asked about issues of divorce and marriage (Mt 19:4-6). In fact it seems to me that a key theme in Eph as a whole is ‘unity’ which lays the context for how we are to submit to one another – and specific examples that Paul uses for the husband and wife in Eph 5:21-33. Does Christ have authority over the Church? Yes. Of course he does – He is all-powerful. Yet I don’t see ‘kephale’ being used in Scripture to emphasise this authority or power over his Church/Bride.

What do you think?

How are we to submit to Christ? I believer absolutely and totally. His faithfulness and perfect sacrificial love for me inspires me to want to submit to him. If another Christian (who we are to submit to eph 5:21) or my husband (eph 5:22-24) was to ask me to do something contrary to Scripture I would not choose to submit to them (this is perhaps an over-simplification of what could be very complex issues!). But Jesus will never ask me to do anything contrary to Scripture. The wonderful thing about submission in this passage is it’s not demanded by the one we are submitting to – but offered by us to another. We ‘submit ourselves’ (middle voice of “huppotasso”).

Do you think Christ has also submitted himself to the Church?
what do you think?

Regards
Kerryn

PS – I began writing this entry 24 hours ago but have had my three little girls keeping me so busy – so sorry if I am joining the discussion a bit late to be ‘in context’…and if it’s a bit of a mixed/ incomplete bag of thoughts!

Cheryl

i agree that one further thing you mentioned that seems very important in this whole debate too…

if Adam alone was told by God ‘not to eat’ of the Tree of G and E (which as you say is not supported by Gen 1:29) and then the man either misquoted God to Eve or Eve misquoted God to the Serpent, it seems incredible that this is not explicitly mentioned in Genesis. Before Eve and Adam ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Scripture portrays them clearly as being sinless and perfect in their relationsohip with each other and with God. Surely the first ‘sin’ (either through deception or intentional in natrue) was in Gen 3 when the first man and woman disobeyed God’s command and ate from the non-seed bearing Tree of Knowledge.

thanks again for your thought-provoking posts. keep ’em coming!

warm regards
kerryn

Hello Cheryl,

been doing some follow up thinking and work on your comments to Michael above. I have very limited Hebrew skills – but from what I can tell using interlinear/language tools it seems clear that the “you” in Gen 1:29 to whom God gives “every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed” is indeed plural. Which supports your reading that God is talking to not just Adam but his companion Eve too.

I had never noticed this before until you mentioned it above. So thanks. Following this line of thinking a bit further… do you reckon that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil – which is clearly a ‘one and only’ of its kind and is not mentioned again in Scripture outside of the Garden of Eden – clearly wouldn’t need to have ‘seeds’ in its fruit as from what we can tell from scripture God wasn’t intending for it to propogate into more trees. What do you think?

Contrastingly (is that a word?!), Revelation 22:2 tells us that the Tree of Life is found not only in the Garden of Eden, but also in the eternal City of God and exists on “each side” of the river (can a ‘single’ tree be on more than ‘one side’ of a river?) in the City of God. God only stopped Adam and Eve eating from the tree of Life (Gen 2:16) when he banished them from the Garden (Gen 3:22-24) following the Fall – thus it would follow since they were allowed to eat of it in Eden and that it was a seed-bearing tree??? thus there can be more than one Tree of Life? (of course our Creator can make something from ‘nothing’ anyway…but interesting stuff i think?)

I dunno (Aussie for “dont know”!) – perhaps this is getting too ‘literal’ in my reading of this kind ancient narrative genre? a mountain out of a ‘mole hill’? and perhaps just a total ‘side’ issue – but i just thought it was interesting…!

Regards
Kerryn

Cheryl

thanks for your response to both Michael’s and my queries above.

some of the things you mention – esp in terms of Eve ‘directly’ hearing from God – have been very helpful for me to think through…

so much to ponder,
(-:
kerryn

Don and Greg

thanks so much for sharing your stories.
One thing i am learning as i grow older in this life is just how hard we all find it to ‘see’ our own traditions and culture. Both in the church and in our world around us. It takes ‘deliberate’ courage to search our hearts on these things and to be prepared to change. Thanks to you both for having that kind of inspiring courage.

Any more testimonies? I love to hear them.
In Christ
Kerryn

Cheryl,
I found this a very helpful testimony as it is so honest and humble and shows someone’s ‘journey’ from patriarchalism to ‘biblical egalitarianism’. I know different people will find answers in different ways, but i still feel like hearing these stories are very encouraging and helpful for us all.
I am keen to hear more testimonies of other people’s journeys if others are willing to share…
(-:
kerryn

Thanks Cheryl

well said. No arguments here!

what amazes me is that so many women (even mature female Christians and pastor’s wives that i know well) just ‘take’ what they have been ‘fed’ on this – that women are ‘designed’ by God to be ‘helpers’ for men. a simple word study shows this is absolutely not meant by the Hebrew word “ezer”. rather than being ‘lesser’ assistants to males because of their gender or being more ‘needy’ than men, woman was designed by our Creator to provide ‘help’ than MAN desperately needed. I love that the same word is used of God on multiple occasions saying he is our HELPER (ezer… (cf. Is 41;13; ps 10:14; Ps 28:7; Ps 33:20; Ps 70:5 etc etc). No one claims He is our ‘mere’ assistant, hey?! God is not the ‘needy’ one – we are and he is our ezer (“Helper”).

