Lin

You know, we really need to define leadership, too. Biblically, in the NC, it is about serving. And we all know traditionally women are the servers. :o)

“That’s right Lin, but pointing to differences is no more proof that those differences yield better leaders than pointing out a particular, er, “appendage” that men uniquely have. The followup needs to be: “given those differences, what about them makes men better leaders?”…….and…….nothing but crickets.”

Good point. I wonder if they would try to claim more testoserone as inherently better for leadership?

“So, if you want to see them squirm, have them point out what is unique about male “design” and prove that it makes for a better leader. When they can’t, they have just self-acknowledged that they are not designed to lead.”

I have actually heard a response to this. It was a long time ago and I cannot remember who teh speaker was but he said it was obvious because the man was not designed like the woman. DUH…And he went on to point out the things you mention such as brain structure, hormones, etc. They always focus on the women. It is their paradigm.

(I wish I could find the study done on London Taxi drivers that showed the long time male drivers brains looked almost identical to wiring in most women’s brains)

Lin – by “observed differences” I do not mean only outward physical differences.”

But those cannot be proven scripturally. They could very well be a result of thousands of years of culture and lack of education. It does not seem that emotions or PMS affected Deborah negatively in any case. :o) And her ‘intellect’ or ability was not questioned by the men. The reverse is true. She was asked to go into battle.

So that is a nebulous area that has become part of our culture. Ask all the women who have had husbands die young and they were all of a sudden responsible for the family and the income. The Britons squashed the idea that women could not fly planes because they needed them to. Even industrial work was done by women during the war at a time it was thought only men could handle it. Nevermind the back breaking labor of working the fields with a baby strapped to your back. Poor women have always been ‘capable’. And rich women studied Latin.

Whether physical or intellectual, the problem was opportunity. Not capability.

“The only effectual approach, at least IMHO, must be to challenge the original premise.”

I totally agree with this. And we can show historically the traditional premise changed from Post fall to pre fall. Just read the early church fathers some of these CBMW guys love to quote on everything else. Most of them believed in the post fall stance of Patriarchy.

” Were men designed by God to be the leaders of the human race, or were men and women together designed to be the co-leaders of the human race? Moreover, considering the obviously observed differences in men and women, are there gender specific design parameters instilled by God and if so, what are they if not leadership and, I guess, “followership”? These are the questions that must be addressed first. Knock out the foundation, and the whole house of cards crumbles.”

What do physical differences have to do with leadership?

We can start with this question: Is leadership brawn or brains? If it is brawn, then Deborah was a strange choice by God.

What do physical difference have to do with wisdom, spirituality, intellect and obedience to God?

Calling me a femi Nazi for asking these questions or having a different view does not hurt me nearly as much as it hurts them. Spiritually.

I have also learned that it is a waste of time to try and convince those who benefit directly from this false doctrine. It is best to spend our time with folks who are questioning the contradictions they see from the teachers of this doctrine and the apparent contradictions in some interpretations of the Word. (For example: Why is there no prohibition for women teaching men in the OT but there is now in the NT?)

There is also the consideration that the comp world is big business. If the money dries up (how many seminars do folks have to attend that say the same thing different ways before they tire of the formulas and roles?) then most of this stuff will go away.

Abagail is a big problem for them. She defied her husband and was REWARDED for doing so.

Deborah was both prophet and leader. I have heard it taught many times that God HAD to use her because there were no men whom God could use. I have even heard Calvinists say this! Which strikes me as funny.

“Paul was not dishonored that a woman had been his benefactor.”

I know some of these CBMW contributers and I can say they do not turn down money from wealthy women.

“Shouldn’t they be more worried about what dishonors God? I think you are spot on to suggest that issues of shame and dishonor go hand in hand with the issue of pride. Didn’t Paul say “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world”?”

Kay, YOu have nailed the underlying truth of their teaching. It is about elevating themselves.

“Until you move complementarians off of this fundimental belief in God’s design for males, the most rational arguments and appeals to scripture will fall on deaf ears, or worse, be construed as an attack against the very will of God.”

Gengwell, what is even stranger is that these views are fairly new from a historical perspective.

For thousand years the belief was that the Fall instituted Patriarchy and was from God. The woman was to blame. When that would not fly (probably after folks could read the Word for themselves) they changed it to Patriarchy instituted BEFORE the Fall based on what you wrote above which has to be READ INTO IT.

Very good! I want you to know this blog has been a great resource and has saved me so much time. When discussing these issues I can link to the topic on your blog instead of explaining it over and over.

I find your comments striking. You seem to imply that comps ignore the teachings of Jesus who teaches servant leadership

Jesus does not teach servant leadership for humans. He teaches being a servant. We are not to be like the Gentiles who want power over others.