We sadly lay so much ‘tradition’ on our understanding of Scripture… when it’s just not in the text at all…

HELP us Lord cos we are all needy of you and revelation from the Word…
(-:
kerryn

hello Cheryl,

Greg and Teknomom i agree with yr comments…

i am busy juggling feeding my new little baby girl – now a month old! so i haven’t been on yr blog too much lately…now i finally logged on, reading this just makes me sad more than anything. our Christian faith is about relationship with God (Jesus, Father and Spirit). i think yr point cheryl about ‘how can we have relationship with Jesus if we don’t ‘talk’ with him?’ is key. what after all is prayer? do our prayers seriously only get heard and answered if we follow a special formula of ‘magic’ words? sounds like pharisaical religious nonsense to me. (or perhaps more like a pagan ritualistic chant?) my older kids (3 anf 5 yrs) pray so amazingly heart felt prayers to God – if they forget to utter ‘in Jesus name’ at the end, does Dr Ware seriously claim that our loving God will say “sorry… can’t listen to you?’

what does ‘praying in Jesus’ name’ mean? certainly not a ‘verbal tag’ on the end of any prayer to close a ‘done deal’ in my opinion. i believe it’s more about knowing Christ (thru relationship- which surely must include ‘conversation’?) and praying according to His heart/ will…
why do some folk insist on ‘dividing’ the Indivisible? sadly it seems to serve their desire/agenda to ‘divide’ His Body too?

this is important stuff cheryl – thanks for tackling the issue…
kerryn

Teknomom,
you have an amazing way with words!
(-:
k

Thanks to all of you for your valuable insights. i dont comment much on this site but read ALL the entries and learn a lot!

it seems to me in my humble opinion that any of us who try and ‘box’ God into some neat little easily explainable package (be it called ‘Trinity’ or whatever) are on dangerous idolatrous ground. He is so awesome and so far ‘beyond’ what human words can do we are always going to ‘fall short’ trying to describe the INdescribable! Yet we are called to seek him and know him – so we must ‘try’ to do so!

as we dialogue about our God i pray that we are amazed and enthralled by this “Triune Being” – not desperate to box him into several neat little packages that our little minds can claim to contain him… may the “Trinity” ignite us with wonder – not frustrate us with our human limitations. what a task – to know the One who is so amazingly majestic, we can never ‘fully’ know him as he is “ultimately unknowable”! surely we can only know him as he has chosen in his great grace to reveal himself to us:- “Know this…the LORD YOUR GOD IS ONE” (deut 6:4). as we seek to better understand the “Trinity”, i believe that our concepts must not ever under cut the perfect unity, equality and “one-ness” of our amazing God. I am yet to read an ‘eternal subordinalist’ argument that does not at some point undermine the perfect unity and equality of Jesus and Father and Spirit.

I am personally particularly interested in exploring what the scriptures have to say about the way the “incarnate, human” Jesus relates with Father in ‘contrast’ (not sure that’s the right word?) to how the “eternal pre-existent divine Son” relates to Father. (The mystery of Jesus being fully human and and fully God at once is as amazing as the concept of the Trinity… so forgive me if i haven’t expressed my statement well. I do believe that Jesus was fully human AND fully divine!)

Comments?

(-:
Kerryn

Cheryl,

as much as some try to separate ‘headship’ in marriage from the issues to do with ‘women in [public] ministry’, they are ultimately inextricably tied together. Either God has specific ‘roles’ for men and women, or he doesn’t… if these so-called ‘roles’ are grounded in ‘creation’ as patriarchalists claim, then they surely cut across EVERY area of our life/being. I continually see the biggest challenge with the patriarchal stance as being their inconsistency on how they ‘apply’ this so-called equal (in value) but ‘different’ (in role) theology.

… looking forwards to what you will be posting on this topic.

many thanks
Kerryn

Amen.
K

Hey Cheryl
Clear, succint and profound.
It’s so sad that this seems so hard for the Body to ‘get’ and live out in practice?
Thanks.
Kerryn

Cheryl,

Great teaching here.

i have always thought it was very interesting that we never hear of anything ‘more’ of Matthias after his ‘appointment’ to the 12.
Who needs ‘titles’ anyway? Like you say – let’s just DO the work of an evangelist, or pastor or teacher as God equips us.
Pride and a lust for power (even though it is sometimes so subtle) corrupts the Body of Christ where we are to all respect each other equally.
One of the things i like about the Senior Pastor of my church here in Australia (and it’s a big church for downunder – about 4000 people with perhaps 80+ staff)…is that he simply introduces himself as ‘one of the workers’ here at the church or ‘one’ of the staff. He never highlights that he is the “senior” pastor when up the front preaching or facilitating the service. Our value as people is found IN Christ – not in titles or special activities or roles we fulfil.

keep up the great work Cheryl.
regards
Kerryn

Greg,

Thanks for your thoughts – very insightful.