Servant leadership was coined by Blanchard about 30 years ago because up and coming mega church pastors needed a gentle slogan to help them consolidate powert. It was being used in business/. And the church people bought it and are good little followers of men now. Follow Christ. Not men

It is an oxymoron

“It seems his character was brought into question quite a few times, and Paige Patterson was contacted directly via the women. Each were told they needed 2 or more witnesses – per scripture – or he wouldn’t speak to them.”

So being an elder would be the perfect cover for a pervert because they can say unless there are 2-3 witnesses no accusation can be brought up. And sexual crimes never have witnesses.

What about this, Cheryl?

“It is so sad. How can they handle sharing Heaven with women, when they think women are so beneath them? Do they think they have higher status in Heaven, too? So they won’t have to associate with us? ”

Actually, there is an article on CBMW site (don’t have time to search for it right now) that tries to make a case for male authority over wives in heaven. I kid you not. For me, it was the clincher. I had long suspected some Mormonistic leanings over at CBMW but for them to even speculate on such a thing means there is serious heresy over there. If you put this together with their ESS teaching, they are out of the realm of basic orthodox Christianity. They have had to make Jesus Christ a lessor God in order to puff themselves up.

“To them God’s best is always a man. God’s best is the wisdom of a man. God’s best is the strength of a man. To them God cannot and will not use what is foolish or weak or insignificant, inferior, common or despised. ”

This also works with a seminary education. There is an arrogance and puffed up pride that only scholars can understand and interpret scripture for others. But we know better. It is the Holy Spirit…. if we truly seek Him.

“But where does that leave our sister locked up alone in foreign prison cell because of her faith? Too bad God can’t speak to her there – sure would be comforting, but, sorry, she lacks the required ‘organs’ for ‘hearing’.”

I suppose they would deny the burka clad Afghan woman who got saved and then taught her own husband the Word? I know of such a woman from my friends who were there.

When you get away from the “institutions” with pulpits and organizational charts, none of these CBMW roles and rules makes any sense at all.

Does anyone really believe they follow all these Talmudic CBMW rules in the Chinese underground church? It could only work in a properous nation where Christianity is legal or accepted.

We have lost our first Love.

“I am not sure how Grudem can be so positive about the Danvers statement when CBMW have had to answer question after question clarifying all the ‘details’”

RK McGregor Wright wrote a response to the Danvers statement item by item that drove mac truck sized holes through it. I wish it were online but it isn’t. It is pretty old…early 90’s, I think.

The statement is nothing but a bunch of presuppositions that are backed up by proof texting WHEN the statements are backed up by any scripture at all.

It was more of a political document. And I can remember the pressure many felt to support it in order to be in the right evangelical club. The statement was in response to the culture. Which is interesting if you think that one through.

“The world has long held that women are valued far less than men. Does complementarianism bring men and women to a place of equal value? ”

This is why their interpretation is “cultural” based and not biblical. They, of course, cannot see this. They cannot see that the egal position is biblical and theirs is derived from teaching sin as virtue.

“One more question, I hope you don’t mind. The “abuse, abandonment, adultery” are clear to all of us, but what are all those very unclear (”etc.”) etceteras?
And where can a wife find them plainly listed in Scripture, so that with her limited portion of wisdom she can discern them?”

Sort of like, Honey don’t worry your pretty head about how I spend the money or do the taxes. It is your job just to go along with what I decide.

My dad used to flip out at the widows at church who had no clue how much insurance they had or even where the policies were! And of course, back then the bank accounts were frozen for a time even against the wife! Victims of sinful patriarchal marriages.

“I also like Sue’s question on the issue of God’s “design” for women. Where in the creation account will be see a “design” that places a woman created to be a follower and created to be in submission and under the authority to a man?”

This is a big problem for them. For a long time it was taught that the fall was the “design” so to speak. Eve was blamed and that was that. Partriarchy was God’s design. As folks became more biblically astute and that would no longer fly because it was basically teaching that the sin of the fall is virtue for a women… they changed it to created order being the design. Nevermind that patriarchy is one of the sins resulting from the fall and no where do we see God saying that one flesh union is NOT really a one flesh union. But there is one flesh in that union gets a bigger portion of something in order to be the boss…portion of what we do not know. It seems to thought it has to do with simply being born male.

But seriously, wouldn’t it be grand to be able to tell folks it is their Christian duty to overlook your imperfections so you could just go on being whatever sort of jerk you want to be? Actually, it is not grand at all but a HUGE sin trap.

Kay, I agree. To follow a husband as they teach it, is to walk by the flesh and not the spirit. The husband actually takes the place of the Holy Spirit for the wife. it is grievous.

So the full inheritance thing does not apply to married women. Would it apply if a woman stays single?

“Saphira lied against the Holy Spirit. Her husband led her into sin, and she followed.”

I thought she was to overlook his imperfections and failures. And how can she judge exactly what is sin since she only gets a portion granted from the man who professes to follow Christ? So, she is really stuck in a bad position. She is given less wisdom than her husband and has to overlook imperfections that her husband says are not outright sin because he has been granted full wisdom and knows best.

Always take their teaching to it’s final logical outcome and it never makes sense and will end up negating the rest of the Word.

You are right, though. Abigail must make them nuts.

Nicole, Thanks for telling us all that. I happen to know many such situations and they all manifest themselves in similar ways.

One very wealthy outwardly comp couple I know very well were are war for 25 years in the home. It was all out war but put on the comp face at church since he was an elder. To the world they looked very together, happy and successful. But it was a lie. A pretense. they could not separate because their entire life and success in the community was based upon this lie.

Once all the kids were gone they found a happy medium. She is out of town a lot because they bought a vacation home. They actually get along better now that they are apart about 25 weeks a year. But the sham comp marriage is still there.

“In the last point, John Starke summarizes the need to “trust” in the leadership of the husband even if he is a “failure” because there is no provision by God for a woman to step outside of her “place” no matter what a husband does with his leadership:”

Is this what Sapphira did? :o)

“T”his idea that men have some superior godly wisdom or some uniquely male conduit to God has never made any sense to me. ”

Me either. It makes no sense. So, the thing they do is say things like this to beat with a club:

“We must not explain away difficult, but clear, instruction. As Christians, we must trust God?s counsel for the home. Failure to trust God?s will can only bring turmoil and unrest.”

So, their scholarship is right and all others are wrong. That is what it boils down to. They are the authorities. The more I hear them (and I have since the 80’s in all venues) the more I see this is a horrible sin trap for THEM.

“I would also say it’s almost like the guy arguing that way is being ’sexist’ against males – as in: men are so driven by sexual urges, by virtue of being male, that they cannot put their fasting and prayer to the Lord in the proper -of highest importance – perspective. In short, their ‘maleness’ comes before their God.”

Kay, you stole my response. :o)

And, btw…I have known people where the problem with sex overdrive was the wife, not the husband.

“The problem with NN’s view is that he see marriage as a hierarchy in which the wife can have a measure of authority (as she has over the children) as long as the husband has the ultimate authority. Hence he does not have a problem with 1 Cor 7 since he believes that the husband has the greater authority outside of the bedroom. Of course, to defend the hierarchy, they go from 1 Tim 2 to 1 Cor 11 to Gen 2 to Eph 5 and 1 Pet 3 to Gen 3 to 1 Tim 2. Authenteo is given the meaning “usurp authority”; kephale is given the meaning “authority over”; ezer is given the meaning “helper”; teshuwqah is given the meaning “desire”; kyrios is given the meaning “lord”; hypotasso is given the meaning “submit” and is understood as a synonym to obedience. These are all wrong! When these are corrected, the comps have nothing to defend their theology with and we are left with 1 Cor 7 and Eph 5.21: mutual devotion and love.”

Susanna, You are singing my song. And I have long understood that this focus on authority of males is a huge sin trap for them.

” However, this stricture of limitation does not thereby negate any possibility of authority.”

Isn’t this an argument from silence?

“No this passage does not imply hierarchy, but nor does it deny it (the mistake made in your original post).”

This is the same logic used to say that creation order implies hierarchy. It does not emphatically deny hierarchy. Nor does it delcare hierarchy.

Why not declare your position because what you continue to argue sounds a lot like what I wrote above.

NN, you know what is ironic? We do not know whether you are male or female. :o)

“I did not say that men were exempt. Merely that Paul made a distinction in his instructions to husbands and his instructions to wives (that is he told them two different things). Presumably this is good for doctrine, learning and reproof; so it seems reasonable to presume that the words of the apostle and the inequivalent instructions that he gives are of consequence and meant something.”

So, it should be understood that husbands are exempt from Ephesians 5:21 with their wives. As believers they should submit to other males and females in the Body except their wife? Is that how you understand it?

assume that you refer to Eph 5:21. But this is a generalized command within the Christian church, Paul makes a point of “hupotassoe” when speaking to the wife (and a point of agapao when talking to the husband) indicating distinction between the two.”

So, married men in the Body are exempt from that passage? So that would mean they are to submit to other male and female believers in the Body except their wives?