I am often amazed as i read about the Jerusalem council in Acts 15…how simply huge it was for the apostles and elders to agree to overturn what had been understood as the absolutely non-negotiable ‘need’ (command by God – Gen 17) for physical circumcision that had been part of their religious culture since Abraham. I mean this was a big call, was it not, to ‘let go’ the whole covenant sign thing that had been in play for nearly two millennia?! Paul goes into bat saying that circumcision should not considered part of the Christian faith… He ‘wins’ the argument and the Council agrees to no longer demand the practice -then what does Paul do a “few verses” later in Acts 16:2…? Paul circumcises Timothy! (Poor Timothy is all I can think!) Why? Paul is (and i believe we are also meant to be) all about seeing the message of the gospel not being hindered by ‘unnecessary’ social/cultural offence. Sure there are the ‘non-negotiables’… we can’t ‘not’ preach the cross and Christ crucified… or salvation by grace. But it seems to me as I read Paul’s/Peter’s (God’s) words we are told consistently to try and live ‘quiet’ lives and be at peace with those around us so as the message of the Gospel can be furthered – not hindered. This will mean that we as Christians need to be willing at times to give up some of our ‘privileges’ in Christ – ie we don’t ‘demand’ to live out all the freedoms we have the ‘right’ to in Christ (that is, to choose what we eat/drink/wear hats or not etc – eg 1 Cor 10/11). I know we can only ‘suppose’ – but what advice would Paul give to the churches in our 21stC western society today regarding women being allowed to speak/preach/teach/ share equal rights and leadership in marriage? Whatever the ‘church’ looks like – it must remain at it’s very heart ‘missional’ in nature…

I think, as Cheryl often asks, it is critical to work out “is it a sin for a woman to preach good doctrine to a man”? Is this issue ‘critical’ to salvation? What does the bible say? I would certainly agree with her, NO it’s not a core doctrine (though some do amazingly make this a doctrine of salvation)…If not, then I believe Paul would advise the church to practice what forwards the work of the gospel in the culture – this surely is not (at least in contemporary western culture) to have women sitting on the sidelines unable to use their God-given talents because of their gender alone? (However, if one was working in a Moslem culture it would be absolute stupidity to have a woman get up unveiled in public and preach the gospel to the masses – right? The hearts of the people would be shut – not opened to the gospel by such culturally offensive behaviour). Yet some choose to ignore this clear, strategic, repeated, scriptural approach for mission and “church” in the NT and give superior “weight” to a tiny handful of individual verses (1 Tim 2:12-15; Eph 5:21-24; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:6; 2:4) that arguably contain serious lingual (grammatical or metaphorical) and cultural-context challenges.

Just my rambling thoughts … any comments?

Kerryn

Hey there Teknomom

thanks so much for your detailed response.
i’ll be a good berean and try and get my head around it now.
i appreciate your efforts in explaining.
God bless you as you serve him so passionately!

(-:
kerryn

Cheryl

wow – i am exhausted just listening to the discussion after the fact…

congrats on staying so calm.

one thing that has consistently struck me about how you approach this whole difficult topic – whether in writing or verbally – is the grace you show in your communication. it’s all too rare on ‘both’ sides of the debate. thank you for leading the way in this attitude.

may the Lord Jesus give you strength and patience to go another round next week!

(-:
kerryn

To: Cheryl

I am looking forwards to listening to the audio when you can get a link up cheryl.

thanks for taking a lot of ‘hits’ today for all of us who believe that God has no favourites and we are all – both male and female – ‘priests and kings’ before him through Jesus. I pray that the Lord refreshes you in your spirit after such a challenging and no doubt draining ‘chat’ with Matt.

to: teknomom

thanks for your summary teknomom…
i am interested in your comment above regarding titus 2 –
“And the word “appointment” is given in regards to the “female elders”! Age cannot be appointed!

Can you flesh this out a bit more for me- which greek word/phrase are you refering to?

can you pls point me to the specific greek word/phrase that you are referring to… so i can be a good berean and get my head around what you are saying? sounds very interesting indeed.

Michael Kruse just wrote a helpful post on the titus passage – part of his household code series. he makes some helpful insights on why titus is to get the ‘older women to teach the younger women’ too… in summary Michael shows how these codes (found in places such as Titus 2; Eph 5-6; 1 Peter 2-3 etc) are missional in focus. The behaviour of the church was to always forward the message of the gospel and not hinder it by ‘unnecessarily’ offending the culture of those in which is was being lived and preached. It was socially taboo for a man to teach young women – especially single women – thus Titus specifically asks the older women/ female elders in the church to instruct the younger women. This was not meant to be understood as a rule that they MUST ONLY teach the younger women… see http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2007/09/household-hou-3.html if you want to read more on this.

thanks to all who contribute such helpful insights on this website.

(-:
Kerryn

Cheryl,

Wade Burleson has an interesting update on this case on his blog… http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/

things are looking very good for Dr Sheri legally…

regards
Kerryn